Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive349

Appeal of partial block on Sca

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Appeal:

After months of being blocked from WP:ITN/C, I have come to understand that ITN is serious business, not a venue for jokes or personal comments. I again apologize for posting the wholly inappropriate joke I made about Chinese President Xi on Oct. 26, 2022, and for being too garrulous with my comments at ITN/C in the past. I also realize that ITN is a different place than it was in previous years. I absolutely promise that, if unblocked, I would exercise prudent, judicious conduct, seek to collaborate with other users active at ITN, and work cooperatively to make this Main Page fixture transparently informative and useful to its global audience. Thank you. – Sca (talk) 14:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

This is your second block from ITNC. Why should we now believe your promises regarding editing there? 331dot – (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad you asked that. I was just about to add to this appeal a suggestion that the recipient review the recent history of my civil and collaborative comments at Featured Picture Candidates (WP:FPC). At FPC I've tried to be polite, circumspect and helpful, and some other users there have indicated appreciation.
FPC is similar in some respects to ITN/C: Proposals are made, comments voiced, and the items are voted up or down. Images that are approved ("promoted") are perforce potential main page Photos of the Day, so in terms of prominence they are analogous to ITN. (I've been active at FPC for years.)

I would add that the experience of being blocked was a harrowing one for me personally and made a deep impression. – Sca (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Decline – I'm not prepared to unilaterally lift the block; my suggestion is that you make an appeal at either WT:ITN or WP:AN. – 331dot

• Beeblebrox, What do you think? 331dot (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  If I'm being completely honest, Sca's reaction in the immediate aftermath of this block was so clueless and directly irritating to me personally (rapidly archiving discussion here, but persistently trying to appeal the block on my talk page instead) that I don't really want anything to do with reviewing this appeal. Beeblebrox 17:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  That was a technical/procedural mistake on my part. -- Sca (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  That's provably false. Here's you archiving a declined unblock request the same day it was declined: [1]. Here's me closing the first thread you opened on my talk page [2] on that same day. Here's you starting a new thread on my talk page about your block, directrly replying to comments of mine that you had just archived rather than reply to them on the page they were made [3]. Here's me closing that thread: [4], and here's you posting yet again: [5] and again [6]. At that point I came over here and again asked you to stop posting to my talk page about your block [7], which you removed the next day as "impolite" [8]. So, I'm the impolite one for asking you to stop harassing me on my talk page about it? I don't think so. I was going to stay out of this but this ridiculous denial changed my mind. The lack of clue here is staggering. I oppose an unblock. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

— Sca (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

• I won't either accept or decline this myself as I'm aware I'm potentially biased, but I feel it's worth noting that Sca's constant obnoxiousness is the primary reason I stopped engaging with discussions regarding ITN/C, and I'm sure I can't be alone in that. If Sca's continued absence makes ITN/C a better-functioning process (and I find it hard to believe it doesn't) then I'd be inclined to leave the topic ban in place—we currently have 57,232,304 other pages on Wikipedia to which the topic ban doesn't apply, so it's not as if it's causing a massive hardship. ‑ Iridescent 19:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  WP:AGF, WP:NPA !! -- Sca (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  The single most important line of WP:AGF is This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary; you've disrupted assorted discussion pages relating to the contents of the Main Page for a matter of years. Sorry if this looks like putting the boot in, but as Floquenbeam has previously pointed out your reaction to being prevented from making inappropriate and disruptive comments at ITN/C wasn't to stop, but to immediately switch to making inappropriate and disruptive comments at WP:Main Page/Errors; this is not the behavior of someone who would exercise prudent, judicious conduct, seek to collaborate with other users active at ITN, and work cooperatively to make this Main Page fixture transparently informative and useful to its global audience.

  For you to claim my comment is a "personal attack" shows either a level of cluelessness so deep a total WP:CIR block is appropriate, or more brass neck than C-3PO. I claimed you were obnoxious and disruptive at ITN/C; you are literally currently topic-banned from ITN/C for being obnoxious and disruptive following a well-attended discussion in which every single participant except you concurred that you were being obnoxious and disruptive. ‑ Iridescent 18:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• "Inappropriate joke"? More precisely it was a racist joke, wasn't it? At first I thought I might be biased as I hail from South Korea, so I kept quiet. But now I realize I probably wasn't. BorgQueen (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, it was a racist joke. Sorry, Sca, it doesn't mean anyone is saying you're a racist, but my immediate association, too, was that of putting on a racist and clichéd accent. I watch TV shows (outside the English speaking world) where to this day white people additionally try to make their eyes look like they have an epicanthic fold, in addition to such linguoracist jokes. If you were actually thinking of an archaic usage of 'erected' (or to be fair, simply creating a possibly figurative one), then that only shows that shooting jokes from the hip (e.g. in what are supposed to be somewhat serious discussions on which events to feature on ITN) can totally misfire. Personally, I'd allow you to return to ITN, provided you stop making jokes, as they don't appear to be your forte. --Sluzzelin talk 20:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

• For the umpteenth time, it was NOT a racist joke, and I had no idea that it would be taken as such. Of course, I regret that some did misconstrue it that way. But I haven't a racist bone in my body, as my user and talk pages have long attested.
  I'm sick to death of being portrayed as a 'racist' -- and deeply offended by being called that !!!! Everyone, please stop slandering me!
  This is character assassination on the pages of Wikipedia, and must cease immediately.
  

  I've been strongly in favor of equal rights for all persons ever since I heard John Howard Griffin, author of Black Like Me, speak when I was in high school in the mid-'60s.
  

  Here is a photo I took in 2007 and posted on my user page long ago:

  Anne Frank statue

  Idaho Human Rights Memorial

  Boise, Idaho, U.S.A.

  

“ Despite everything, I believe that
people are really good at heart. ”

• — Anne Frank, Diary of a Young Girl

• -- Sca (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• To save everyone else here the scavenger hunt, here is the comment/joke in question (despite my signature I'm a white American, so I have no personal stake in this). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Sca: I'm not sure how you're going to pick up support for an unblock while you so vehemently deny it was a racist joke. Unless it was a reference to the r/l racist cliché, it doesn't work as a joke or indeed make sense at all. It wouldn't have any meaning. Admitting it was a moment of madness/misjudgent is one (understandable) thing but claiming you didn't know it would be taken that way is very hard to believe. What was the joke behind it unless it was a reference to the Chinese pronunciation cliché? DeCausa (talk) 14:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  As I've tried to explain before, it was posted during a ITN/C discussion of what verb to use regarding Xi Jinping's third term. I was getting tired of this long (about 10,000 words of comments) debate, and jokingly suggest that "elected" be changed to "erected," not having any idea that it could imply an ethnic or 'racist' comment. I was shocked by the reaction of some to it. Further, I was fine with the verb ultimately used, and the discussion concluded with the following comment:

  • Comment – Current blurb using "is named" is a good solution. Thanks to whomever. -- Sca (talk) 12:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

  -- Sca (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  jokingly suggest that "elected" be changed to "erected" - so... nothing to do with the way Asian speakers distinguish /l/ and /r/, then?  Tewdar  16:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  Not at all. Didn't enter my mind. -- Sca (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  Sca, you would find more support here if you understood that, sometimes, it's not about intention, but about perception. Even if you didn't mean for it to be racist, that's how most of the community took it. If you are not willing to accept that and apologize, then editors are likely to believe you will do it again. Isabelle Belato ^{🏴‍☠️} 16:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I've apologized many, many times. – Sca (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it was about the l/r thing, but they don't think the joke was racist? Personally I find jokes about prosodic systems funnier:

There was a young man from Japan
Whose limericks never would scan.
When asked why that was,
He replied "It's because
I always try to cram as many words into the last line as I possibly can."

• ho ho ho...  Tewdar  16:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting block per Iridescent, also, I am not encouraged by the responses here. --Jayron32 16:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  Well, it was just a stupid joke, a lame attempt at humor, and that's absolutely all it was to me. -- Sca (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  And entirely coincidentally, currently I'm watching "Inspector Wexford: The Speaker of Mandarin," on You Tube. As if that would make any difference to you. Sometimes life seems to be full of strange synchronies -- Sca (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  Erm... i don't think the account who posted that vid is holding the copyright. Should that be shared here? 188.118.188.145 (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  Unsigned. -- Sca (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  Me not having an account is really what you want to argue here? You do you, but you know where to sort it if you think i am doing anything malicious. 188.118.188.145 (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  No it shouldn't; link removed. Sca, stop digging a deeper hole; deliberately posting links to copyright violations, particularly when it violates the copyright of highly protective companies like ITV, is the kind of stunt that gets people kicked off Wikipedia altogether. ‑ Iridescent 18:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  And even without the YouTube link this kind of irrelevant meandering comment is precisely kind of stuff I'm concerned would return to ITN/C if the topic ban were lifted. Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  Just thought it was a strange coincidence, nothing more. -- Sca (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  Sca: You're not helping your case. Continuing this line of defensiveness and doubling-down on the same problems that led to the block are unlikely to help your cause. I suggest trying the tactic of not doing that. --Jayron32 18:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  OK. -- Sca (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support appeal per Sluzzelin, who covers the issues at hand. I'm a longtime contributor at ITN/C and have been concerned by the culture there for many years. Sca has also been a contributor there for many years, and while I am in deep sympathy with much of what opposers are saying, feel Sca has earned a last chance, even despite his bumbling here in this appeal. My strong suggestion is that Sca, and by extension all others at ITN/C, self-refrain from any and all editorial commentary or attempts at humor. A !vote and extremely brief reasoning will do. And a Happy New Year, all! Jusdafax (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you very much. And I agree with what you said about comments at ITN/C. -- Sca (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  Jusdafax, regarding "Sca has earned a last chance", why do you think the result this time will be any different to the previous last chance? Can you honestly say ITN/C hasn't been improved over the past couple of months by Sca being unable to treat it as their personal captive audience for their jokes and personal opinions? ‑ Iridescent 06:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  Iridescent, no sir, I do not say ITN/C has been improved, in my own view. Far from it. I repeat, I have long been concerned by the rhetoric at ITN/C. In my last edit on ITN/C, less than a week ago, I was moved to ask for more kindness in the coming year. Sca, as I say, has been bumbling in his explanations of an extremely foolish and offensive jest here, among others of dubious value over the years, and has been slow to grasp the deeper implications of his profoundly poor attempts at levity and unneeded commentary. But I see no intentional malice. For several months Sca has been blocked from the page, which will remain part of his permanent block log, and if you think that Sca's wrongdoing, for which he has repeatedly apologized in full, is outright ban-worthy, then you and I have a fundamental disagreement, that's all. In my view, he deserves a final shot at ITN, which will be scrutinized by numerous editors. One can counter WP:AGF with the "not a suicide pact" argument, but assuming good faith is a policy at the core of being a Wikipedian, as I see it. Cheers, Jusdafax (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not saying his years of disruption—of which the "I wasn't trying to be racist, I was trying to be sexist" incident that led to the community finally losing patience was just the final straw, not a one off mis-step—are banworthy in the sense that Sca needs to be banned from Wikipedia. I'm saying Sca's toxic presence at ITN/C, which consisted almost exclusively of inappropriate comments and trying to bully anyone who didn't share his personal opinion of what was and wasn't important (Bzweebl's experience below pretty much sums up mine also), it pretty much the embodiment of "net negative". Being unable to comment on one single page is hardly a great impediment. As per my original comment I'm not going to actively oppose the lifting of the topic ban as my personal experience of Sca is too negative for me to assess him neutrally, but "assume good faith" doesn't mean "assume good faith when the person in question has demonstrated consistent bad faith over a period of years despite previous warnings and blocks". ‑ Iridescent 15:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• I don't comment on drama lightly, but throughout my years of participation and perusing of ITN/C, Sca would rank at the top of my list for unhelpful contributors. Most of his contributions are 1) tersely opposing serious nominations for lacking "lasting significance," 2) adding comments or pile-on supports as an excuse to provide his personal commentary on the news, or 3) snarky jokes and asides. I'd say he is emblematic of a group of users at ITN/C who are not here to improve the encyclopedia but instead just use it as a forum. I would want to see evidence that he is here to build an encyclopedia before he rejoins ITN/C, as I don't think his contributions have demonstrated that yet. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 15:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. I haven't been a regular at ITN for some years but the unpleasant atmosphere there has not escaped my notice. The volume and nature of Sca's edits appear to have contributed to that and regular contributors are saying above that his absence has improved the situation. For that reason alone, the block is worth keeping, or replacing with a topic ban if the software block is causing unintended problems. The more I looked at Sca's last 1,000 edits (going back to last August), the more concerned I became. This is a user who spends all their Wikipedia time pontificating in project space and none working on the enyclopaedia. Of those 1,000 edits, barely any were to the mainspace and I can't tell when they last added sourced content to the encyclopaedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  @HJ Mitchell, I can't tell when they last added sourced content to the encyclopaedia piqued my curiosity enough that I took the time to check. For the record, the answer is 7 May 2021. ‑ Iridescent 06:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Conduct here gives me no faith their behavior would be a positive on ITN. Star Mississippi 17:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
• Neutral. I'm unsure whether or not to believe his explanation. In my opinion, there is a ring of truth to it. In addition, I also don't really have much room to criticize his contributions to ITN since I'm probably among that group of editors that Bzweebl cites as being a toxic influence at ITN/C. So I don't know if my judgment would be considered impartial in any way. --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 18:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  Ha I don't think you're nearly so bad, WaltCip. You at least make an effort to engage with others constructively and have some self-awareness. The user in question has neither. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 20:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose for the reasons given by HJ Mitchell above, and having reviewed their recent contribs. The obvious lack of interest in mainspace verges on the WP:NOTHERE. I also can't believe their story on the original "joke". It just doesn't make sense. DeCausa (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  I can think of a couple of implausible-but-possible explanations for the original 'joke'. One is that it was a wildly misfiring attempt at a boner-joke (which I think is the defense Sca is trying to make); the other is that Sca is a non-fluent speaker relying on a thesaurus or a translation program who has misinterpreted the alternative meaning of 'erection' as a synonym for 'construction' and thought "Xi was erected as President" meant something akin to "Xi was installed as president as part of a pre-arranged plan". As I say I don't consider either remotely plausible, but if one's willing to stretch AGF to the limit I can just about see it. As I also say, given Sca's history I have no inclination to AGF at all in this case let alone to the extreme limits that would be necessary here. ‑ Iridescent 20:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  I'm a native English speaker. I had absolutely no intention of a "boner". I'm not that stupid. It was just a lame, thoughtless joke about the verb. -- Sca (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  PS: All those who posit my motives or thoughts would seem to be claiming omniscience or clairvoyance. -- Sca (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  The motives don't really matter. If we take the most generous possible interpretation, it was still inappropriate and completely contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia discussion pages. It's not even as if you tacked on to an on-topic comment as a throwaway comment, you actually made a whole new edit just to make that joke. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  The "you can't know my motives unless you're a mind reader" trope is tired and no one buys it. It's a terrible defense. People can infer motives by behavior and speech without having psychic powers. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  "just a dumb, thoughtless joke". Sca, that's the bit I can't understand. What was the joke however dumb and thoughtless? I don't mean it was so dumb and thoughtless it wasn't funny or it was a bad joke. I literally can't establish in my mind how it could be a joke or have any meaning at all unless it was about Chinese pronunciation (even more so, now that you've said it wasn't a "boner" reference). That being the case, it's not that I think you should continue to be pblocked because of a racist joke, but that I can't see how your request can even start to get off the ground while you continue to be - apparently - disingenuous about what happened. But to be honest, this is a side issue. The main problem is HJ Mitchell's point about a lack of interest in being here to improve mainspace. Edit some articles. DeCausa (talk) 10:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Iridescent: They have a box on their user page saying they are a native English speaker. Yes, "boner-joke" is what they say they were going for. But what would actually be the joke? That doesn't extend to "lame", it's literally not there - close to being as random as putting in the actual word "boner". I don't know about "construction", but in archaic British English it's possible to be "erected" to a bishopric or an aristocratic estate. That might make sense if there was other evidence of Wilde-ian wit from them.... but...DeCausa (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, not because of the joke (which deserved censure for sure), but for the deeper problems highlighted by Iridescent, HJ Mitchell and others (and having had a look at some of Sca's posting history). We need fewer people driving productive editors away from project pages by trying to dominate them and constantly filling them with whatever irrelevant nonsense happens to be passing through their minds. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  As someone who is mainly just lurking but sometimes commenting at ITN, while Sca never made me ever feel welcome at ITN.. I do have to say that to hold their stance towards new people with accounts or IP editors in general against them is deeply unfair. And everyone else 'productive' will just not be dissuaded by it much, as they already are established and know and accept the culture. The way Sca acted was not even comparable to what happens in regards to actual content work. That really drives people away. That is just the culture of Wikipedia. It is a deeply unwelcoming place that always tries to go above and beyond to 'save' people, instead of actually being welcoming and trying to just attract new editors- Many surely are just put off by the culture of the community. Sashis unblock request above is a good example. And i do remember their disruption well. As well as comments they made at WO at the time. How you want someone like that back... just wow. Anyway, i personaly believe that ITN is better off without Sca, but the same goes for numerous other people that are contributing every day. Walt actually not included as they have been nothing but welcoming and just a nice person. Saying, there is more to it than just contribs... who would have thought. ITN is an outlier, a visible part of the main page and so attracts people. Same as DYK that do content work, but mainly bare bones articles that highlight some rather UNDUE point to make any given thing 'interesting' and reach the bit/word count. No offense intended, obviously. Just my impression of that project. Or the ref desk, whiele less prominent, also has loads of people that only reside there, even more forum-y. And probably in a couple other areas as well. People want to be part of something that is visible. Shouldn't blame them just for that. Same person as above, just FYI. 188.118.188.145 (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, following up on the comments of HJ Mitchell and DeCausa, since the block from ITN Sca appears to have made just 20 mainspace edits. There are other ways to contribute to Wikipedia of course, but there isn't a huge number of other edits either, and there has not really been an explanation as to how lifting this block would contribute to Wikipedia. Contributions to FPC are nice, but I don't think they directly translate. CMD (talk) 03:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose To be frank ITN/C has been better without them, and their replies here don't give me any confidence that they would be less garrulous (their word) if they were to return. They basically just use Wikipedia as a forum, with only 18 percent of their total edits being to mainspace. If they could start making some useful contributions to articles that would undoubtedly help in a future appeal.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This blocked user won't stop creating sockpuppet accounts

Hello, I recently found out this blocked user once again made another obvious sockpuppet account in order to evade blocks and add unsourced information to Smiling Friends.

Blocked accounts

Thatgigglygamer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Thatgigglygamer2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request Block

Thatgigglygamer4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Thatgigglygamer5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Layah50♪ ( 話して～! ) 12:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked and tagged, along with account 3 which has no edits. In future perhaps log at WP:AIV? GiantSnowman 12:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I'll make sure to report similar incidents there instead and Thank you. Layah50♪ ( 話して～! ) 12:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Article salting requested

An article at Bakhtyar_Aziz has repeatedly been created and speedily deleted for various reasons, not least that it seems to be a promotional autobiography. The account that created it is now blocked as a sockpuppet, but given their repeated re-creation over the past couple years I think it's a good idea to salt it to prevent this in the future. If someone agrees, please have at. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 19:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done, cheers. Salvio 19:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Alifseen90

Hello. Please could you revert every edit made by this user? Over about eight weeks in 2022, they added spam links for the same stock market business to about 50 pages. I have reversed some of them but it is difficult to do manually. Many thanks. Gedrose (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Working on it. Also involved:

• Ahsankapdia (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

DMacks (talk) 02:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done and indef'ed just to be sure. DMacks (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

How to request a copy of a deleted article?

Sorry if this is the wrong forum. A user on Twitter wants to look at the first and last versions of a deleted article and the last version of the article's talk page, to access some etymology info. What's the procedure for this? link to tweet thread --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Anthonyhcole: Which page? :) — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah np, I could put it up temporarily. Let me know which page it is/was. El_C 08:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you both. I'll get back to you. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

What a mystery! Please ping me when you find out because I'm likely to not remember. El_C 12:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

El_C and TheresNoTime, the article name is Castleroid. Could you post it somewhere for a day or two please? Not sure which timezone the request is coming from. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I've restored all deleted revisions (from 1st to last), which you can find in the revision history: here. HTH. El_C 01:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@El C: Just FYI I've also restored Talk:Castleroid per the above — feel free to delete it again when you delete the article ​ — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 01:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Cool thx. No rush about re-deleting, either, as TheresYesTime (←see what I did there) — take a day, take a week, it's all good. El_C 02:04, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you (pl)! I'll ping you when she's finished with it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Content was copied from Castleroid to other articles back in 2006, so its history should not be re-deleted, per WP:Copying within Wikipedia (guideline).

1. 2006-02-20: Non-linear exploration is moved to Castleroid (Special:Diff/40430451) and rewritten (Special:Diff/40430623). Text similarities to later versions can be seen.
2. 2006-05-04:
   1. Castleroid is rewritten (Special:Diff/51549144).
   2. Metroid-style game is created (Special:Diff/51552011) with copying from Castleroid (cross-page Special:Diff/51549144/51552011).
3. 2006-06-14: Metroid-style game is merged into Metroidvania (Special:Diff/58571864, cross-page Special:Diff/57707656/58571864).
4. 2006-06-18: WP:Articles for deletion/Castleroid (2nd nomination) is closed as merge to Metroidvania. Castleroid is redirected (Special:Diff/59316636), but nothing is copied that day (Special:Diff/59216755/59317184).

I will make dummy edits and add {{Copied}} templates per WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Repairing insufficient attribution (shortcut WP:RIA). Flatscan (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I made the repairs. For reference, this is my relevant contributions range. Flatscan (talk) 05:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

No Great Shaker 3X-banned

Per WP:3X, I am notifying the community that No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) has been automatically banned from the English Wikipedia for repeated block evasion ([9] [10][11][12]). --Blablubbs (talk) 13:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Possible influence by Saudi Arabia on Administrators - Neutrality

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello at all,

I'm forced to enter this here because I think it makes more sense than simply marking or writing to admins at random and I think it's a very important matter. According to an NGO report, there was (possibly there is) influence from Saudi Arabia on Wikipedia or administrators. In my view, this is already a highly problematic circumstance. I think it would make absolute sense to mark relevant articles, such as those on Saudi Arabia or Mohammed bin Salman, etc., with the neutrality template and to apply a semi-protection until we have a safer or better overview of the situation after a longer period of time.

Context:

https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/01/06/saudi-arabia-government-infiltrates-wikipedia-and-jails-two-staff-to-control-narrative Bildersindtoll (talk) 13:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikimedia denial Don't think this is the right place for this? Selfstudier (talk) 13:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I've responded to Bildersindtoll on two of their posts similar to the one above on two saudi related articles here and here. Bildersindtoll, this isn't the issue you think it is. DeCausa (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

It's exactly this issue and it's definitely the right place for this. Because a discussion about it and preventive measures would be very useful and necessary. It has something to do with transparency and credibility.--Bildersindtoll (talk) 13:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Well Wikimedia have denied it and the two articles where you've posted similar messages (which I know well: Saudi Arabia and Mohammed bin Salman) are hardly outposts of Saudi propaganda - albeit there are frequent attempts by random IPs and certain editors to "improve" the subject image. But that's business-as-usual for us and we have plenty of processes nd policies to handle that. I think you're in an unnecessary panic! DeCausa (talk) 13:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I can state that Saudi Arabia or its government does not influence me. 331dot (talk) 14:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

• Do we even know whether this concerns English-language Wikipedia? This is a very sad situation for the Saudi administrators who have been jailed, but I don't see what the actual problem is for our articles here. If the supposed problem is that there are rogue/corrupt administrators, I don't see how semi protection or neutrality tags would help. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

  It's all disputed by Wikimedia anyway. Authoritarian governments trying to get their image optimised on Wikipedia? Shock, horror...but nothing new. DeCausa (talk) 19:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

If you think it's affecting multiple articles but you also know it's blanket-denied, it at most makes sense to have one central discussion and is not appropriate to fork that discussion into any specific article(s)'s talkpage, pending any change in the sitewide position on the matter. DMacks (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cristiano Ronaldo Jr.

Has this AfD been closed correctly? Looks a bit broken and no footer. Govvy (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The closer missed adding {{afd bottom}}. Mackensen (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

K, I was wondering if there was some missed hidden template or something like that. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding an amendment to arbitration procedures

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

A section titled "Closing" will be added to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures under "Requests for amendment" with the following text:

A request for clarification or amendment is eligible to be closed by an arbitrator if:

1. A rough consensus has been reached among arbitrators participating in the request; and
2. The rough consensus does not require a vote to implement (e.g. modifying the remedy to a case).

The closing arbitrator should include a summary of the rough consensus when closing the request for clarification or amendment.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding an amendment to arbitration procedures

Caste vandal at Caste system in Kerala.

Hello Admins,

A user is utilizing various IPs to repeatedly vandalize the page at Caste system in Kerala. The current version is the combined effort of multiple users who have provided sourced content, but certain IPs such as 42.107.192.152, 78.152.240.10 and 151.200.244.189 are mass reverting to their preferred version. Given the fact that all 3 IPs use very similar language in their reasons for reverting, it is very likely they belong to the same individual.

Please grant protection to the page, thank you. 109.78.93.30 (talk) 08:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

It appears to have been protected by Materialscientist some time shortly after this report. In the future, WP:RFPP is the correct page to report protection requests. --Jayron32 15:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Strange Behavior by Sabine7272 and Unregistered Editors

• Sabine7272u (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor User:Sabine7272u is mostly creating blank pages with the names of American football players. The blank pages are then being completed by unregistered editors. The timing implies either teamwork between Sabine and the IP editors, or that Sabine is the IP editors, and is either logging out or moving to a different device. I asked Sabine why they are doing this, and did not get an answer. It just seems like a strange pattern of editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree, it's an odd pattern. While the edits themselves seem fairly harmless - the articles are all being created in draft space and the subsequent IP edits are constructive - it does look like an example of gaming the system to effectively enable non-registered editors to create articles. WaggersTALK 12:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

It's also a case of unnecessary gaming, considering anonymous editors can create draft articles by themselves, or so I seem to remember. Salvio 12:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

that is correct, that was the point of afc. lettherebedarklight晚安 12:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

It's also not disruptive per se. Sock/logged out editing of accounts is only against the rules when it is disruptive, and this kind of use (using an account to do things logged out editors can't do, and then coming back later to edit) is certainly less-than-ideal, but not strictly disruptive. --Jayron32 15:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Adventure Time Talk Page Archive

Hello, I need to create a talk page archive for the threads removed in this diff of Talk:Adventure Time: Hey Ice King! Why'd You Steal Our Garbage?!!. I can't do this myself because of special characters. Please help. Thanks. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 18:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Why do we need to archive that talk page at all? It's tiny. Canterbury Tail talk 18:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:TALKCOND, "As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB in wikitext or has numerous resolved or stale discussions" (bold added for context). All of these discussions in my opinion could be marked as resolved or stale. If the talk page doesn't exist now, it likely need to be created in the future. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 19:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Paper Luigi:  Done. Seems reasonable enough. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 19:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Burmese people in China

User:Onel5969 has been redirecting the page Burmese people in China to Chinese people in Myanmar even though the two topics are barely related (aside from just being inverses of each other, which is hardly a reason to make this redirect), on the grounds that the page is unsourced. Personally I don't really care myself to add sources to the article but I think it is a stupid decision to make this choice of a redirect as the topics are not the same at all. I think the page should either be deleted or left with the unsourced notice at the top of the page, but the idea of redirecting the page to something barely related does not make sense. (Also yes, I did edit the page beforehand, but the IP has changed.) 129.97.124.19 (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

So why don't you try speaking to them about it on their talk page? That's typically what's expected before somebody goes to AN. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Note: I've notified One5969 of this AN thread via their talk page. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Because I think it would be more productive to have an administrator make a decision on the fate of the page? 129.97.124.19 (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

You should always attempt to resolve a dispute with a user before running to the AN. For dispute resolution, which it sounds like is what you wanted, see WP:DRN. Admins have a lot on their plate, and asking them to get involved in every disagreement on the site would end up with them wasting a lot of time. That's why it's best to try to resolve a dispute yourself first. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I guess you're right but now that it has been brought up to both the other user and posted on AN, if need be I'll move it to DRN. 129.97.124.19 (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Admins don't make decisions regarding content disputes. They have a few extra tools to stop disruptive behavior. --Jayron32 18:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

A user removed the redirect and restored the unsourced article. I've since sent it to AfD. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Sending the article to AfD, where either sources will be shown or it will be deleted, is a much better way to deal with this than edit-warring back an obviously inappropriate redirect. What on Earth were you thinking of, User:Onel5969? If you don't care enough about an article to spot that then just leave it to someone else. You don't have to hold back the unwashed hordes all by yourself. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking of policy, Phil Bridger. Specifically WP:VERIFY, WP:BURDEN, and WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

So policy dictates that we should redirect to an obviously inappropriate target, does it? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger, no need to be so pointy, we should always assume good faith. One5969 regularly CSD, PROD, and XfD tags articles and they also try to incorporate alternatives to deletion when they can. In this instance, I feel it important to point out that they restored the previous redirect that stood for 18 months unopposed. That doesn't make it the right target necessarily, and it's fine to disagree with that as a target, but there was no malice involved in their actions. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Possible Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case under discussion

The Arbitration Committee is currently considering a motion to open "Armenia-Azerbaijan 3". Interested editors are invited to submit evidence about this topic area and feedback to the committee about this motion at the request. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Simple-engineer unblocked

Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Simple-engineer (talk · contribs) is unblocked. Simple-engineer is indefinitely topic banned from the Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed after 6 months have elapsed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Izno (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Simple-engineer unblocked

Qamar Javed Bajwa Article

I direct your attention to this article: Qamar Javed Bajwa. As you can see, the user M.Ashraf333 has continuously removed my posts on the page, despite me including a variety of sources to back up each post.

Rather than add anything of substance to the article, such as extra sources or explain other views, he has continuously accused me of being bias and following a political agenda.

But as you can see, rather than add any extra sources to the page, the user simply keeps removing my edits in the accusation of bias. As it takes me quite a long time to gather these sources, condense the information and post it on Wikipedia; the user's accusations towards me are quite hurtful.

Please action this as soon as possible, Thank You! Umer23459 (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@Umer23459

Every time I gave a reason why I reverted your changes. Although you have worked hard to get these sources but they are all daily routine news stories and Wikipedia is not a news source. And you can't put such one-sided daily routine controversial news stories in biographies of living persons unless the source is authentic and conforms to a court of law.

On the other hand, if we look at your contribution timeline, you've only come to fix this page on Wikipedia that shows your biased and political agenda views. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute that should be discussed on the article's TALK and not here. I would urge both editors to avoid an edit war. The status quo should remain until there's a consensus to move forward. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Complaint from HistoryofIran User

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello. This user (@HistoryofIran) is not willing to Aziz khan Mukri talk page. He imposes his content on others by force. I brought him an old book (as a source) written by a historian and consul, but he rejects it and finds a research paper on a site (Iranica) more acceptable!

Sir Basil himself lived among Aziz Khan's family in Savojbolagh and was a member of the Russian consul stationed there. How is it that Basile's words (of 1925) are incorrect, but a research that is itself written from other sources is correct?

The Kurd: Basile Niktin

This user is not familiar with the history of Mukri region and imposes his content by force. I have a complaint against him. Sardarmukri (talk) 09:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you have made no attempt to contact him on his talk page. You should do that before coming here. Additionally, once you do come here, you should notify him of that on his talk page. Animal lover |666| 09:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Ironically I am the one who created a section in the talk page for discussion [13], which I did 9 hours before this report. I'm not sure what they mean by "research paper", anyhow they are free to explain themselves in the talk page, which they haven't done yet. Instead, they have resorted to ranting. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, now that we're here, let's see some of the WP:NPA/WP:ASPERSIONS Sardarmukri has already made towards me;

• "HistoryofIran considers that article as its own and has taken it hostage. It does not allow anyone to edit! See the history of the article; Anyone who has edited (even correct edits) he has undone. He is not willing to discuss on the talk page of that article. Even I brought a source, but the source rejects a historian (Basil Nikitin)!!"

I revert unhelpful edits, such as disruption, which your edit was. Ironically, you're the one rejecting Iranica and now another source I mentioned in the talk page. You still haven't explained why we should use a outdated 1926 source (WP:AGE MATTERS) by Nikitin, a minor historian. Also, I told you to read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:EDITWARRING [14] [15], which you clearly still haven't, instead going on a rampage to force your edit through.

• Anyone can post their research in Iranica! Do you reject the words of a historian?? Stop distorting. This is not your personal article!!

No they can't, otherwise you would already have attempted to add your nonsense there as well. The articles of Iranica are published by academic historians, take a moment to actually read what it is [16]. I am not distorting anything, I simply follow what WP:RS says, and I don't consider this my personal article either. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Appeal of a arbitration enforcement topic ban regarding Lithuania and Poland topics

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, more than 6 months have passed since this topic ban (see: User talk:Pofka#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban) was applied to me. I'm appealing it, according to our terms. During the topic ban term, I joined WikiProject Latvia and made a substantial contribution to Latvian, as well as Estonian topic areas. Moreover, on 15 April 2022, I was recognized (see: HERE) as Precious Wikipedian and currently I am one of only two Wikipedians who received such recognition for content regarding Lithuania. I believe this demonstrates that content I produced is of high quality. I'm planning to continue contributing such quality content. Poland is closely related to Lithuania due to the shared common history, therefore, to fully contribute quality content about Lithuania, please also vacate the topic ban in Poland's topics areas. Otherwise, I would be significantly limited to creating content about Lithuania. I understand and agree that some discussions I participated in 2022 became too personalized, and I violated WP: BATTLEGROUND as I commented about other users instead of the concerned content/topic. I learned from it, and I'll not negatively comment about other fellow editors. Moreover, I also understand that in some edit summaries, I wrongfully described other users' edits as Wikipedia:Vandalism, and that it was a personal attack. By following other users' explanations and by reading Wikipedia:Vandalism#What is not vandalism I learned what is and what is not vandalism.
For nearly 12 years, I am Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia and to provide knowledge to readers, particularly about Lithuania. I desire to continue creating quality content for which I was recognized. As a native Lithuanian, a small population nation, I am able to analyze complicated and extensive Lithuanian language sources and provide high-quality output content in English language.
Sincerely, -- Pofka (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support Pofka should be given the opportunity to demonstrate that he can edit in that topic area without commenting on other editors. Schazjmd (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support What Pofka said. We can always drop the ban hammer if necessary. Buffs (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
• This is a WP:AE topic ban, but hopefully, it can be dealt with here. I'm pinging El_C who imposed the ban, and I Support vacaiting it. But Pofka, please, you need to edit this topic area (about Lithuania, Poland and centuries long shared history of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) dispassionately. I have my trust in you. (did I say that right? 🤔) - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  For clarity, per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeals by sanctioned editors, appeals for active sanctions can be made here or ARE by the editor sanctioned. It doesn't matter where the sanction was imposed. Nil Einne (talk) 09:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I have a voice in the matter, but due to the fact that the ban was imposed in my case, I'll just say that I don't mind removing the ban, in the hope that Pofka will be able to keep more calm and a broader perspective. Marcelus (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

That’s nice of you Marcelus. I’m sure Pofka will remember about it. Right Pofka? - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Right. Thanks for your support Gizzy, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is an essential rule for me and I am sure it is one of the reasons why I was recognized as one of the finest editors in Lithuania's topic. -- Pofka (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

👍 - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support This editor recognizes and acknowledges their past mistakes, and is promising not to repeat them. It would be a benefit to the encyclopedia to allow them to return to editing in the Lithuanian (and Polish) topic areas, where they are knowledgeable, as long as they comply with our policies and guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Cullen above, and per WP:ROPE. --Jayron32 15:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. While there appears to be growing consensus here, let me ping the enforcing admin one more time to give them an opportunity to comment if they wish @El_C. It's possible they may not have seen this since it's on AN instead of AE (though both are appropriate venues). Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Frequent backlogs at RFPP

The header says it; RFPP has been rather frequently backlogged of late. I have cleared it out for the moment, but more eyes would be welcome. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Problematic new editor

Someone should have a look at Kernel123 (talk · contribs). I've noted two instances of them issuing invalid warnings to IP editors [17], and [18]. The latter included a false accusation of vandalism, which I removed and warned him for. This [19] is the edit to Dumpling for which the invalid vandalism warning was issued. Not sure if this person is very young or what, but their editing indicates immaturity to me and isn't especially constructive. They also have some notes about copyvios on their talk page. I'm hoping someone can either provide him with some clue or prevent them from biting IP editors over content disputes. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 03:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I've had a look through their edit summary, and they seem to be a possibly younger Wikipedian, with a decent share of good faith edits that are not effective. I wouldn't take any sort of action right now, the warning you left on their talk page seems sufficient, I'll be interested to see if they respond, and if they do, what will follow. I will point out that they seem to have ignored other messages related to their problematic edits on their page in the past, which doesn't make me optimistic. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 05:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked for an array of reasons. Maybe they will be able to edit constructively in a few years.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  Well that's WP:BITEy. Do you really think they'll ever come back? Gimmetrow 01:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah seems pretty WP:BITEy, but @Bbb23 indefinitely blocked him already. I'm not sure if I think the indefinite block is the 100% correct call, but I believe the user received multiple warnings with no change in behavior and should have some sort of discipline. Grahaml35 (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Request review of Today's Featured Article protection level

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Normally I suppose this would go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Decrease, but since this is time sensitive and the protecting admin specifically mentioned this page as a place to request an admin action review ("If anyone takes issue with it, let me know and I will request review at AN"), I figured I'd put this here instead. User:Vanamonde93 recently semi-protected the TFA on grounds of WP:IAR (diff). I brought it up on their talk page, but I suspect they've logged off or gone to sleep as they haven't responded. Vandamonde93 also noted in their protection that they may be biased because they're an editor of the article. Anyway, semi-protection of TFA is on Wikipedia:Perennial proposals as something that has not been adopted. It sometimes happens to TFA, yes, but only in cases of very heightened vandalism, like 10x normal or just constant vandalism. The rate of vandalism appears to be quite placid for a TFA - just two editors and 2 IP addresses over a 2 hour period. That's not unusual. Semi-protecting in such a circumstance would be pretty close to just semi-protecting all TFAs, which is not the default for the reasons given in those old debates (it not being a great intro to Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that everyone can edit).

Anyway, I don't believe this article qualifies for semiprotection, or is a borderline case. Let it be unprotected like is standard for TFA. Just means it'll have some casual vandals that get reverted, same as usual. If there's a sudden surge of vandals, it can always be semi-protected again. SnowFire (talk) 06:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

As I said at WP:RFPP I'll endorse the protection. There may not have been a need to use IAR and just wait instead but I'm comfortable that the protection is within the normal bounds of admin discretion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I certainly agree that TFA semiprotection is within admin discretion, no complaint there, but I'm contesting on the merits for this particular TFA. I didn't know it was raised at RFPP first since it wasn't mentioned in the diff, so thanks for pointing that out, but the RFPP reason seems weak. The editor (pinging User:Professor Penguino for transparency) cited "removing templates for no reason and damaging infoboxes" - that sounds like perfectly normal vandalism that just gets reverted, like usual. It really isn't anything special, those kind of bad changes are reverted all the time on normal articles without need for semi-protection. SnowFire (talk) 06:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• Farseer trilogy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

If I had seen the protection request (permalink) I would also have semi-protected the article. There are no edit requests or other messages on talk. The "IAR" in the protection edit summary is not a rationale for protection—the reason for protection was to prevent further disruptive editing. The IAR part is to cover the fact that Vanamonde93 was the only admin active at RFPP at the time so they protected despite the fact that normally they wouldn't have due to being involved. Johnuniq (talk) 07:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• Also endorse semiprotection, not merely because it was TFA but because it was subject to a flurry of vandalism, and endorse Vanamonde93's IAR involved use of the tools for what would (if not involved) be a non-controversial case. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
• This jogged a memory. Whatever happened to this? Genuine question here. Did this lead to anything more permanent? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse semiprotection. I just looked at it, what a flurry of vandalism! I wonder what caused it. In any case I think most Admins would have done the same and should have. Doug Weller talk 09:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse semiprotection as an obvious remedy to continuing vandalism. I see no borderline case, only a straightforward response to disruption. Vanamonde's contribution history is neither here nor there. I could argue that 24 hours is more than necessary, but that term is well within the bounds of admin discretion. Acroterion (talk) 09:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse protection, well within admin discretion. Tbh: many, many TFAs have to be protected sometime during the time they are on the mainpage; it kind of depends a bit on the topic coupled with the timezones which correspond to said topic. I tend to protect for 2 days then, because the ripples will run trough the internet, making waves even when the article is off mainpage. Lectonar (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

It looks like everyone else commenting thinks it's fine, so you can consider this request withdrawn. (The additional context that Callanecc brought up helps - to me, it looked like an admin swooping in unprompted citing IAR, since the request at RFPP wasn't mentioned initially.) That said, I think a larger discussion may be required on the status of the TFA protection policy, but AN may not be the place to do it (Village Pump, perhaps?). Obviously admins need to be able to speedily react to situations when there really is a major incident, but if any TFA that gets a hint of vandalism gets semi-'d, this is de-facto changing the default to semi-protection, which is not the community's preference. We expect that TFAs will see increased vandalism, that's okay, it just gets reverted. SnowFire (talk) 14:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Three strike ban

Notifying the community that Soap Boy 1 is now banned per WP:3X. I did advise them to sit it out for six months and apply for unblock per WP:SO, but they instead decided to create a new account today and resume edit warring at multiple articles, so here we are. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

User:DiSantis19

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:DiSantis19 acuse me of using IPs and he is constantly add some countries (without sources) in War on terror, both article and infobox. For example, Argentina did not participate in the wars of Afghanistan, neither Iraq nor Syria, but he always but he keeps insisting and adding them without any source that supports their claims. He didn't even read the message that I put on his talk page. In no other Wikipedia the countries are included in articles such as "War on terror" without citing any source. ---Henderson Grumicker (talk) 01:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

It is Template:War on terror infobox that the two of you are edit warring over. You both need to stop the edit warring and discuss the issue on the talk page. - Donald Albury 01:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

My point is not against his argument its the methods of him using an IP address to back up argument which violates WP:SOCKPUPPET. He is arguing in bad faith. DiSantis19 (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Also my point was due to Argentina being a major non-Nato ally they inherently supported the war on terror like Columbia has. Thats my point but I am willing to withdraw my argument if he comes clean about using IP address to back up his arguments. DiSantis19 (talk) 01:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I had mistakenly used the IP without my main account... Now, by another part, Colombia is also "NATO global partner", an superior status to Argentina, and they participated in the Operation Enduring Freedom – Horn of Africa, while Argentina did not even participated in that operation. Just view and read each of the articles about battles that are part of the so-called "War On Terror": Argentina does not appear in any of them. —Henderson Grumicker (talk) 02:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Content dispute. This needs to be closed. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] As Waltcip says, this is a content dispute. It does not belong on this noticeboard. Settle it on Template talk:War on terror infobox. Do not edit war. Seek input from other editors by using the procedures given in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, but be sure to avoid canvassing. - Donald Albury 14:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:ShaggyAnimate

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Over the last half an hour or so, ShaggyAnimate (talk · contribs) has been making highly inappropriate and disruptive edits on the Talk:2023 page, editing user comments with profanities and linking names to inappropriate topics - edits such as [20] and [21] really speak for themselves, among many other edits by this user along the exact same lines. TheScrubby (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Looks like Bbb23 nipped that in the bud. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

When I saw his first edit regarding a lack of Argentine people in the deaths list I had already suspected he could be a troll. I suggest we watch out for possible sockpuppet accounts he will set up in the following 31 hours. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

ShaggyAnimate is now pleading WP:GOTHACKED. Time for indef, maybe? —Wasell^(T) 🌻🇺🇦 13:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Requesting closure by completely uninvolved editor

Any uninvolved admins with nothing better to do sitting around? :) There's a matter that needs closing. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Admins sitting around? We pay them to work 24/7 here. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Copyvios galore

I don't think I've ever seen as many copyright violations in the new pages feed as I have in just the last few minutes (and many of them are pretty blatant too.. direct copy-pastes from the sources with little to no edits at all). Is there something in the water? Taking Out The Trash (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• Example? Lots of articles out there... please be specific at least in some way.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Requesting a copy of the deleted article "Joey Watkins"

I wrote most of this article. It was deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joey Watkins. I am requesting a copy of the article. Watkins, who was wrongfully convicted of a murder, was recently released.[22] I think portions of it could be used at Undisclosed (podcast) and Georgia Innocence Project. I have created a placeholder at User:Adoring nanny/sandbox/Joey Watkins. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

SashiRolls requests a !ban

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This is clearly a fraught topic, with significant disagreement, but I do see consensus to unban. This discussion is one where we’re looking specifically at trusting someone to return to editing constructively without the problems that led to the initial ban. There is not a policy or source based argument in this situation that can greatly change that this comes down to each editor responding saying, “do I trust them?” With a shade under 2/3 support versus oppose, and still an absolute majority when neutral responses are counted, it is reasonably clear that there is enough community trust to allow them to return to editing contingent on some additional restrictions. There were several responses with specific caveats, e.g. GizzyCatBella and Shibbolethink. Yngvadottir was also open to additional restrictions. With some of the support hinging on additional restrictions, some of the neutrals preferring additional restrictions, the acceptance that additional restrictions may be necessary to form consensus, and the general agreement that SashiRolls should absolutely not be editing anything in any way controversial or contentious, they will be subject to the following restrictions:

• One-way interaction ban with VM
• One-way interaction ban with Tryptofish
• Topic banned from post-1932 American politics, broadly construed
• Topic banned from GMO and agricultural biotechnology, broadly construed
• Topic banned from Eastern Europe including Russia and Poland, broadly construed
• Prohibited from commenting on AE requests where they are not a party

That said, SashiRolls should, as Objective3000 said, stay away from all DS/contentious topics and administrator noticeboards. My very best wishes rightly pointed out that it would be difficult to make a full list of topics and editors SR should stay away from, but hopefully they follow Iridescent’s sage words, "you are topic banned from anything remotely controversial". There is very little rope left on the coil, and I cannot imagine another unban gaining consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

---

To whom it may concern:

Hello. I was banned from en.wp back in the summer of 2020 ( § ) after an ill-conceived tussle with El C about a temporary block from the Edward Colston page. At the time, it was suggested I come back in six months. When I did, I didn't stick out my appeal until the end. Since then, I've waited about two years to ask again, to be sure that any trace of annoyance had disappeared, at least on my end.

In the time I've been away, I've made roughly 5000 contributions to non-en.wp wmf projects:

• 2500 Commons (including about 400 photos)
• 1500 fr.wp
• 650 wdata

I've also made minor edits to other projects ranging from haitian to latin.

The disruption to my en.wp contributions also gave me the chance to do some work on my own mediawiki for which I sincerely thank all those involved. I've also worked a bit on the French version of one of the last en.wp articles I created before I left. It's about the Gère river. (fr | en)

It will probably come up that I frequent WPO. Since joining over there in Dec. 2016, I've never to my knowledge caused any serious problems, nor have I ever been thrown out, which suggests I may not be such a bad egg as all that. Here and there things I've said there or that have happened to me have led to changes at en.wp (in articles, policy) or have caused an occasional ripple.

I would say that what I've learned is that things on wiki go fast. Too fast. What starts out at as a minor thing can quickly be escalated into something that wastes a lot of time and leads to disrupted work. Sometimes, as I mentioned above, disruption can be productive, but most of the time it isn't, and it's better to always strive to deescalate. I'm not here to test boundaries. I know I can't edit GMOs, Am-Pol or WP:AE. Best practice will be to keep away from those who might tend to rile me up. I do think that the past two years of on-wiki production at data, commons, fr.wp show that I'm able to colloborate, as well as contribute.

The immediate impetus to this request was a request for file-mover tools at Commons, during which my en.wp ban was brought up as a reason to be circumspect. So, it seemed to me like perhaps the time has come to resolve this.

How about we get out the calumet and agree to peacefully co-exist? :)

SashiRolls (talk) 14:12, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

---

Copied from c:Special:PermaLink/719472438 per utrs:67199 — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:07, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

• First! 👍 P.S. I think I was first in the last appeal, too. But I can't immediately find it. Whatever I said then, though, still. El_C 01:48, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

  Special:PermaLink/1000836596#Ban_removal_request_of_SashiRolls. 97.120.124.88 (talk) 08:29, 25 December 2022 (UTC) Fixed link, pretty sure this is where it should be pointing. Primefac (talk) 13:56, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

  Is everyone else seeing that red gg+ button in the mobile thingy? It takes you to your notifications for some reason! El_C 21:58, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

  You seem to be referring to the notifications icon. Everyone logged in on mobile should see it and should go to their notifications when they click on it, as has been the case for ?~8 years. However not everyone will have 99+ "unread" notifications so their number will vary. The colour will also vary depending on whether the mobile site considers there are new notifications, somewhat akin to the desktop site but their newness is handled different. Nil Einne (talk) 23:23, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

• Hm. I find myself looking at [23] in an inability to personally desire the described person's return to a community I'm a part of. A request for an "agree[ment] to peacefully co-exist" sounds as if the community had denied this opportunity to you. That's probably not correct. They threw you out because you weren't able to do so. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:48, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
• I find it concerning that the request doesn't contain a single hint of acceptance of responsibility for any behavior that led to the ban. Schazjmd (talk) 18:06, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

  Reply to @Schazjmd:: some expansions on text included in my appeal with more straightforwardly mea culpa formulations

  ill-conceived tussle

  I shouldn't have done it.

  things on wiki go fast. Too fast.

  I should have known that, recognized my limitations, and acted with more kindness. I apologize.

  I know I can't edit XYZ

  I had problems there before, so I won't be going back.

  keep away from those who might rile me up

  I can be riled up. This is one of my limitations. I am here on the projects to build an encyclopedia and must not let myself get distracted by that limitation.

  it's better to strive to deescalate

  I shouldn't have escalated with El Commandante, he's a good egg. Or with anyone else, whether big-, middle-, mixed-, or little-endian. I will strive, again, for kindness and calm.

  I am able to collaborate.

  I gave some people reason to wonder about this.

  Revisiting the specific disputes and the snark that, in part, got me thrown out, or the modifications to policy that resulted from it, strikes me as being mostly a bad idea. Other than my sincere apologies to anyone I offended and the analysis of my errors above, I don't know what good resassing the past will do. Except to remind me, I guess, that I shouldn't be snarky.

  Wiki moves fast. Being bold in a land full of complicated templates means that things break when you forget a pipe, a field, a tilda, a closing </spanner>, or put a semi-colon where the parser expected a colon. You can usually fix things with patience though.

  Proposal: 3-month review at AN, renewable. I would accept having a parole officer. If anyone is willing to keep an eye on me, I hereby promise you it will be very boring as far as PvP-drama goes.

  SashiRolls (talk) 22:17, 25 December 2022 (UTC) Copied from c:Special:PermaLink/719762216 — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how big of a requirement 'accepting responsibility' is. The only thing that's required is that problematic behaviour not repeat. People aren't really required to drop their pride and accept wrongdoing, or even to honestly feel that they acted improperly; they only need to convince that the same behaviour won't resume. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

  You raise an interesting point. Strictly speaking, that's true, in that future conduct is, indeed, what matters. As I see it, this isn't about policing thought, but rather it's about the confidence that the community can have in the request. It's all too easy to promise that one will stay away from trouble, so it becomes important for the community to have some insight into how credible such promises are. When the unban request contains a well thought out acknowledgement of what the past concerns were, that enhances confidence. But when, as I believe is the case here, the request seems to deflect any suggestion of personal responsibility (and this has been a pattern over numerous previous appeals by this user), then it becomes reasonable for editors to be skeptical. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

  That's a really good point. Part of an appeal is demonstrating there is no longer a WP:PREVENTATIVE need for the sanction. Deflecting, not acknowledging, etc. behavior issues that led to the ban, is usually an indication that preventative sanctions are still needed for the future. It's not a matter of penance with your hat in hand begging for mercy, etc. KoA (talk) 22:43, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

  ProcrastinatingReader says above: People aren't really required to drop their pride and accept wrongdoing, or even to honestly feel that they acted improperly; they only need to convince that the same behaviour won't resume

  I agree wit this and also with what Tryptofish says in reply: Strictly speaking, that's true, in that future conduct is, indeed, what matters.

  The only thing we need to determine here, as a community, is whether we think SashiRolls will act like this again, within any stone's throw of reasonable likelihood. Bans aren't punitive, yada yada. I think this person has waited a long enough time, in proportion to the initial infraction, that we can be reasonable sure they won't disrupt the project again. And all we risk is coming back here to reinstate a ban.

  To help guarantee that, I agree with GizzyCatBella on Conditional Support with a 1-way IBAN with Volunteer Marek and a TBAN from Russia and Eastern Europe (including Poland). These particular sub-sanctions can be revisited in time, when and if the user shows themselves capable of behaving appropriately on wiki. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

  Obviously, I appreciate that you agree with what I said, but I've been thinking about it, and I want to clarify what I meant, because the way that you quoted me gives my quote a meaning slightly different than what I intended. I'm not looking for policing thought, as I said, but in evaluating what to expect from future conduct, I believe it's entirely fair to look at how an appeal is framed. And the opening appeal strikes me as being like I'm really not such a bad person, and I hope that WP will realize that now. Subsequent promises have been worded much better, but, after so many prior bans and appeals, it feels to me like this has been coached. In the end, it looks to me like editors who support the appeal are persuaded by the work on other projects and editors who oppose are persuaded by the long history of repeated harassment and sanction violations, and someone with a paygrade higher than mine will have to figure out what the consensus is. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. As someone who was frequently the target of unpleasantness from this user, I feel very strongly that this is not something where the community should give the benefit of the doubt and give another chance, but instead it is something where it is entirely the responsibility of the user to demonstrate, without coaching, that they truly understand their own responsibility for the ban and that they have a clear idea of how to become a net positive. This is all the more important because this was made very, very clear by the community in all of the previous unban requests. What I see above is, instead, something like I'm really not so bad and I hope that WP will agree with me about that. That's not OK. (Also, I look at WPO from time to time, and what I see there is this user posting stuff that's just kind of strange, and the other WPO people ignoring it and talking around it. When you get to the point where WPO people treat you with WP:DENY, it's time to look for another hobby.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Off-topic sniping

But imagine the personal growth if you, for your part, were willing to drop this near decade-long grudge. It'll be an XMAS miracle! El_C 21:58, 25 December 2022 (UTC) Victim blaming at its finest. Floquenbeam (talk) 02:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC) Gaslighting at its finest. El_C 04:16, 26 December 2022 (UTC) Anyway, beyond the drama of Floq going out of his way to be unpleasant to me, which is par for the course — I, being the admin who had originally imposed an WP:IBAN (poorly-formed, but still) on both Sashi and Trypto back in 2017, feel that I am in the position to say that it isn't in fact one-sided, one victim. The argument could be made that it is, sure, but incendiary statements, like the one above where Floq accuses me of "victim blaming"... How does that help? Or, for that matter, how does Trypto's closing ("WP:DENY," etc.) sentence help? And I happen to also be speaking as the 'victim' featured in the original ban (Sashi's CBAN), of which I was not in favour of back then, either. Either way, much could be said for forgiveness, of letting go of grievances (real or perceived). It really is good for the spirit. El_C 06:56, 26 December 2022 (UTC) El C, this is beneath you. WP:2WRONGS. Maybe you could have some personal growth in your relationship with Floq, but any life advice you have for me has nothing to do with the merits of the unban request. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2022 (UTC) Tryptofish: El C, this is beneath you. Also Tryptofish: When you get to the point where WPO people treat you with WP:DENY, it's time to look for another hobby. El_C 18:46, 26 December 2022 (UTC) If anyone wonders why I raised the issue of WPO, it was because SashiRolls brought it up first, as one of the reasons for lifting the ban. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC) WP:DENY, etc., is the issue, still. Not the WPO, per se. I'm surprised I still need to point that out. Oh well, hopefully, I spelled it out enough now. El_C 19:03, 26 December 2022 (UTC) The issue is whether or not there is merit to the unban request. And I've already pointed out WP:2WRONGS. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2022 (UTC) Within the scope of that issue is you telling someone who productively contributes to several Wikimedia projects to look for another hobby, on the basis of WP:DENY. If you think replying with WP:2WRONGS suffices; if you support Floq's attack on me, for having "victim blamed" you — Okay. I still think forgiveness is good for the spirit. If you dislike that life advise, feel free to ignore it. But hopefully, others find value in that maxim, so it wasn't said for naught. See ya. El_C 19:28, 26 December 2022 (UTC) Yes, I support and appreciate what Floq said to you. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2022 (UTC) So much venom, yikes. El_C 19:44, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

• Point of information. (Sashi, I see you still don't have talk page access here, but I assume you're watching here and that if you respond on Commons or Meta or some other place, someone with more gravitas than I will copy it over.) The disputes that led to your being banned were off my radar or before my time. I'm doubly ill-equipped to express an opinion since despite defensive Latin and adequate French, I frequently can't follow what you post at WO, and just had to look up calumet. I quite understand that you're more concerned these days with editing at Commons and (ugh) Wikidata, and that may continue to be the case even if your ban here is vacated; I note your statement above about avoiding problem areas and editors with whom you have had disputes; and I understand you're subject to various topic restrictions ... but I'd like to see what you say in response to a simple question: what kind of editing do you envisage doing here on en.wikipedia if the ban is ended? Yngvadottir (talk) 02:19, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

  I’ve restored talk page for the duration of the appeal, so they can answer your (and others’) questions. Floquenbeam (talk) 03:13, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

  Reply to @Yngvadottir:

  Hi again! First off, happy Yule tidings!

  You are right to assume that I would not be very likely to abandon fr.wp, commons, and data to become an exclusive en.wp editor. One of the things I most appreciated about this time while blocked is that it convinced me to dare to edit fr.wp (French is not my native language.) I've found people to be very helpful and forgiving over there concerning gender mistakes and grammar matters.

  The coverage in English Wikipedia of the area where I live is not very good. I talked about this a bit over at WPO, mentioning some problems with Anne-Sophie Pic's bio over here. They got fixed. (Thanks, again!)

  Chances are very good that I will find pages to improve about French cities, mountains, regions, and river valleys (the Gère valley and the Rhône valley in particular). I see that a few of my photos were added to the Vienne page while I was gone, for example. There being no page for the ViaRhôna at all I could probably create one... :)

  As a jazz fan, I may occasionally also be able to translate information about local artists, e.g. Camille Bertault or Naïssam Jalal.

  If I get particularly ambitious I could translate some of the truly excellent work Zythème has done describing Rabelais' Book Four and its critical reception. (no page on en.wp)

  In short, there is no shortage of gaps in the English-language encyclopedia's coverage of Francophone letters, geography, and culture. I believe this would probably be my primary mission, with music and linguistics as likely other areas of interest. (I wrote a short article about Pierre Vernet, for example, before leaving en.wp. I see that the English article on en:Antoine Culioli could use some significant work.)

  And you know, as an active reader, things are always coming up. One of my favorite recent reads was John McWhorter's ("English is not normal"). Maybe there's something of value to pull out of such articles.

  Outside of the high-pressure topics that Iridescent pointed out at the time I'd been working on, I had little trouble. Even on some pages where potential for heated disagreement was high (e.g. Yellow vests movement, Algerian / Haitian / Sudanese protests) I luckily managed not to have too many problems at all. So, really as long as I stay away from AmPol and GMO, I think it's pretty likely there shouldn't be any problems... that said, I'll probably avoid much of anything likely to stir up great passion.

  This is a first look at your question. I also like smoothing translations, working on page layout, cleaning up references, and trying to find new ones when needed, e.g. one quick example --> Ken Burns does not even mention Theo Croker, much less source the entire first en.wp paragraph of his early life. These are the sorts of things I find on a regular basis. I could fix some of them (though not all of them) if unbanned.

  — SashiRolls (talk) 04:35, 26 December 2022 (UTC) Copied from c:Special:PermaLink/719815580 — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:06, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support - It's no secret I think the ban was a mistake, but in any case, Sashi's productive contribs to other projects for years demonstrates the ban is no longer preventing anything except productive contribs. Levivich (talk) 06:02, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - So first let me say that I have stayed out of all the Sashi blocks, unblock requests, reblocks, appeals, reappears, denials of appeals, provisional unblocking, unprovisional block reinstatements and what have you. Last I recall interacting with them was when they were, I think, in between their indef blocks, and it seems they sought me out to, um, “edit alongside me”. It was not a constructive experience. Other than that, since their last blockin’ I guess they were busy at other wikis but I don’t follow those so can’t comment. I have however been engaged by Sashi over at Wikipediocracy, one may even say, “relentlessly”. If I comment there, or if someone comments about me there or even if someone writes a word that starts with a “V” on something completely unrelated there, Sashi is sure to show up there and post their latest insights and gleaned revelations they’ve acquired about my person. Usually something somewhere between “pointlessly petty” to “aggressively nasty”, all with the usual side of esoteric bizzarness. To put it transparently and curtly - judging by their behavior THERE, there’s no way in hell they’ve “reformed” or are ready to come back to editing HERE. Volunteer Marek 06:28, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support - I opposed the ban, partly because I think malice was being attributed where I'm sure there wasn't any. SashiRolls is, in my view, someone who has been afflicted with too much enthusiasm and too little patience in subject areas that pushed his buttons. If he can keep away from such topics, then I think the project could welcome back a positive contributor here. The edits to other projects while banned here convince me that can happen. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose from my oppose rationale from the last appeal: SashiRolls was unblocked in November 2018, with "considerable skepticism of unblocking" and subsequently racked up five blocks in less than two years (two of which were undone by the blocking admin), plus four other sanctions, until the ban was reimposed in June 2020. It's clear that unblock was a mistake which wasted plenty of time from constructive editors.. There's a high chance the ban would have to be reimposed if it was lifted. Giving yet another last chance to banned editors is not an effective use of editor time. Hut 8.5 11:47, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose (on hold see below) - per Hut 8.5. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:29, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

  @SashiRolls You wrote --> Best practice will be to keep away from those who might tend to rile me up. Who are those? - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

  (@SashiRolls - please respond on your talk page) - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:09, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

  I would be steering well-wide of anything even remotely to do with the war in Ukraine, in addition to the other Arbitration Enforcement areas alluded to above (I forget the acronyms for them all, but in general I'm not interested...). I did not come here with a calumet to battle or to say mean things about people. I came because I see en.wp's coverage of the francophone world could use work. Best to you GCB, -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 19:31, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
  @GizzyCatBella: Copied from Special:Diff/1129711020 –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:46, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

  [24] - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:19, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

• Conditional Support - only under the condition of additional one-way IBAN with Volunteer_Marek (see --> [25]) and a Topic Ban from editing articles related to Russia and Eastern Europe (including Poland). (If all these conditions aren't met, then consider my voice as Oppose) - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support per Lev and Boing. Their edits would be closely watched and I’m sure someone would report any potential issues quickly (though I don’t expect there would be any). Mr Ernie (talk) 18:22, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, with a caveat. I had a couple of interactions with SashiRolls in the past, and they were not so negative. That was a fair ban in the past, and I do not see what has changed based on the comments and responses by SashiRolls. Perhaps she/he could be unbanned if one of the admins takes a responsibility of observing their future editing and re-blocking SashiRolls again at the first sign of trouble. However, after looking at the very long block record of SashiRolls, it seems such approach had already been tried, so that the chances of success are slim. Based on their comments, SashiRolls is planning to voluntarily stay away from a number of different widely defined subjects and a number of contributors (an equivalent to multiple topic bans and interaction bans). Will it work in practice? If SashiRolls is going to be unbanned, the lists of such topics and contributors should be explicitly defined. This all seem to be problematic. My very best wishes (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I think this is something for admins to decide because they will be responsible for enforcement. According to Yngvadottir (see below) there are 4 active topic/interaction bans for SashiRolls. If admins think this will not ensure waste of time and drama in the future, then yes, let's unban. My very best wishes (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

The in practice comments are really spot on here for unban considerations. Those are some wide topic ban areas, so if they cross the line there again or start it up in a new topic, how much sniping and denials are editors who try to bring the issues up going to have to deal with? How would that past problem be alleviated? I don't know of a good answer considering past history where it's likely for someone to just paint editors either being pursued by SR or trying to deal with problems as just out to get SR. That's really the can of worms I'm worried about. KoA (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeh, the ability of SashiRolls to stir conflict, even between admins, is definitely a factor here. My very best wishes (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support per Levivich and Boing!. François Robere (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
  • As an aside, I find it somewhat disingenuous for one to object to the appeal on the grounds of posts made to WPO, when elsewhere they claimed it as a "safe space", writing that "[the] whole point of WPO is that you can say things plainly and directly without genuflecting to the gods of hypocrisy the way you do on Wiki".[26] François Robere (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
• That block log is pretty terrible; it's not that hard to not rack up a lot of blocks, or heck, to not rack up any blocks. It's fair to assume you probably didn't have the most enjoyable editing experience here? So a blunt and genuine question: why do you still want to participate here, verses just finding another hobby? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

  A number of the early blocks are related to a bad actor Sashi and others like me tangled with, who turned out to be a exceptionally skilled former admin socking to avoid a topic ban. These blocks were frequently brought up in later cases and should be considered in the context. If you set the clean slate post the Cirt stuff I don’t think a site ban would ever have been considered. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

  In fairness, the point about needing to look past Cirt is a very valid one. For easy access, here is a link to that block log: [27]. The unblock on November 5, 2018, is the unblock resulting from recognizing the Cirt problem. So everything after that, from June 4, 2019 onward, is really what we should consider relevant to the present discussion. And it's still pretty awful, even after making that correction. Again and again, personal attacks, battleground, harassment. Not trivial stuff, and not isolated instances. And violating existing restrictions ([28]). Consider what that means: where some editors argue here that we should unban while setting restrictions, past experience demonstrates a tendency to break those promises. I wasn't exaggerating when I talked (below) about a time-sink. There needs to be a lot stronger case than saying that one opposed the ban in the last discussion, or it's just too much enthusiasm, or at least there's been no socking, or this is a good time to try WP:ROPE because there will be lots of eyes on him. We are ridiculously beyond the point where the WP:ROPE ran out. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. As others have mentioned, their appeal is filled with WP:NOTTHEM language, which is a pretty strong indication they're going to continue the tendentious behavior that got them banned and continue the time sink they created for the community when they were here. We also definitely can't give weight comments calling a ban to correctly prevent community-wide disruption a "mistake" either. One needs only to look at their block log and especially the last straw ban proposal by TonyBallioni [29] and the close by MastCell there. That attitude is just a repeat of what I remember dealing with back when they were here.

Volunteer Marek also makes a good point on relentlessness. SR would often pursue editors on-wiki, and I among others ended up having to try to cleanup major disruptions in the GMO topics because of SR doing that. When folks mention SR's off-wiki activities after the ban especially I'll echo Volunteer Marek that SR was often pursuing editors off-wiki that they had hounded on-wiki. This appeal falls pretty flat after seeing that. The trouble with the relentlessness that I'm seeing revived here again is targets of SR were often hounded and victim-blamed/gaslighted by SR or others. That often complicated cleaning up the disruption or just simply getting action on sanctions because you'd often have people rushing to say it was SR's target that was causing the problems.

Mix that with NOTTHEM comments, they were just getting "riled" up, etc. like I'm seeing in this appeal and we have a recipe for being right back to the situation we were in before the ban. For the amount of disruption they were the center of, the bar for an unban is much higher a general lack of acknowledgement appeal like this. Too much of a time-sink for the community with this apparent attitude continuing. KoA (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support per Levivich, Boing! and Mr. Ernie. I haven't followed the off-Wiki drama so I won't evaluate that. Opposers fail to convince. I do feel that SR has followed the procedure that leads to reconsideration of an unban. SR obviously knows they are going to be watched, and if SR keeps it clean, the 'pedia wins, and if not, gets rebanned. Simple. Jusdafax (talk) 23:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

For background, a frequent problem at admin boards often were editors such as Jusdafax, Mr. Ernie, and Levivich jumping in to defend SR regardless of the disruption SR caused. The AE where we had to modify SR's GMO ban is a good example of that.[30] Generally you'll see various forms of denial there claiming no disruption by SR despite admins still determining the sanction was needed (and tweaked to clearer language). Similar things happened at SR's site ban thread too despite plenty of evidence.[31] There's also usually bits where those of us who were hounded due to SR's actions were portrayed as just out to get Sashirolls peppered in some of those discussions too.

Denials of SR's behavior have been a recurring issue from vocal minorities, so for those who are entirely uninvolved, I do advise reading the closes, evidence, blocks, etc. where simple denials don't really match up with reality. Those of us who were directly affected by SR's antics had to deal with a lot from SR themselves, but also their supporters muddying the waters or outright lashing out when we tried to get help. While I personally shouldn't have to deal with Sashirolls much due to their topic bans if they came back, I sure wouldn't wish others having to go through what myself or others did. Just punting the buck along to a new topic each time is in part why the community decided on the site ban instead, and crafting an appeal for that needs something pretty substantive rather than merely following unbanning procedure. KoA (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I am continually surprised that people can hold grudges like this over such petty reasons for so long. I wondered why you came after me at an unrelated AE case a few weeks ago when I didn’t even recognize your name or know we had interacted, but now I understand. The topic bans should handle the areas where there were concerns as you acknowledge so why not let’s give that a try on this volunteer project? Mr Ernie (talk) 03:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of gaslighting multiple editors had to deal with, and you've been repeatedly cautioned about hounding editors like at that AE you mention. Yes, I noticed your behavior issues during the Sashirolls stuff and at that AE, but trying to claim anyone who notices behavior issues from you or others as just having a "grudge" is a tired old WP:BATTLEGROUND tactic. That just disrupts admin boards.

With that, the sniping at those who tried to deal with Sashirolls and related behavior issues clearly hasn't gone away. That is why it's being brought up because it contributed to the issues resulting in SR's ban and is yet another hurdle to navigate in a potential unban. The whole point above was that topic bans didn't help the behavior since it just moved to whatever topic SR moved on to, and whoever got stuck dealing with it had harassment and wikilawyering to deal with. The serious question to answer is why should we burden other parts of the community (yet again) with that likely scenario even in a WP:ROPE situation? There needs to be really good justification rather than talking past it that we've seen from SR's appeal so far. There's a lot of red flag language in that regard. KoA (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Accusing editors of gaslighting and lying about sanctions they’ve never received is poor form at the admin boards. But par for the course I suppose. I don’t expect anyone to defend me, but maybe this type of behavior will color uninvolved reviewers perspectives on this issue. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:28, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I trust that uninvolved reviewers will follow the evidence (diffs and links) in order to gain a perspective, per Dorothy Gambrell, perhaps 🐈. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:44, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. We even needed to craft a new WP:ASPERSIONS principle in the GMO case because of unsubstantiated claims, though that was before SR's involvement. Either way to be clear, the AE section Mr Ernie was referring to earlier[32] is where their previous sanction related to hounding was recently discussed, specifically that they had been banned from WP:AE for a time for hounding/aspersions and that it was a concern again. They were already aware of their past sanction though (and they even referenced that AE I just linked despite the flourish above), so it's really odd that they go on a tangent about an easily verifiable thing being a lie here when it wasn't even in my initial comment. That's a confusing tangent.

My focus was on the links I gave in my main reply above on interactions related to Sashirolls at admin boards with editors repeatedly dismissing SR's issues or things like we're seeing here now accusing others of grudges. There is a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality that seems to follow SR, in part because of their own actions, but also what we see playing out here from other editors. It just makes an unban appeal even trickier to navigate and why some of us who had to deal with SR are so cautious. KoA (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

It had nothing to do with hounding. Please stop lying. You are the only one who has mentioned hounding, and now you just fait accompli refer to it as that. When you are wrong about something, referring back to it doesn’t make it any more right. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I want to respond to that point about supposedly holding petty grudges. For me, this is no more about holding a grudge, than it is about being an enabler when editors who have long memories about past disputes over GMOs or AmPol come here to support the request on behalf of someone they perceive as having been on their "team". And an awfully high percentage of the editors who have commented here fit that description. So we can go back and forth calling one another grudge-holders or enablers, or we can look at what would be in the best interests of this project. And there's nothing petty about wanting to spare the project the highly predictable time-sink that would result from bringing back someone who has long been a time-sink, and has never, even at their best, been a particularly helpful contributor. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support I was against the ban when it was first imposed and I'm still against it now. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support. I have read the statements above by editors who don't trust SashiRolls because they have been hurt in the past. I cannot judge anything SashiRolls has written in the non-public areas of Wikipediocracy, because I'm not a member there, so I hope I'm not slighting the concerns of Volunteer Marek, in particular. So I spent some time reading and re-reading the June 2020 siteban discussion (also linked by SashiRolls at the top of this discussion). And I searched ineptly for restrictions to which they're still subject. It is my understanding that these are: (a) an interaction ban with Tryptofish (whether one-way or two-way has been a subject of some disagreement and/or change); (b) a GMO topic ban; (c) a post-1932 American politics topic ban; (d) a prohibition on commenting on AE requests to which they are not a party, imposed in 2016. Are there any others? It seems to me that the core question is whether these restrictions are sufficient. SashiRolls has pledged to keep away from those who might rile me up and strive to deescalate. I don't think they should be judged harshly for not listing the names, especially since they have an IBan with at least one, and the emphasis in the appeal is on how they intend to stay out of trouble, so I don't find the mention of their own thought processes—getting riled up—to be inappropriate. I also note that their statement I know I can't edit GMOs, Am-Pol or WP:AE corresponds to their edit restrictions; so I see no truculent "I wish I could ... " in it. If there are indeed no other edit restrictions or IBans in place, given that SashiRolls has named several areas where they plan to make edits, has been editing productively on several other projects, and has responded plainly and levelly to questions so far in this appeal, I'm inclined to support. I will add that on my reading, that 2020 ban discussion was very divided; MastCell's key point in closing it was: While there is no numerical threshold for consensus, it would be inappropriate to close a discussion like this—with >2/3 of commenters supporting action—as "no consensus". There has since been a withdrawn appeal, followed by 2 years. Consensus can change in that time. Wikipedia can change in that time, and I have a tiny, inexpert suspicion that after 2½ years, we might today be less inclined to siteban an editor after a discussion that shook out the way that one did (including El_C's attempted intervention). Anyway, we're here now. If the ban is rescinded, it will of course be a WP:ROPE situation, with many eyes on SashiRolls' editing. Perhaps, in addition to the topic bans, the concerns of some of those in opposition could be allayed by addition of some more IBans? Volunteer_Marek, for example? And I would suggest the IBan with Tryptofish should be made 2-way, if it isn't, in order to simplify matters. Yngvadottir (talk) 10:55, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

A topic ban from Eastern European topics, including Russia, would also be a minimum since I’m not the only one they’ve “followed around” in that topic area. Volunteer Marek 18:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

And I would suggest the IBan with Tryptofish should be made 2-way, if it isn't, in order to simplify matters. One thing we absolutely should not be doing is re-harassing one of SR's old targets from past disputes by doing that, especially since the original 2-way I-ban on appeal was considered a throwing the baby out with the bathwater situation and very uncontroversially changed to 1-way.[33] KoA (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

KoA just beat me to saying what I was going to say, thanks. Yngvadottir, if you're going to say stuff like that about me, please get your facts straight first. There's nothing close to a subject of some disagreement and/or change about it. I suggest that anyone who wants to know what actually happened go to the link that KoA just gave, and open the collapsed AE section to see more than just the closing statement in the header. You will see that the original 2-way version was explicitly designated as having been "no-fault" with respect to me, and you can read for yourselves the admin discussion by Newyorkbrad, Thryduulf, and TonyBallioni. It's worth seeing what three highly trusted admins determined about the merits of the situation. And it's worth noting how they were quite able to see through and dismiss the same kinds of WP:2WRONGS diversions that are being offered again here in this discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, Tryptofish; in researching the situation, I missed that discussion. Some of your talk above of editors ... jumping in to defend SR and of vocal minorities strikes me as unpleasant, but you're entirely right, I am not aware of the extent of the disruption SashiRolls has caused in the past, or of the suffering you and others are referring to. Volunteer Marek, I think a lot of editors are also at a similar disadvantage to me in judging whether SashiRolls might be disruptive in the area of Eastern Europe / Russia, since you appear to be basing that judgement on non-public forum posts? I haven't seen anyone mention that as a problematic area in the previous discussions? But then again, there's a new war this year. However, it appears to me that between their pledge to stay away from editors who "rile them up", and the innocuous topics they say they forsee editing here (it seems that apart from my error about the basis of the IBan, I've got it right that those are the 4 in force?), new restrictions shouldn't be necessary. I find myself persuaded they will be a net positive if unbanned. But I admit that's partly because I find the argument that they never were to be exaggerated; respected editors at the banning discussion, when the dispute was hot, made that point. More importantly, it's now two and a half years later; people can change; their appeal is calmly couched and lists good contributions on multiple other projects; they appear to have sensible plans for proceeding (including not being fixated on this particular project). Yngvadottir (talk) 04:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for that. However, the "unpleasant" comments that you now attribute to me are not things that I ever said. It was another editor, not me. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, one thing that I did say is relevant to the argument about not needing new restrictions. I linked above to blocks for violating existing individual restrictions ([34], also [35]), and I think that history gives pause to being confident about accepting promises on face value. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Just for the record...I strongly oppose a 2-way iBan naming Tryptofish, and believe the one-way should remain as a show of good faith on SR's part that they truly have started a new chapter in the book of WP. Atsme 💬 📧 21:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support - If there's been no socking, during the ban. GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
• Neutral, with a proviso - As one of their victims, I won't !vote. But, if they are unblocked, they should be TBanned from all DS articles and all admin boards. A promise has little meaning. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose unban. Even though I'm not familiar with the history of the case, I am confident that a person with this kind of block log is not going to return as a collegial and productive editor. Sandstein 17:11, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

  🤦🏼‍♂️ Levivich (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support - last chance saloon, and beware of controversial areas. starship.paint (exalt) 13:16, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose guys, this isn't a second chance request. SashiRolls has had multiple chances throughout their involvement on the English Wikipedia, and every time it comes back to one thing: they view every disagreement as a battleground, make up enemies in their head, and relentlessly focus on showing how their enemies are out to get them. Then when people get tired of having to deal with that and point out the problems, they claim it is evidence that what they have been saying is correct, without pausing to consider if whether the objections to their behaviour might have some grounding in facts.
  If we unblock them, there will be another dispute. That dispute will follow just like all the others had. And we won't be able to do anything about it because we just unbanned them and an unban is a get out of jail free card where no admin is willing to take any action against you for 3-6 months. I'm around a lot less these days, so this isn't anything personal against SashiRolls or something that I think will have that huge an impact on me. But I do absolutely think an unban would be a firm net negative to the project and would increase the amount of disruption that admins who work in controversial areas have to deal with. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose My thought in supporting or opposing lifting the ban is simple: Do I feel like we will be right back here again in a relative short period of time. In this case, I do. SR has shown that they are going to go bull in a china shop to get their way. The ban WAS the last chance, and if we are back to this again, are we going to be arguing this all over? RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support per Levivich's current (see above) and previous comments: "the incivility from Sashi is narrowly focused at very few people, who frankly aren't blameless themselves. I would support two way IBANs all around, but not a site ban". This would have made much more sense then...it makes even more sense now. The site ban should be lifted, but all other restrictions should remain.

Also of note: the comments about "a person with this kind of block log" seem unnecessary. If you read, most of the recent ones are blocks and unblocks to allow for appeals/ArbCom proceedings. If you feel that something in particular is a problem, please specify. I'd much rather place trust in someone with 30 traffic tickets in 40 years of driving than a one-time murderer (even though the former's "rap sheet" is longer). Buffs (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Frankly, it's getting pretty old to keep hearing that those of us who have been harassed by SR are the ones at fault. And there are a ton of blocks (post-Cirt) that were not mere adjustments for appeals, but were for personal attacks, battleground conduct, harassment, and violation of existing individual restrictions. I'd say that that's something in particular that's a problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Then please point it out vice a vague claim. Buffs (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I've already provided that here: [36], [37]. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I never said you were to blame for SR's block. I stated that you weren't blameless regarding your own actions. Each one stands on its own. We will agree to disagree here. Best of luck in the future. Buffs (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

What?? If you think that I'm "not blameless for my own actions", then start a separate section about it, and provide diffs. But you are just moving the goalposts and playing WP:IDHT. You asked me to back up what I said about problems in SR's block log: what you called "a vague claim". I gave you two diffs of what I had already said in this thread, and those previous comments of mine provided the information you seemed to be asking about: problems with his block log. All of that is plainly visible just above. But now, you jump back to where I said that I was tired of being told that those of us who were harassed by SR are the ones at fault. And you're wikilawyering that you didn't say that we were at fault, just that we were "not blameless". And that's what's been going wrong over all the repeated time sinks created by SR's repeated appeals and the shameful conduct of his enablers. SR harasses good-faith editors. And gets blocked for it, and it's in the block log, post-Cirt. And his enablers respond by saying that the people he harassed are themselves bad actors. Victim-blaming. Rinse and repeat. Again and again. And heaven forbid that anyone point out that it's victim-blaming. Because that's met with the crying of schoolyard bullies who got punched back by the bullied. Shame on Wikipedia if this appeal is granted. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) For those claiming there is no victim-blaming going on in this thread in past ones, this is a "great" example of such a personal attack by Buffs directed at Tryptofish where they cast what is called vague WP:ASPERSIONS about Trpytofish "not being blameless". In reality, we had an AE awhile back related to the interaction of SR and Trpytofish where admins were in agreement with statements such as no administrator has found serious or repeated fault with Tryptofish's behavior among others.[38] If anything, those claiming Trpytofish was at fault were politely chastised for not having any real evidence at that AE. That's how aspersions like Buffs is making now become commonly so disruptive in Sashiroll topics. KoA (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Tryptofish: Then let me be succinct and clear: your actions are not 100% in line with WP:CIVIL, et al throughout the timeframe in question. You (and others) have unnecessarily raised the temperature. If you want to take that as victim-blaming/victim-shaming/personal attack/etc, that's on you. The point is that you can do better, not that you "caused" SR to behave in the manner he did or are the "ones at fault". I am not asking for sanctions on you or anyone else opposed to SR's return, but don't confuse that with saying your actions are "above reproach". If you are "punching back" then you too are "fighting" when you can choose to walk away. To be fair, I too have made snide or unnecessary remarks that have raised the temperature as well here on WP, but that doesn't mean that it excuses the stalking that's happened to me (I've literally been doxxed and accused of murdering another user).

  That, however, is completely separate from my assessment of SR. The only reason I bring it up is because that temperature has been raised on both sides and the actions need to be seen within that context. That doesn't mean "you deserved it", merely that I see it within a larger context of events, not in complete isolation. If you cannot separate these two assessments, I can't help you. Likewise, you've responded 21 times in this thread alone...time to let it go and let the admins determine what needs to be done. Buffs (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  I've never claimed to be perfect. If in fact, we agree that SR's conduct should be evaluated on its own, and cannot be explained as having been caused by the actions of other editors, then that's something we can agree on. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support. I am new here, but it looks like there are a lot of strict rules that are easy to break by accident. Wikipedia administrators should be able to give people a second chance when they mess up and they should un-ban SashiRolls. If SashiRolls returns and keeps making the same mistake over and over, then administrators should ban the user again until the problem is fixed. Lobster from Maine (talk) 02:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

  (note - the above is a one day old account) - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support per Levivich mostly. Frankly, I don't see anything preventative about this ban that wouldn't be as easily and comprehensively covered by extant restrictions. And the idea that somehow SR could get away with even breathing in the wrong direction without this ban / a block being (re)imposed quicker than you can imagine. They have clearly been editing productively elsewhere; I suggest that we demonstrate some trust, after some years, and that perhaps if we don't poke the bear, the bear might bring some of that productivity back here. We gain a useful editor, SR behaves themselves, and a happy vista is viewed by all, hein? SN54129 18:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
• I'm agnostic about unbanning SashiRolls—they're clearly passionate about the project and have contributed substantially, but also seem a poor fit for the social aspects and expectations of this website. Maybe that's changed, although my experience is in line with TonyBallioni's in that I think we're more likely than not to end up back here, with regrets, if we unban them. That said, I could support an unban as long as it's clear that this isn't a second chance, but more like an nth chance, and that there won't be an (n+1)th chance.
  Setting aside SashiRolls, I do have to say that I'm really disappointed by the behavior of some of his supporters—a dynamic that goes back to his original ban. The victim-blaming is just a really shitty thing to do, but there's plenty of it in this thread. We should welcome or even solicit victim-impact statements when we consider unbanning people who were banned for cause, and we should consider the impact of an unban on people who previously bore the brunt of the banned editor's behavior. We should center the time and goodwill of those victims at least as much as we center the banned editor's perceived right to another bite at the apple. Instead, we usually pontificate about forgiveness, patronize the victims for their "pettiness", and pat each other on the back for our greatness of spirit—easy enough to do when the cost will be paid by someone else. MastCell ^Talk 19:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

  That second paragraph: amen! Thank you for that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

  Music to your ears, Trypto, I'm sure. Anyway, while this appeal doesn't seem likely to pass, at least MastCell, whose stated "agnosticism" here seems highly questionable, doesn't get to WP:SUPERVOTE this one, as such a SUPERVOTE wouldn't be needed. This, folks, is the absurdity. I, the actual victim in the original ban am accused of "victim blaming" (but I'd likely be lauded by Floq, Trypto and MastCell if I were to forever not forgive Sashi). It was I who was disparaged unrelentingly at the WPO during the original ban (though not so much by Sashi). It was I whom WPO admin trantino attempted to doxx back then.

And these carefully-crafted words from MastCell are hurtful, but in my experience from other disputes, that is MastCell's intent—though he cleverly doesn't mention me by name—to cause hurt to the opposition. I've been on the receiving end of it several times in the past few years. Otherwise, I never really see him around. Trypto's grievances of many years, however, are far from "petty." If they were, they'd be easy to overcome.

As for Floq's fire-and-forget animosity, I'm not gonna bother addressing that beyond my now-hatted comments. Obviously, my humor there had the opposite of its desired diffusive effect, as admittedly, I might have miscalculated/forgotten how deep these grievances go, to the point of being seemingly insurmountable. Should we expect anything different in an appeal years from now? And years from then, as well? Et cetera, etc.? Unfortunately, the answer appears to be a resounding no. El_C 18:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

In other words, everyone is being so, so unfair to you, which demonstrates that this appeal has merits. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, yes, poor me, sad merits. But no, Trypto, far from "everyone." But I do expect much disparagements against myself from certain people to pile on high, irrespectively of anything I could possibly say now. It's gonna suck, but it's almost certainly unavoidable. It is what it is. El_C 20:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

MastCell, while I somewhat appreciate the point you were trying to make in your second paragraph, I do not think it was wise or fair to use an emotionally-charged term such as "victim-blaming" to describe what is happening here. In this thread, several editors have argued against the unban by making unsupported negative comments about Sashi. I haven't seen anyone bat an eyelash over that. If that sort of thing is going to be allowed to stand, then I'm afraid we can't have it both ways. Besides, if the full context of Sashi's ban involves problematic behavior by his antagonists, then I think it is highly relevant to bring that up here. So, while your disappointment is noted, I suspect it is misguided. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

No, you are wrong about that, and your comment should not be allowed to stand unchallenged. If there is a concern about bad conduct by anyone else, then raise it in a separate thread specfically about that, instead of throwing around a vague aspersion in the hope that two wrongs make a right. And if there is a concern about unsupported negative comments about SR, refute them. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Challenge me all you like, but you greatly overestimate my interest in wasting my time on this matter, especially since the community is clearly unwilling to allow Sashi back at this time. At any rate, I haven't really seen any "victim-blaming" in this thread, and I remain of the belief that the background context of Sashi's ban is relevant to this discussion. Opening a separate thread would generate more heat than light, as you undoubtedly realize. And no, the onus is not on me to refute other people's unsubstantiated assertions about Sashi. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not a challenge to you, personally. But if people are going to complain that what MastCell said was unfair, then it behooves them to back up their claims, rather than just fold when someone asks them to show their cards. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Meh. I don't see MastCell backing up his claims either, and you don't have any problem with that. Heck, last I checked you were quoting him in an essay. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into my edit history. That essay is WP:DEFLECT, which is about, well, deflecting from the issue at hand. MastCell wrote about comments in this thread, so it is self-evident what he was referring to. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, as I said earlier, I have not seen any "victim-blaming" in this thread. So regardless of whether a person could infer which comments he was referring to, I wouldn't say that he backed up his claims. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

You haven't seen any victim-blaming? I can, in fact, infer that you can infer which comments he was referring to. Obviously, you are looking at the same comments that MastCell and I are looking it, but seeing them differently. That doesn't mean that he didn't provide evidence, just that you disagree with the evidence. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Beg pardon? I never said anything about not being able to tell which comments he was referring to. I expressed disagreement with his characterization of said comments. Those objections were raised two days ago, and he has yet to respond. IMO, that means he hasn't backed up his claims. I feel as though you and I are talking past one another. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• I'm ambivalent. On the one hand, indefinite doesn't mean permanent and SashiRolls has been doing verifiably good work on other projects. On the other hand, he was given a "last chance" in his 2018 unblock and after two years of issues wound up with this ban. On balance, I don't see myself supporting, but if the community wants to give a "last last chance" given his work on Commons, I wouldn't be strongly opposed, though I agree with MastCell and TonyBallioni that prior history isn't promising. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:11, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
• While I have no opinion about Sashi's request at this time, having read this thread I do have an observation and a thought. My observation is that we don't have good ways of assigning responsibility in a conflict. We essentially end up assigning it as 50/50 or 100/0. If it's really say 60/40 a 50/50 outcome isn't too bad. But sometimes it seems like when it's lopsided - say 90/10 or 95/5 - we're just as likely to default to 50/50 as 100/0, if not formally at least in comments. I don't know what there is to do about that but our lack of nuance in these discussions is something I see reading through comments here and see as the cause of some of the rancor that has happened. My thought is for people with Sashi's general profile, if rather than a straight unblock if something more akin to the unblock ArbCom did with Lightbreather might leave people feeling better. This would also address the general point Tony made above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
• Note. SashiRolls has made two further replies that they've asked to be copied over here. User talk:SashiRolls#Reply #3 and User talk:SashiRolls#Reply #4. They've both received responses there, but I'm drawing attention to them here as was intended. I don't feel comfortable copying them over myself. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support per my comments in the original ban discussion. I don't agree with the "unblocking will restart long term problems" arguments above. Sashirolls's reserve of AGF will be minimal to start with unless and until he earns more by not starting arguments even when he feels he's being baited, and he presumably knows Wikipedia well enough to know that the next block will be permanent and essentially unappealable. This means a de facto condition of any unblock—whether or not it's written formally—is "you are topic banned from anything remotely controversial". Either we're here again on one single future occasion to formally approve the permanent ban, or we gain an editor who's obviously knowledgeable and trying to help. ‑ Iridescent 05:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
  For the tape, this comment was technically canvassed as it's in response to a mention of me on Sashirolls's Commons talk page. Other than my participation in the original ban discussion, to the best of my recollection I have had no previous interaction with this editor anywhere. ‑ Iridescent 05:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  (adding) It seems fair to address Tryptofish's instead it is something where it is entirely the responsibility of the user to demonstrate, without coaching, that they truly understand their own responsibility for the ban and that they have a clear idea of how to become a net positive directly. English Wikipedia isn't like any other site (even other sites in the WMF ecosystem), and someone who's unable to participate here can't demonstrate changed behavior. It does seem to me that, by participation at related sites like Commons, SashiRolls is making a conscious effort to demonstrate they can get along with others in a wiki environment. Regarding WPO, the site isn't searchable so I can't comment on their conduct there, but I wouldn't really consider it relevant to an on-wiki ban appeal unless they were saying things spectacularly and irredeemably offensive. Since we're not even allowed to take other users' conduct on the official Discord and IRC channels into consideration, I certainly don't see why we should take into account someone's activity on a website with no connection to us at all. ‑ Iridescent 06:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  I'm past being tired of this discussion, and I'm only replying because you addressed me directly. I don't buy your reasoning, because SR can participate here, by posting the appeal request and by posting replies to comments here, via their talk page. I've never argued that they also would need to demonstrate good editing in mainspace here while blocked, as that would be a ridiculous expectation. And if you are referring to what I said about WPO, I said it only in response to what SR had said about it in the opening appeal. I appreciate, of course, trying to address what I said, but let's please deal with what I actually said. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry if I wasn't clear, by someone who's unable to participate here can't demonstrate changed behavior I wasn't referring to this discussion or his own talkpage; I meant that SashiRolls can't participate on Wikipedia in general, to demonstrate that they can get along with people without arguing. Anyone can make promises, but whether or not someone has actually changed their behavior is something that can only be tested in a live environment. (Somewhere like Commons doesn't really translate, as their different culture means that unless one consciously goes looking for trouble it's actually fairly difficult to have an argument there. I have upwards of 50,000 edits there, and I don't believe I've even been involved in so much as a minor disagreement.) ‑ Iridescent 20:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for that. You also raise a good point about Commons (that I suspect is also applicable to WikiData). Consequently, a lot of this discussion boils down to how to balance the edit history at the French Wikipedia with the history here. (And I've already made clear how I would balance that.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  You know, this comment chain reminded me that we have seen SR's behavior a bit here already through their talk page. In the process of this appeal, they've already been trying to get Volunteer Marek sanctioned with an interaction ban in User_talk:SashiRolls#Reply_#3 when there was mention of a one-way ban being needed to protect VM. User:GizzyCatBella correctly called that out.[39]. That comes across as still pursuing VM despite claiming they'd leave VM alone without the ban, and has a bit of that "winkyfaced insinuation" that Rhododendrites mentions below. If anything, it's more of the wikilawyering and "civil" POV-pushing attitude that the community had enough of. That kind of stuff can be hallmark under the radar WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior not noticed by those unfamiliar with SR's past issues unfortuantely. KoA (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• Hesitant support per Boing, Levivich and Iridescent. SR is going to be on a very short leash, and their words suggest they know it. I note that there's a few folks I respect opposing this, but I'm quite unimpressed with the comments others have made here about people whose conduct isn't under discussion. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
• After the initial ban, SR went over to WO to blow off steam. In that [apparently now-deleted] message, he highlighted a few people's opinions in particular, including making an off-hand comment about my job. It wasn't outing, to be clear, wasn't an attack, and didn't seem intended to be harmful, but it did illustrate one of the reasons I supported the ban in the first place. In the original block proposal, I wrote that that "they seem to have a particular kind of consistent battleground style characterized not by outright name calling or direct accusations of bad faith, but by pervasive winkyfaced insinuation, subtle personalization, and conspiratorial musing. It makes it harder to point to one or two diffs to hold up as especially egregious, but I find the effect much more damaging (and even chilling) than a more typical battleground approach".
  Now it's been a couple years, and in the absence of anything truly problematic to point to (I haven't seen anyone provide any evidence at all of problems with his contributions elsewhere) I'm not going to oppose this. While I'm also not quite supporting, I do think SR is a clever, well-read sort and has the potential to be able to improve a variety of topics constructively. The question is what will happen when he gets into disagreements. Even with a lot of scrutiny, we have a hard time dealing with battleground behavior when it doesn't involve crossing bright lines, so I suspect if this is successful, we'll see a lot more community time being spent here in the future. I hope I'm wrong. Maybe some sort of restriction on speculating about motives or something would help, but that'd probably just be a nightmare for everyone. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

This illustrates very well why their behavior was hard to deal with at ANI, etc. in the past and still would be. In the event they did return, it wouldn't be quite so simple as many supports make it seem to be in terms of SR being watched closely.

So whenever this does get closed, I think the closer looking at what you said and seeing how whatever proposed remedy in an unban (if any) would alleviate the situation you describe would go a long way. I'm obviously opposed, but in the event of consensus for an unban, that would need to establish consensus for a pathway the community is at least somewhat comfortable with for return. I'd say there really isn't consensus if a good number of supports are looking at all these other additional restrictions (though very reasonable avenues being explored to try making it work) to add to the long existing list, but the burden is really on the supports to show an avenue that deals with the numerous legitimate issues we had with SR that resulted in a site ban rather than additional restrictions. KoA (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I forgot about it Rhododendrites, but SR actually was subject to a personal comments restriction like you mention from 2019-2020.[40] Nightmare or not, it was deemed necessary back then. Yngvadottir, that's another one to add to your list of old sanctions or potential returning sanctions too as I don't think anyone has mentioned that one yet. KoA (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

We've done this before on other users, and I've seen how those play out. I can safely say that a restriction on "speculating about motives" will lead to two things: 1. People rushing to report SR for every small violation or non-violation, and 2. People rushing to defend SR for every violation, period, because they feel the restriction by design is too draconic. I think any discussion of an unblock ought not include a condition that ArbCom had previously deemed unenforceable by nature. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not aware of ArbCom saying they are unenforceable, and in my experience, they've been very effective in protecting the community for editors that just can't knock off battleground behavior. If anything, it's just a WP:FOC policy enforcement sanction. Some editors need a bright line that forces them to only work on content and actively keep their nose clean. Draconian maybe for someone who just got short with someone one time, but not so much in extreme battleground cases that resulted in a site ban. I think I can speak for most of the more outspoken opposes here that most would rather be glad just to not even worry about SR if such as sanction was in place rather than rushing to report SR. Most are instead more concerned about burdening other parts of the community with repeats of SR's past behavior, and I haven't really seen anyone here at least out to get SR. KoA (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - I went back and reviewed the notice that ultimately ended in the indefinite ban.[41] I have very little faith than anything is going solve the problematic behavior. If an editor receives a "last chance" and squanders it then that that should be the end of it. I'm sure there are blocked editors worthy of reconsideration, but this isn't one of them. Nemov (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
• I said earlier today that I was tired of commenting in this thread, but seeing yet another unfounded attack on me as a cheap tactic to WP:DEFLECT from the real issues at hand, I'm going to say something more. The conduct of several editors here, defending SR, seems to me to violate the WMF's Code of Conduct, as indeed SR's own conduct has done in the past. I hope that this appeal is declined. But if it isn't, if the en-wiki community just falls back on let's-give-yet-another-second-chance, it might just be a subject ripe for Trust and Safety. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Tryptofish, regardless of how hurt you feel, that's a remark intended to chill discussion. Please don't dismiss your fellow editors' right to their own opinions and to seek to explore options. It causes me to respect your position less. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

It also chills discussion when other editors needlessly cause hurt. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate that you probably don't want to hear this from me given that we are on opposite sides of this discussion, but please remember that you have repeatedly stated elsewhere in this thread that two wrongs don't make a right. Now you seem to be justifying your chilling remarks on the basis of perceived wrongdoing by others. You cannot have it both ways. And let me further add that as someone who may or may not be one of the intended targets of your threat, I will find it very difficult to take your criticisms of Sashi seriously if you are willing to stoop this low. The code of conduct was not implemented to be used as a cudgel for intimidating people on the noticeboards. Please choose your words more carefully, and please consider the possibility that your attempt to dictate to the community in this fashion may backfire. People don't like being threatened. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

You are directing that at me, so I'm replying. People who are comfortable with their own actions should not feel chilled or intimidated. There's no reason for the community to feel dictated to. I'm not trying to have anything both ways. I've been saying all along that SR's request should be evaluated on the basis of SR's own conduct. It's other editors, not me, who keep arguing that the real problem is the way SR was treated by me or other editors, and who keep trying to make this discussion focus on me or other editors who oppose the appeal. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

People who are comfortable with their own actions should not feel chilled or intimidated. Are you suggesting that people never get threatened unless they've done something to deserve it? I certainly hope you know better than that. And yes, by threatening to run to T&S if you don't get your way, you are absolutely dictating to the community. Don't bother to pretend otherwise. You say that you don't want this discussion to focus on you. Well, you should have realized that an ill-considered threat would draw more attention to you. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I've struck the statement, because it has become too much of a distraction. It's true that people who do not deserve it can be the targets of threats. It's also true that people who did not deserve it became the targets of SR's bad conduct, which is what should be the focus here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I've already stated my opinion on whether we should consider the broader context behind Sashi's ban. I am aware that you disagree, and it is not necessary for you to incessantly remind me. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose the unblock in 2018 was SR's last chance. They didn't participate effectively in the community at that point which is seen very clearly from the 4 discretionary sanctions and 4 blocks SR received in the year and a half they were in blocked in 2018-2020. The decision here is will SR be able to return to the community without causing further problems that will require admin intervention. Based on the history and that it's only a couple of years later, the answer to that is no. While this an example of my reasoning rather than the reason for it, as others have pointed out SR's comment in their unban request that How about we get out the calumet and agree to peacefully co-exist strongly suggests that this is not the case at this point and that SR seems to arguing that it wasn't their actions that caused the ban but the community, I dunno, looking for a fight. Turn of phrase or not this is something that SR put in their unban request, the thing that should convince the community that they understand the reason for the ban and that it is no longer necessary. See also TonyBallioni and RickinBaltimore's comments. Having said all of that I don't necessary think that SR fits into the 'never block' category but I think we're a few years off being in a position to welcome them back and that the unban request at that time needs to clearly demonstrate an understanding of the issues that lead to the ban and use that understanding to effectivley explain a commitment to not repeat the same behaviour or other behaviour that doesn't fit with our normal editorial processes and expectations. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Callanecc. I respect your different perspective, including seeing more than 2 years as only a couple of years, while it seems to me like an appreciable length of time, just as I've also noted KingofAces' very different interpretation from mine of SashiRolls' response to the suggestion of a one-way IBan with respect to Volunteer Marek. But I just can't see the reference to what used to be called a "peacepipe" in popular fiction, and the suggestion of agreeing to peaceful coexistence—which is pretty much WP:CIVIL summed up—as evidence of looking for a fight. I've turned it over and over in my mind and I still just don't see ill will, and SashiRolls' statements in this appeal have been all about how they intend to avoid conflict if reinstated. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Because it implies that the community needs to do something different in order for Sashi to be able to be part of it, that is agreeing to peacefully co-exist rather than existing within the community. A siteban is a clear statement that the person being banned is not acting in a way that is compatible with the collaborative editing environment on this project. It's up to that person to demonstrate that that is now not the case and hence that the ban is no longer necessary. It shouldn't be a matter of asking or implying that the community needs to co-exist with them, you can be a part of the community or you can choose not to but the community's responsibility isn't to co-exist with someone who isn't upholding its expectations of conduct. This may not be Sashi's intention behind that statement and as I said that statement isn't the reason I'm opposing lifting the ban at this point. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I've never heard of that interpretation of "co-exist" before. Levivich (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment/request for uninvolved admin review of this entire request thread. - Wow! In my 15 years of editing here I can't say I have seen a more dedicated effort at outright hostility than that displayed by two editors here, one of whom called me out without pinging me, the other who has now actually threatened to take to Trust and Safety those !voting, like myself, for an unblock in this matter should SR be unblocked, in a patently chilling manner. The 40 plus combined posts these two have made here on this thread on the Administrator's Noticeboard, the major Wikipedia Admin noticeboard, call for a review, as I see it, by an uninvolved admin. Please, review this entire request thread, and if need be, take appropriate action. We are way over the line, as I see it. Thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 05:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  Speaking as another unblock supporter, I don't interpret I hope that this appeal is declined. But if it isn't, if the en-wiki community just falls back on let's-give-yet-another-second-chance, it might just be a subject ripe for Trust and Safety as "threatening to take to T&S those voting for an unblock in this matter". I think what Tryptofish is trying to say (correct me if I'm wrong) is "The community clearly doesn't agree here so this needs a formal ruling from the WMF as to where the line should be drawn". Needless to say I disagree—I can't think of anything less likely to cool tempers than inviting the WMF to impose their own idiosyncratic definition of "appropriate conduct" onto English Wikipedia—but I don't believe the suggestion was either made in bad faith or intended to have any kind of chilling effect. (To reiterate, this whole thing looks to me like a completely routine WP:ROPE case. I honestly don't understand why so many words are being expended on it; the only three possible outcomes are "SashiRolls doesn't get unblocked", "SashiRolls gets unblocked and doesn't cause problems" or "SashiRolls gets unblocked, causes problems and promptly gets reblocked", none of which would be earth-shaking or set some kind of drastic precedent.) ‑ Iridescent 06:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think "chilling" is the apt word, but I also don't think the statement in question has the connotation of "the community clearly doesn't agree". It says if the community doesn't agree with a specific desired outcome, then a fourth outcome may be pursued. isaacl (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not really saying that this would be something to pursue if the community cannot agree, so much as it might be something to pursue if the community cannot get its act together. So Jusdafax seems to be formally calling for a review of my conduct, and KoA's. I pointed out earlier in this discussion that some editors have been coming here to defend SR because they see SR as having been on their "team" in previous content disputes. One of the biggest of those was GMOs. And don't for a minute underestimate Jusdafax's participation in that. If you go here and keep reading through to the section about Semitransgenic, you can see just where Jusdafax is coming from. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  Sure, so assuming by "get its act together" you mean agree with a specific outcome you have in mind, then failing to reach this outcome might cause another outcome to be pursued. (I don't think the rest of your comment is related to mine.) isaacl (talk) 03:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support Enough time has elapsed that SashiRolls should be given another chance. Their contribution to other Wiki projects shows that they want to be part of the project, are aware of its rules and want to contribute. I note that three of the editors opposing unbanning have had content disputes with SashiRolls and were themselves indefinitely blocked and returned. I don't see why they should be allowed back and SashiRolls shouldn't. TFD (talk) 07:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  Three mysteriously unnamed editors? This is exactly what I mean when I point to WP:2WRONGS. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  Could you please avoid personal attacks against me such as your claims that I was arguing WP:2WRONGS. Please assume good faith. These three editors were permanently blocked and returned and have managed to remain unblocked for a long time now. The moral is that editors can learn. I didn't mention the names because it should no longer be held against them. But you can check the block logs of all the editors in this discussion.

  Incidentally, I agree it's time for you to stop arguing. I should be able, like other editors to post my opinion without having to explain them to you. I didn't add a comment after your vote. TFD (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  I'm replying because you directed that at me. Thank you for clarifying that you meant that those three editors came back and were net positives, which is evidence that people can learn and improve. The way you originally wrote it seemed to me to mean that those three editors were just as at fault as SR, and so, to be fair, SR should be treated the same as those three others, and my point is that SR should be evaluated on his own merits, and not excused because someone else supposedly had been. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  In the same edit as the comment above, you wrote, "some editors have been coming here to defend SR because they see SR as having been on their "team" in previous content disputes". So: some mysteriously unnamed editors? Levivich (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  You're right, that's a valid point. Where I said that, I was referring to Jusdafax. Unless someone wants me to, I won't try to make a comprehensive list of the others. But in the interest of making it plural, let's add your participation at pretty much every AE discussion about SR, where, in every case, the reviewing admins concluded that your assertions were not factual. But, in any case, the discussion here is about SR's appeal, and TFD's complaint that the fact that unspecified other editors were unblocked should be a reason to unblock SR is WP:2WRONGS. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  where, in every case, the reviewing admins concluded that your assertions were not factual is not factual. You're now approaching 30 replies in this discussion; it might be time to stop attacking people who are voting support. Levivich (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  Alright, almost every case. Are you trying to chill my participation? And, to be precise, I'm responding to people who are attacking me. If you don't want me to reply to you, don't direct a comment at me. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  almost every case is also not factual. In fact, nobody has ever said that my arguments in any AE was "not factual". Plenty of people have disagreed with my interpretations, my conclusions, my principles... but not my facts. Because at AE I post diffs. The suggestion that I have made false statements of fact... is false. Attacking my credibility was low and uncalled-for, same as your attack on Justdafax's motives, and others', including Sashi's. I've never understood quite why you've had such a bee in your bonnet about Sashi to the point that you bludgeon every discussion about him and even go so far as to attack those who disagree with you, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who's noticed. Levivich (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  I feel strongly because I was on the receiving end of SR's malicious behavior. But I'm not the issue here, no matter how hard you or other enablers try to make me the issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  See? You called me an "enabler". That's another attack. Isn't it just OK that we disagree about whether or not Sashi's site ban should be lifted (or should have been imposed in the first place)? Do we have to also label those we disagree with, impugn their motives or their credibility? Can't we agree that we're both reasonable people looking at the same set of data and coming to different conclusions about it? For example, I'm not accusing you or anyone else of axe grinding or holding a grudge or trying to use bans as a way to win a content dispute or anything like that. I think the original ban was uncalled for, and that in any event, two years of productive contribs to sister projects is sufficient to demonstrate that an editor can productively contribute to this project. You disagree. That's fine with me. I hope it's fine with you, too. Levivich (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  Ha! To be absolutely honest, I wanted to see if you would pick up on that, and you did! So, let's look earlier in this discussion. I said: I want to respond to that point about supposedly holding petty grudges. For me, this is no more about holding a grudge, than it is about being an enabler when editors who have long memories about past disputes over GMOs or AmPol come here to support the request on behalf of someone they perceive as having been on their "team". And an awfully high percentage of the editors who have commented here fit that description. So we can go back and forth calling one another grudge-holders or enablers, or we can look at what would be in the best interests of this project. Then, when I referred back to that, by saying: I pointed out earlier in this discussion that some editors have been coming here to defend SR because they see SR as having been on their "team" in previous content disputes, you jumped on it because I had said "some editors", instead of naming them. You berated me over having a "bee in my bonnet", and now you say that you aren't accusing me of holding a grudge. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  To quote from a much earlier discussion, Good people make bad mistakes, more than once. Levivich (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  Levivich, I was there at that AE.[42] You did have credibility issues that admins pretty politely rebuked you in your pursuit of Tryptofish there. That is your problem to deal with, not something to label as an attack when pointed out, nor is it appropriate to pursue and rile up editors and claim they have a been in their bonnet about someone else when you are the one shaking the bee (I can say as an entomologist, don't antagonize bees).

  Please take this as a serious warning that you need to back off on the battleground behavior you were warned about at ANI.[43] in pursuing editors. You and I have talked about that plenty before. Not only is it disruptive and blowing up the size of this section, but what you are doing is hardly even centered on SR anymore. The reality is that SR also had serious issues in their motives and actions at the ban discussion and prior. Denying that doesn't help SR return, nor does going on tangents in your pursuit of Tryptofish. It only muddies the water and makes the potential for an unban move towards no consensus. That behavior honestly made things worse for SR then (which is why I brought it up earlier in this thread), and you doing it sure doesn't help them now. I'll be one to say I wasn't really planning to post here again until I saw this going on, so knock it off and let everyone move on. KoA (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  Funny, I didn't read I don't find his evidence of "Tryptofish following SashiRolls" to be persuasive. and Levivich seems to be the only one attempting to present any evidence of misconduct by Tyrptofish, but I'm not actually seeing anything in there that demonstrates any wrongdoing as being rebukes. I'll be sure to treat your warning with the seriousness it deserves. Levivich (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  One can get some perspective on this part of the discussion by looking at the first thing I said in the previous discussion that culminated in the ban that SR is now appealing: [44]. Look at what I said then. I wasn't looking for it. Someone (Levivich!) started posting incorrect things about me, and only that made me feel compelled to involve myself. It was way past a second chance then, and it was redundant then. And there's a cost to this project when editors like me become discouraged by disputes like this, and decrease our contributions as a result. How many more times does the community have to say "enough is enough"? And for those who are complaining now that I'm commenting here too much, by my count roughly 26 of the comments I've posted are direct responses to other editors who addressed me by name, or who insulted me, or who misrepresented something I had said or done. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Tryptofish: You may want to review the principles of WP:Bludgeon and how they align with civility. You've made your point extremely/abundantly clear. If you continue, despite repeated requests for you to stop [45] [46] [47] [48] , I will be asking for a block for the duration of this thread as it is becoming disruptive. (link to this addition for ease of use [49]) Buffs (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  One of those diffs is actually KoA agreeing with me. And you don't exactly have a lot of credibility lecturing me about civility. I guess the truth stings. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Tryptofish: KoA may have agreed, but he also asked you to stop...you haven't...here we are... Buffs (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  I've just re-read that about ten times, and I'm not seeing anywhere he said that. @KoA: did I miss anything? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  You are indeed correct; I misread it. Stricken Buffs (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks. KoA, no need for you to reply here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, given that Tryptofish was directly impacted by SashiRolls, one way or another, I think he has every right to comment and make his argument. An admin will step in if it's necessary. What does semi-retirement mean anyway? 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 01:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support - I echo a many of the same sentiments other supporters have expressed. Atsme 💬 📧 12:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
• I know I'm going to get yelled at for this. But SR has posted this on his talk page: [50]. One can see it positively, as a demonstration of making constructive edits. But the promise to ignore food-fights and don't interact with folks who have never given and will likely never give up on their quests cuts both ways. On the plus side, it's a promise to stay away from fights. That's good. But it's also, beyond any doubt, a commentary about me and maybe other editors including KoA and VM and others. That latter aspect was not necessary, as he could have just said something like don't interact with folks where there could be a conflict, which would have been neutral language and not problemmatic. I'm willing to allow, under the circumstances, that he should be able to let off some steam. But he has to know that his comments during this AN discussion are going to be scrutinized (and even copied here), and that he is under a 1-way IBAN towards me. If he is flirting with a violation of that, at least borderline, while the appeal is still going on, I think that leaves little room for doubt what will happen if the decision here is to grant the appeal under the expectation that his every move will be scrutinized. Again, I know I'm going to get yelled at now. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

  Let’s try this method. Thank you Tryptofish for bringing this up, and that’s it. We don’t need another argument stemming from this, we don’t need to waste another thousand words for the closer to read. Next person’s vote, please. starship.paint (exalt) 01:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I was concerned about this request from early on, but not concerned enough to look into it more. However SashiRolls comments have convinced me to come off the fence. I'm sure others have been wrong in the way they interacted with SashiRolls, however it's clear that there was also a lot of wrong in the way SashiRolls behaved. While SashiRolls may be sincere in their desire to avoid problem areas and disputes, I'm always sceptical that someone can when they don't properly appreciate that they were the problem which is clearly the case whoever else may also be or have been the problem. However SashiRolls comments lead me to believe they do not properly understand that they were the problem. I'd add that for someone who was given as many chances as SashiRolls, I don't consider that their ban time has been that long. Given all that, their contributions in other projects aren't enough to make me think things will be better this time around, especially since I'm not convinced that the same issues that have arisen here so easily arise in those other projects. To be clear, this means I'm not saying never, but not now and probably not soon either. Nil Einne (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, I reaffirm my support for the ban to be lifted. SashiRolls has continued to edit productively on other projects during this discussion, and I concur with Iridescent that this is a WP:ROPE situation. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Ditto. Victim statements are important, but they [should] carry no more weight than any other edititor's evidence, and in a case like this where even many of the opposes admit a degree of disinterest ("Weak oppose", etc), the views of one editor should not be the arbitor of the entire discussion, nor color the discussion in its entirety. Indeed, much of the 'victim statement' peripatetically scattered throughout the above discussion could equally fall under the decription of bludgeoning, even when they themselves, quote/unquote know they're going to get yelled at for this whilst acknowledging the possible positivity of SR's editing *facepalm* SN54129 13:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
    • +2. Sashi's productive editing elsewhere is far more persuasive to me than the oppose voters' rationales. Levivich (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
      • IMO it's not so persuasive when people who didn't think there was a problem to begin with, when there was consensus for a ban, return to say there's still not a problem. There was consensus for a ban, so I would hope the closer weighs more heavily the opinions of those who saw the initial problem as problematic and have reconsidered (or who didn't participate previously which, to be clear, does apply to Yngvadottir AFAICT). YMMV. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
        • Indeed, the denialism aspect has been mentioned quite a bit already, so editors who continue to deny the past issuses are still contributing to the problems we had at the last ANI. We can't so easily just turn around and say sure, no big deal, on an unban with the attitudes I've been seeing in those !votes. For those of us that have been trying to weigh different avenues for SR, removing that aspect would make discussions on this particular topic much easier to work through. That only results in editors having to plant their feet in the ground to hold such fringe viewpoints at bay while at the same time making themselves appear more partisan than they really are. KoA (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
  • SN54129, I will remind you that WP:NPA does apply on admin boards for could equally fall under the decription of bludgeoning, and I really suggest striking that. That Tryptofish, one of SR's main targets, was attacked and piled on (not to mention lied about repeatedly) at this board is not an excuse to victim blame. They have every right to talk about what happened to them over very numerous SR interactions and respond to the numerous lies/WP:ASPERSIONS that came up here about Tryptofish. It really amounts to "quit hitting yourself" comments ironically blaming the person being bludgeoned by attackers for blugeoning, and it's well past time comments like yours stopped. Most of that stuff had already been debunked about Tryptofish and in part why the block request had to be pulled below. I think we're at the point where if editors continue WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior here, especially since there wasn't anything inflammatory recently until your comment here, they seriously need to click the Log out button in the upper right corner and take a breather. It's only serving to disrupt this board at this point and distract from SR. KoA (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
• I want to reaffirm my support for the close request below. It looks to me like there is absolutely nothing new in any of the comments that follow Nil Einne's comment. Editors are just repeating what they said earlier, in case anyone looking on is hard of hearing. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support - I supported the ban in 2020 however a lot can change in 2 years, Sash hasn't caused any more dramah elsewhere and has seemingly been editing constructively - One could argue the 2020 ban was their final chance or the one before that but I believe in giving second/third chances, A lot can change in 2 years but if it hasn't changed they'd be blocked quicker than anyone can blink so support. –Davey2010^Talk 00:10, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support The fact that someone has been blocked does not mean they cannot contribute positively at any point in the future, especially considering it has been two years since the block was imposed. Partofthemachine (talk) 03:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Block request

request withdrawn, no other support for proposal. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Requesting a block of Tryptofish for the duration of this discussion for bludgeoning his position to the point of disruption and incivility: Repeated requests to stop from multiple users: [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] Continued behavior after multiple requests/warnings: [56] Support as submitter. Buffs (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC) Boomerang The hypocrisy is staggering. User:Buffs says to Tryptofish "Tryptofish: You may want to review the principles of WP:Bludgeon and how they align with civility" yet it is only six weeks since Buffs themselves was previously blocked for "Persistent bludgeoning of discussions after several warnings". They were unblocked by User:Bishonen after promising "I will pledge not place more than one reply per subheading in any WP:AN forum through the end of the year" [57]. Well, here we are again, six days into the new year, and here's Buffs not only bludgeoning a discussion (seven replies so far) but trying to get others blocked. I think this is probably enough now. Black Kite (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC) Actually, they didn't even manage to keep their promise, placing three replies on Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#2022_pregnancy_of_a_10-year-old_in_Ohio on 30 December (they're up to 8 on that one now). Black Kite (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC) For what little it is worth, I don't think anyone should be blocked here, but Buffs, this is a bad look. That said, Happy Friday to all. Dumuzid (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC) Agree with Dumuzid. There is much more I could add, but I have long since learned to simply make your point, and leave. Happy editing everyone!! Atsme 💬 📧 21:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC) WP:BLP is not a WP:AN forum (thanks for showing that I kept my word) "Seven" replies is "bludgeoning" now? 4 were actual replies (none longer than the remarks that followed from tryptofish), one was a request/warning, one was a notification, and the last was the block request). Yes, I was blocked. I admitted fault in the matter...for the same thing I'm asking Tryptofish to be blocked for. It is not hypocrisy to ask for the same standards to be upheld. Why is such a block good enough for me and not someone else? (for the record, I think it's reasonably fair to discount any clarification questions made by Tryptofish as he correctly pointed out an error on my part that is now stricken). I would not consider a reasonable statement here "bludgeoning" either as it is a separate, but related topic. Addendum: BK by saying "I think this is probably enough now." are you saying "That's all I have to say" or "If Buffs says anything more, I'll block him"? You're being somewhat vague...the last time I misread the edicts of an Admin, I was blocked. Buffs (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC) Thank you Black Kite, Dumuzid, and Atsme. I don't feel any desire for a boomerang, even though I find this litigation to be vexatious. If I look at it from Buffs' perspective, I can see how it might feel like giving me what he recently got. I'll take this opportunity to point out that, although I'm commenting a lot, I'm not disrupting anything. Exactly simultaneously with this AN discussion, I also took part in this AN thread. I commented a lot there, too. But take a look at how my comments contributed to that discussion, and follow-on discussions here and here. And (despite some claims to the contrary), in the thread here, you can find numerous cases where, although I replied to an editor supporting the appeal, I ended up letting someone else have the last word. You'll also see me acknowledging when editors I disagree with make a good point. And, as I said in the comment that apparently motivated Buffs to file this about me, the vast majority of my replies have been, alas, to editors insulting me, misrepresenting things I said or did, or simply addressing a comment to me by name. (I'll compile diffs if I need to, but it's all visible above.) The fact that this unban discussion has gotten so ugly really does reflect badly on the editing culture here. But the best thing now is to just move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC) In fact, the first part of this diff: [58], shows me admitting I'm not perfect, and finding a way to agree with Buffs. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC) If you're saying you're done here, then the block as requested (which was only for the duration of this discussion is a moot point and I'll withdraw my request. A block at this point would not serve any justifiable purpose. I also wouldn't consider it "bludgeoning" if you responded to someone else's future question directed toward you. Buffs (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC) I'm not going to bargain with you over this. You've posted a request, and you are free to withdraw it or to let it play out. As you correctly note, I've been mostly responding to questions or comments directed at me. But I'm not going to negotiate in advance over whether something was a question, or a comment. I still see no reason for a boomerang against you. And I appreciate your having struck part of what you said above, so thank you for that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC) Buffs just struck the request here. I hope that an admin will close this part, and we can just move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Close request

I believe this discussion has run its course. I think it's best if someone appropriate will please close this thread as they see fit and as they assess is the community consensus. Buffs (talk) 05:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• Concurred. starship.paint (exalt) 13:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reporting concerning User:87.9.99.123

Vandalism on Very Mobile: Persistent removal of content, already rolled back by multiple users and IPs.--62.18.48.161 (talk) 09:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Renames

Renames:

• Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Drafts/Pageview dumps ➞ Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Next next issue/Concept
• Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Next next issue/Concept ➞ Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Drafts/Pageview dumps

Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Newgen Software Tech AfD

Just a heads up that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newgen Software Tech was filed by a suspected sockpuppet where the master and the rest of the collective (some of which are CU confirmed) swooped in to !vote "keep" in what has been theorized as a potential extortion scheme. (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darshak.parmar). There have been some legitimate "delete" !votes since then, otherwise I probably would've deleted the AfD or closed as a bad faith nomination as part of the SPI closure, but wanted to raise this in case any administrators have concerns about letting this AfD continue to run given who the nominator was, the potential motives, etc. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I have closed as delete for reasons I laid out at the AfD but essentially whatever bad faith was had in this nomination is outweighed, in my view, by the repeated consensus that this topic is not notable over a number of years. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Barkeep49: TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Urgent request, serious fraud discovered by me and other editors attacked and vandalized a page.

Hello,

I discovered that the Bitcoin Foundation is promoted on WikiPedia as an "active U.S. non-profit" which is a blatant lie, I have edited the page to make sure that everyone aware that this fake organization is not tax-exempt because the Internal Revenue Service has revoked its charitable status! IRS.gov screenshot: https://i.imgur.com/525TN4Q.png

The article multiple times very quickly reverted by multiple editors to the version that is completely fake. Worth noting that the subject of the article is run by a former Disney star Brock Pierce.

I request administrators to remove all mention of "active charity" and "tax-exempt" status from the article or better just delete it completely and add a new section to the page of Brock Pierce. 5.142.192.53 (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea whether Bitcoin Foundation is non-profit or not, but I blocked the filed for a week for block evasion and protected the article for a month. None of the socks tried to use the talk page. Ymblanter (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea either, but it's probably worth looking into, and the IP should pick a new IP to use the article's talk page to present their case (in a more calm, rational, and reliable manner). The IP is merely replacing a blocked proxy, so it's not really block evasion. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, whereas this is clearly the same person, and the previous IP was still blocked when they started editing, the block was for using a proxy, so this is not evasion. I could have blocked for edit-warring as well, but not for a week. I will unblock with the time served. Ymblanter (talk) 08:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

At the risk of making a content-related comment at AN, the foundation claims to be a 501(c)6 nonprofit, which seems to have been revoked based on the IRS filing. The actual citation in the article is an old screenshot of a filing with the City government of Washington, D.C., but the IP actually does seem to be correct that the foundation lost its nonprofit status. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I cannot find any RS reporting this, though. Can anyone else? Levivich (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Nope, just the primary (IRS site). I can repro the OP's screenshot but can't link directly to the results. You have to start at Search for tax exempt organizations. Schazjmd (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, the article was previously citing literal imgur screenshots filings with Washington, D.C.'s city government. The IRS stuff verifies, and I think we have reasonable grounds to include it. Guidestar provides an explanation as to why it was revoked (it was for repeated failure to file tax returns).

While we're here and discussing crypto things going just great, might as well ping the SMEs. @GorillaWarfare and David Gerard: Do you happen to have any information as to the revocation of the Bitcoin Foundation's tax-exempt status that might provide a bit more insight into this, whether it be news articles or SME blog posts? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Bitcoin Foundation has basically been a zombie org nobody cares about since about 2015, so I expect RSes will be thin on the ground. The active bitcoin money goes to various industry lobbying groups now. I'm not surprised the Bitcoin Foundation didn't bother doing the most basic things - David Gerard (talk) 10:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

• I am not sure what this has to do with Brock Pierce (article subject appears to potentially be a dubious fellow and self promoter). There was an IP address post on Talk:Brock_Pierce#Marine_toys_for_tots that also called into question the Toys for Tots donations. Now we have an IP address editor calling into question the Bitcoin Foundation. Note that Gavin Andresen seems to have founded the Bitcoin Foundation (Gavin at one point in time notable as the person that Satoshi gave the keys to when he left the building) with Gavin being a controversial figure who seems to have been dupped into thinking that Craig Steven Wright (another likely scammer) was Satoshi Nakamoto, and was hence booted from Bitcoin Core. On the Bitcoin Foundation article this IP address editor seemed intent on speedy deletion in the edit summary (this is clearly not that process at AN). I would be opposed to speedy deletion. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Request for Draft:Deji Olatunji to be moved to Article space.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

If any administrators have any spare time, can I request that Draft:Deji Olatunji be moved to an Article space. I would move the page myself, however the page is currently restricted. The restriction was placed before I began editing the page.

Please feel free to review the draft and leave any feedback if you believe the draft does not meet the requirements to be an article. You can leave your feedback either on the draft’s talk page or on my personal talk page.

Thank you. TooLebby (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Note that the draft at issue was rejected, and the user is not hearing what they are being told. This isn't an administrator issue. 331dot (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

This is an administrator issue. I’ve given the users plenty of information that shows the subject is notable. However, they will not overrule their decision as they are going on previous declines on the draft and their own opinion. TooLebby (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

This is forum-shopping. It's already under discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk#21:04:56,_15_January_2023_review_of_submission_by_TooLebby. TooLebby should withdraw their request here before a WP:BOOMERANG. --Yamla (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sitenotice request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, I'd like to request sitenotice for Feminism and Folklore 2023 articles writing contest in the month of February and March. I'd also like to request to approve fountain editathon via this link. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 21:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

This seems to be a very small affair (last year had 8 participants), why does it warrant a site notice? Seems like serious overkill for what is a niche topic (the combination of feminism and folklore), where some of the 23 articles from last year don't seem to have much to do with "feminism and folklore" anyway (at least not Tanzeem Ul Firdous or Kathivanoor Veeran). Fram (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@ZI Jony: Probably better as (at most) a watchlist notice. To request those, go to MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages. —Kusma (talk) 11:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose a sitenotice would only be appropriate for something very very serious of importance to every reader and editor. I'd think any of the lesser notices (geonotice if approriate, central notice if this is cross-project, or watchlist notice) would be a better location for something like this. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
• What's a sitenotice? What's a geonotice? What's a "central notice"? As for a watchlist notice, which is the only one I'm familiar with, why would this contest warrant a watchlist notice given its history?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

• @Bbb23: ^---. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

• @Xaosflux: Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

• @ZI Jony: I see you filed a parallel request for a watchlist notice, are you abandoning the request for a sitenotice now? — xaosflux ^Talk 21:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Xaosflux: yes, please close this request. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 23:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Undeletion request (urgent)

See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2023_January_16#Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Template/Signpost-block-start

The two templates deleted there, Template:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Signpost-block-end and Template:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Signpost-block-start, are actually in use in the current Signpost issue, specifically: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-01-16/Special_report and the deletion has filled the page with warning messages.

Could someone kindly undelete them? Thanks. Andreas JN466 00:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a Twinkle error, and the templates are not actually being nominated for deletion. I have been cleaning up a few hundred obsolete, broken and unused pages in the Signpost's space, which until today I have been doing with speedy deletion nominations (with no issues); recently, someone declined a G6 and requested that I put all future pages through full XFD discussions. Apparently, if a template redirect is nominated for deletion, Twinkle will sometimes attempt to tag the main template with a TfD notice as well; the templates (in active use) that were showing these TfD notices haven't been nominated for deletion at all. jp×g 00:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, all good as new now. Andreas JN466 00:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Kusma:, who was the one who requested this procedure be done for Signpost template redirects: do you know why it's doing this? jp×g 00:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

No idea. —Kusma (talk) 06:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Contentious topics procedure now in effect

In December, the Arbitration Committee adopted the contentious topics procedure, which replaces the former discretionary sanctions system. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial implementation period.

• For a detailed summary of the changes from the discretionary sanctions system, see WP:DSVSCT.
• A brief guide for administrators may be found at Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Administrator instructions.
• Updated templates may be found at Template:Contentious topics.
• Suggestions and concerns may be directed to the arbitration clerk team at WT:AC/C.

The drafting arbitrators warmly thank all those who have worked to implement the new procedure during this implementation period and beyond. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Contentious topics procedure now in effect

AIV is pretty backlogged

AIV is pretty backlogged. There's 3 pending bot reports, and 10 user reports outstanding, with the oldest report being a little over 4 hours old. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

• Dealth with. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Openshack (talk · contribs) personal attack and WP:Editwarring on Salford

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This new member who joined two days ago decided in their edit summary on Salford to use the following words: [59] "correct, your bad - by removing it". This is would fall under WP:Personal and they have seemingly won't leave established sources and material alone without the correct way of discussion. I'd like to propose a topic ban for them on Salford or a red warning as WP:Personal is frowned upon and I've left them a message telling them to not attack me in their edit summary.

But I'd like to bring this to admin attention to warn them about it. Thanks DragonofBatley (talk) 12:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Openshack appear sto have reverted you once, challenging the content as unsourced, which you have reverted. Do you have diffs of more reverts? This looks like a content dispute that should be discussed at the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I have apologised in my own talk about the personal attack. I didn't mean it quite like it looked as I'm sure everyone will realise. But yeah, I will be more careful and not repeat it. As for the edit war business. I'm happy to stop reverting and use talk. --Openshack (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I reverted them on the grounds of them removing long established content and sources. They haven't engaged on talk page of article where I opened a discussion last night. They also ruined the Bury, Greater Manchester by retaining Bury to be part of Manchester city when it's not and they also tried making Salford as a city within the city of Manchester which are both inaccurate and incorrect.

I had also told them on their talkpage that their edit summaries are not for taking personal shots at other editors which they did in their one revert as stated above. Nobody has issues with Salford as it was other than the editor in question who joined only two days ago and decided to get personal with me. DragonofBatley (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry only just saw the their reply above when I posted. Yeah okay I accept their apology and would suggest having a fair discussion at the article talkpage DragonofBatley (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• I've indeffed Openshack for socking.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ToBeFree appointed trainee clerk

The arbitration clerks are pleased to welcome ToBeFree (talk · contribs) to the clerk team as a trainee.

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

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § ToBeFree appointed trainee clerk

User Page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Delete my user page please. Thanks MEHRDAD (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done: for future reference, the preferred procedure is at Template:Db-u1. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User that appears to making numerous racist pro-Chinese anti-American edits on many pages

This is my first time reporting this type of thing so not sure the best place to put this. But the user User:Golden_Mage seems to be making many pro-Chinese anti-American/anti-European edits on many pages, including edits converting edits such as this where they changed links to Indigenous peoples of the Americas to Redskin and changed links to Chinese people to Han Chinese. Ergzay (talk) 09:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The edit you linked was to an article discussing obsolete racial categorisations from the 18th century, so while I know nothing about the subject matter, it's not immediately obvious to me that linking to terms like "Negroid" and "Redskin", or changing Chinese people to Han Chinese, is even contextually incorrect, let alone racist. You say this was on many pages -- are there examples on articles that aren't about 18th century race science? Endwise (talk) 09:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Per Endwise, these all appear to be relevant terms in context. Yes, the terminology is considered wrong and racist today, but in the context, these are the terms used by the people like Blumenbach. Also, he's adding these as piped links so that modern readers can get the correct context; he's not using the terms in a reader-facing way. I don't see anything like what the OP is categorizing here, I see nothing that is "pro-Chinese" or "Anti-American". If the user in question is doing so, the one diff we are given shows nothing of the sort. --Jayron32 16:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

It's difficult to see any merit in the original complaint whatsoever, especially having looked over 20-25 of Golden Mage's most recent contributions. Frankly, the accusation that this user is somehow "pro-Chinese" tests the bounds of WP:AGF. Theknightwho (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The linked diff is an improvement. Those are the terms used in that time period (cf scientific racism). EvergreenFir (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

User keeps removing well sourced facts

A Polish user @Marcelus in the article Poles in Lithuania despite comments by various users, keeps removing well sourced material because of an agenda of his own of not letting anyone present these facts instead of his ideas of "influx of Poles to Lithuania" (never happened – no sources for this information), "strip of land of total Polishness" (historical sources reject this nonsense, that reminds propaganda from the 1920s and to the contrary, there are language islands), etc. Please, arbitrate and stop this edit warring with a constant removal of sourced historical and ethnographic material. 90.131.35.248 (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Eh, first of all we are talking about the WP:LEDE, which is a short summary of the article. Polish community in Lithuania was created on the basis of the influx of Polish people and the Polonization of autochthons. There are references for the migration of Poles in the article, section "History". There is not mention of the "strip of land of total Polishness", but In the 19th century, the processes of Polonization also affected Lithuanian and Belarusian peasants and led to the formation of a long strip of land with a predominantly Polish population, stretching to Daugavpils and including Vilnius, which again is described in more detail in relevant section. Marcelus (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• Article semiprotected for 1 week, as I believe but cannot prove that the IP is evading an edit warring block, and I would prefer to see them participate in a discussion in good faith over their concerns rather than continue edit warring from another new IP, but if they don't I will be very unforgiving with the block button. @Marcelus: various users' allegations of ownership against you are very hard to refute given that you keep restoring your last revision without regard to intervening edits, often without explaining why. Please use the talk page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector all of these IPs are probably the same users. I explained why the changes are bad/unnecessary here: Talk:Poles_in_Lithuania#Unsourced_restored, and here User_talk:78.56.121.167. The user clearly doesn't care about it, because he didn't respond once. Also I would like to let you know, that he moved now to History of Poles in Lithuania Marcelus (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I'm watching that article too. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Small check

Is article Vlad Levykin was created over deleted Volodymyr Levykin? Anntinomy (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

They are two different names, so no, but they are the same person, and I've deleted Vlad Levykin per WP:G4.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

User:D.Lazard

D.Lazard (talk · contribs) This user has constantely undoing right corrections of many users in some pages (for example, 'Euler's totient function') JuanPV78 (talk) 03:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC).

I have given the above user some advice on their talk. As there is no discussion on article talk, the matter does not warrant discussion at a noticeboard at this stage and this should be closed soon. Johnuniq (talk) 06:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Is there any way to delete a Wikipedia?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like the infamous Hungarian Wikipedia to be deleted, due to it censoring its users and unfairly deleting pages. 2A01:36D:1201:2EA:885:EC9A:119C:27C1 (talk) 11:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

This isn't really a question appropriate for this page, but I highly doubt misconduct by the admins there would result in the total removal of any language version of Wikipedia. If the editors of the Hungarian Wikipedia(which I assume the vast majority of whom are in Hungary) are willing to tolerate censorship and how users are treated, that's up to them. Possibly the Foundation would step in to change the administrators if they were acting unfairly, but it would have to be pretty bad, and against the wishes of that community. 331dot (talk) 11:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

To expand on 331dot’s comment “This isn’t really a question appropriate for this page”: this is a page for discussion concerning administrators of English Wikipedia only, no one here has any rights or power over Hungarian Wikipedia. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User: M.Ashraf333 & General Qamar Javed Bajwa page

The user M.Ashraf333 has constantly been undoing my additions on the Qamar Javed Bajwa page, claiming that I represent some sort of political bias. This is despite the fact that my additions contain a wide number of sources, and nowhere do I claim that my posts are proven facts; everywhere I have posted 'claimed' and 'accused'.

I have made these additions, with a variety of sources, because I feel that they are relevant to the wiki page- especially one that relates to a national figure.

I've even put a section to tell both sides of the story as well. If the user disagrees with my additions, they are free to add anything here, or anywhere else on the page, to shed further light on both sides of the story- (with sources of course), though by no means should this be an opportunity to blatantly censor relevant information- and in my opinion this attitude of censorship is against everything that Wikipedia stands for.

Each time the user removes my post, they state no other reason for doing so other than accusing me of 'political bias'- despite the fact that I am literally just posting relevant info gathered from sources. On the latest undos of my posts they have begun slinging personal attacks based off my edit history, and now they are threatening with blocking me from editing the page.

It takes me quite some time for my contributions to Wikipedia, and seeing the repeated personal attacks of bias in my attempts to tell both sides of a story is quite hurtful.

This is about the third place on Wiki that I have now posted my concerns with this user's disruptive behavior, including the article's talk page to avert an edit war, but nowhere am I receiving any responses from Wiki mods. Umer23459 (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you haven't informed User:M.Ashraf333 that you're opening this thread. This is necessary as every complaint has two sides and he has the right to express his. Animal lover |666| 06:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Animal lover 666, As I replied him multiple times but he keeps pinging me everywhere to defame me. I have put a section to tell both sides of the story as well. This is exactly the point I tried to convey to him, he includes the usual daily news to BLP which is not verified by any court, i.e. allegations of journalist, statements of opposite political leaders and hearing of Supreme Court on Arshad Sharif's murder.

If you look at his contribution timeline for the last 3 months, you would surprise to see that, the user is just here for to include these things only on this page. The timeline of the contributions and continued deep interest make him vulnerable to a political bias. Please take a look on the archive section of noticeboard too, and I have requested to open the SPI case here for using multiple accounts to disrupt this article. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 11:59, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Just noting both are still EW on the page.Slywriter (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

how do I delete a redirect?

CRC Advisors now redirects to Creative Response Concepts, but the opposite is true: Creative Response Concepts is "the firm now known as CRC Advisors"[60]

So I need to delete the redirect, move Creative Response Concepts to CRC Advisors, create a new redirect for Creative Response Concepts to CRC Advisors, then change CRC Advisors to "formerly Creative Response Concepts."

My apologies for being dumb. Thank you. soibangla (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

It's a round robin page move you want to clear the redirect, some complications to do it so probably easiest to just ask for it to be done at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. Selfstudier (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I think an admin can just move it over the redirect, leaving a new redirect behind. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

There is an number of non trivial edits done on that title before it was converted into a redirect though. A page swap would be more appropriate. – robertsky (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah, right, I guess some care is needed with the histories. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Soibangla: round-robin page move  Done. Cheers. Salvio ^giuliano 21:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

hey, thank you! soibangla (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Need a rangeblock

Please see this thread. Troll; NOTHERE. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Admins are requested to check if this user had edited under previous account name User:Walrus Ji. 27.123.253.165 (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps this should have been posted on ANI, but I agree that there are some issues with Special:Contributions/27.123.253.0/16: edit warring[61], baseless accusations of 'controlling' an article[62] and of socking[63][64][65], and apparent hounding[66] (citing a March 2022 diff?). Someone should make it clear to them that they can't go on like that. Not sure of course since I can't see them, but their revdelled edits here may also be relevant. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

This is still ongoing. They are pushing the idea that this blog (blacklisted, replace .com with .xyz) is a "legit Online platform", adding comments like "Collaboration can't be expected atleast from such bad faith editors like you. Go away." [67] There's also an RSN thread for the content/sourcing issue, but I think the IP user's behavior itself is problematic. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Apaugasma: Why you are doing publicity of that blog. Do you control that blog? Or paid for it. Your repeated use of non existent domain is not proving anything. Will you please stop spamming it again and again as I count you have paste the that blog's link 3 times in 24 hour period. You should not be evade our .xyz blanket filter by replacing it with .com. Not getting what is your connection with this blog. 27.123.253.83 (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I have been arguing at Talk:Badi' al-Din that this blacklisted blog is unreliable [68], while 27.123.253.x has been arguing that it is fine because it is cited in an academic journal [69] (itself listing questionable/fake 'impact factors' as credentials). Their casting me here as a spammer seems to be an aspersion tactic. In general they have a remarkable interest in our spam blacklist for an IP, referring to a March 2022 whitelist request [70][71], and knowing what admins are active in it [72].

TrangaBellam may have been wise to bring this to AN after all, since this does look to be an LTA. They appear to be the same user as 37.111.216.0/22, who geolocates to the same city as 27.123.253.0/16, is also focused on spam/blogs, and who was also responsible for the previous disruption at Badi' al-Din (cf. [73]), which also revolved around false accusations of spam (cf. here) and which first led them to be reported at ANI and to be blocked, after which they started socking with accounts (SPI). The oldest account here was indeffed by Blablubbs so this is effectively block evasion. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Linking all the vandalism and disruption to someone who has disagreement with you is really a nice point to escape the situation. If you want to drop the stick you are most welcome. 27.123.253.83 (talk) 03:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Gavison-Medan Covenant House of Yahweh sock nonsense

Basically what it says on the tin. There's no SPI case on enwiki, but it seems to involve cross-wiki abuse. Since I can't do much, I thought I'd send a message here to get some admin eyes on it. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 14:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

All of those accounts blocked as socks. Not sure which one is the main account, but it's pretty obvious there's laundry all over the place. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore It seems as though it's a cross-wiki abuse case related to the House of Yahweh. I think @Mtarch11 knows more about them. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 15:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Figured I"d say this, but there's a global version of Twinkle which gives you the ability to report users to meta:SRG from any Wiki just like how you would with reporting a user to AIV/UAA here. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@LilianaUwU: the main account is Piermark, see it:Categoria:Wikipedia:Cloni sospetti di Piermark (incomplete list). --Mtarch11 (talk) 08:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

User:William G Rothman

• William G Rothman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Would an administrator mind trying to get this user to refrain from directly editing Greg Rothman and instead follow the suggestions left on their user talk page by seeking assistance from others. I realize that COI editing is not prohibited, but it would probably make it easier to help this person if they at least participated in the discussion on the article's talk page. Others have been trying to help out, but this user continues to prefer to directly make changes themselves. There are probably ways that the article content can be improved and the more editors trying to do so the better, but at the same time content shouldn't be removed just because the subject or someone representing him (I'm assuming that's the case here) feels it's biased, particularly if most reliable sources are referring to the content in this "biased" way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• I've blocked per WP:IMPERSONATE which I suppose sort of kicks the can down the road. If they change their username or create a new account it can be dealt with at that point. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Thank you Callanecc. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Request to close and deal with bludgeoning

... at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Doug Coldwell revisited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

•  Done. Black Kite (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Admin guidance wanted at Ukraine war-related AFD

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: phase 4, I am asking for an (uninvolved) administrator to step in and make a procedural-type ruling: is this AFD the place an issue (whether a "phase 4" of the war has started, or not) is to be debated, or is that properly being decided elsewhere? And either way, can this AFD be closed (please) because it was not properly started and has only gotten messier since? If appropriate, please open a new, clean AFD with a proper nomination. I hope an administrator could step in and help out with guidance (and i suppose say that you were asked, here). Thank you for your consideration! --Doncram (talk,contribs) 05:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

LTA sock

Please block Seethesignsaroundyou, sock of LTA Jermboy27--confirmed on Commons (I'm a CU)--see also this and this. Socking aside, they're attempting to engage in WP:PROXYING ([74][75]) and edit warring on Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Jermboy27‎. Эlcobbola _talk 17:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Anthonydevolder

Back in 2011, a user using the name "Anthony Devolder" made a short self-biography on their talk page. More recently, US politician George Santos has been in the news, including for using other names including "Anthony Devolder". Multiple news sources earlier today covered this 2011 Wikipedia page. It has been deleted, and on the talk page links to media coverage are redacted. Is this how we want to handle this, that information originating on Wikipedia becomes visible in many places on the media, but not here? I thought some other admins should be aware of this. See User_talk:Anthonydevolder -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up here. I'm not sure the media coverage is the main issue - I think the actual Wikipedia-centric problem is that an admin blocked the account for violating our username policy, but it is extremely unclear to me (and evidently a number of others, per talk page discussion) how this account violated our username policy. I asked the blocking admin directly, but it may be the middle of the night for them, so they may not respond right away. I don't think it's an urgent issue, though. Perhaps it's something to be talked over at WP:AARV? —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I added a (poorly formatted, it seems) request for discussion there. Moncrief (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

As an admin, I think that the decision to block the account and delete the content was unwarranted and unwise. Page protection ought to have been a first step if vandalism is a concern. How does a userpage with inoffensive (if fanciful -- but again, it's a userpage, not a factual article) material created under a form of someone's real name violate Wikipedia's rules? I'm not seeing it. Unless there's actual cause, it's a bad look for us to hide this material when it's everywhere in the media. Moncrief (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Infrogmation per the oversight policy, Suppression is a tool of first resort in removing...identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public. For context, you posted a link to an attempted outing on a user's talk page which in nearly any other context would be a textbook violation of our harassment policy. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Wugapodes|a·po·des - I assure you nothing of that kind was intended. I saw an article in the media referencing a Wikipedia page, so I added a link to it on the talk page. (Is that no longer a fairly common thing to do? Pardon, I'm something of an oldbie, more recently mostly active on Commons.) On consideration, I'll note that the user's self biography has been there publicly viewable for more than a dozen years (until a few hours ago), and as far as I know the user never tried to remove it nor requested it be removed. Thanks for your input. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The outing policy, while obviously needed and good in theory, has sometimes led to fairly ridiculous results when zealously enforced (most notably, by allowing a bad-faith editor to puff up him and his spouse's pages for a decade+ while he worked to ban anyone who dared hint that he might have a connection to his real identity). In cases like this one here, linking to off-wiki speculation, even in a reliable source, about a username's owner is certainly frowned upon. It does tend to lend an odd sort of "everyone knows what we're talking about but nobody can say it out loud" tenor to the discussion. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

It always amuses me how some admins are willing to twist and distort the concept of "harassment" until it is entirely meaningless. How is this abandoned 2011 account being harassed exactly? Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Wugapodes, would this article be allowed to be posted on a page that is not the user's talk page per the oversight policy? Muhibm0307 (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Muhibm0307 Given that it's already been oversighted, for now, it should not be: "If the previously posted information has been removed by oversight, then repeating it on Wikipedia is considered outing." I can say that we are currently having a discussion on the oversight email list regarding how to interpret policy in this case. That's why oversight is a tool of first resort for attempted doxxing of editors: every situation is different and figuring out how the policy applies can take time, but the potential for damage is real and should be limited while figuring out next steps. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Wugapodes, the issue is the article has been posted on Talk:George Santos. Muhibm0307 (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know a great deal about oversight policy, but I don't get what you're saying here. identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public -- it is completely public (as in listed prominently at George Santos, everywhere in the media, and acknowledged by him) that George Santos and Anthony Devolder is the same person. Are you saying here that User:Anthonydevolder is a pseudonymous/anonymous account, and that implying User:Anthonydevolder might be Anthony Devolder would be outing them? Because, I mean, that's literally their username... Endwise (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I too am uncomfortable about the policy basis for the block. I am an active administrator at WP:UAA. According to our username policy, real names, stage names and pen names are permitted except when they imply that the editor is a specific living person they are not. I cannot see how a hard username block is appropriate here, since I see zero evidence of any impersonation. If this person was famous back then, it might have been appropriate to soft block and give him the opportunity to verify his identity. But he was utterly unknown back then. Similarly, I see no good reason to suppress the content that this editor wrote way back then. What is the basis in policy for that? What is it about this content that required suppression? I just don't get it. I have great respect for Doug Weller and look forward to his explanation. Cullen328 (talk) 02:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Endwise There can be more than one person in the world named Anthony Devolder, and the holder of this account has not made their identity public. As a tool of first resort, suppression is used in situations exactly like this and then discussed depending on the specifics of the case. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Wugapodes, but we need to use common sense every once in a while. Personally, I was quite surprised how many people named "Jim Heaphy" (my name) there are in the world when I did an in-depth search about 15 years ago. In this case, the stated date of birth is identical to the now-notable George Anthony Devolder Santos, and the editor talks about residence in Brazil, European ancestry, an LGTBQ identity, and a strong wish to be famous in the US. I estimate the likelihood of this being an account for the notable George Santos at 99.9%+. Where is any evidence to the contrary? I still fail to see the basis for these actions. Cullen328 (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

And where should it be discussed? Here? Muhibm0307 (talk) 02:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Muhibm0307 It is being discussed by oversighters on the private email list. These editors are have access to the suppressed information which helps evaluate the full context of the situation and are selected for their experience handling cases like this. Concerns about the use of oversight can be reported to the Arbitration Committee who supervise the use of and access to that tool. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

That is understandable. (I sort of already know how oversight works.) Muhibm0307 (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Moncrief, this information may be helpful to you with regards to your WP:AARV request. Muhibm0307 (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of me. I still don't understand why there was a hard block and why the template at the top of the user page discusses an extreme violation ("...offensive, profane, violent, threatening, sexually explicit, disruptive..."). Moncrief (talk) 02:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Wug· - The original 'block' claims it removed Anthony Devolder's 11 year old talk page bio for "user name" violation [76], (not "oversight policy.") The name "Anthony Devolder" as a user name is no more a violation than your user name or my user name. And, if there is "more than one person in the world named Anthony Devolder;" then wiki was very unwise to remove that Devolder's talk page. Also, I feel the "oversight policy" you mention does not support removing Anthony Devolder's personal talk page bio. 1st) Anthony Devolder is the guy's name, it's not a pseudonym & not anonymous. 2nd) He clearly made his own "identity public" 11 years ago when he wrote his bio on his talk page. So far, no one has been able to give a legit reason for deleting Devolder's talk page. At this point it seems clear that someone made an error and the talk page should be restored. ~Best regards, BetsyRMadison (talk) 02:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• I see now there now are multiple news outlets with coverage of the Wikipedia user page in question, in addition to it being discussed on social media. However Wikipedia decides to deal with this, perhaps we should keep in mind the Streisand effect. -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  Very good point, infrogmation. BetsyRMadison (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Responding to a report made by email or on-wiki is one thing, but if the source of our information is Politico, then there is probably no need for oversight, because whatever it is, isn't private information anymore. Levivich (talk) 03:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. A sensible dose of WP:IAR here tells us that there's really no problem with discussing openly whether this account belongs to the now-famous person it seems to. —Ganesha811 (talk) 03:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

And it's not the only one ... Daniel Case (talk) 07:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't fault Doug for starting off with a page oversight and a username block, but I do think the issue of this being reported in multiple sources should be taken into account when deciding what to ultimately do with the information. It may just be completely pointless, and make us look goofy to boot. I had a couple IRC buddies who worked for the government around the time of the Snowden leaks, and they were always complaining that they weren't allowed to read the news because it had classified documents in it... is that what we want to do here? jp×g 06:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• Note that there are now articles about this in BuzzFeed News, The Independent, the New York Post, the Daily Mail, the Bharat Express News, HuffPost, and Mediaite, which I guess we are not allowed to link to here (?). However, they've already been used to reference an entire paragraph of text at George Santos about the ongoing controversy (which I commented out, since the exact same links were OS'd when put on his talk page). Can we get some update on what is going on with this? jp×g 06:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  You can add The New Republic to that list. One of my biggest concerns is that Santos or other people might cite the block/oversight as proof that it was not him, despite that being highly unlikely. The listed reasons for a block in the generic username violation hardblock template are if: it is obviously offensive, profane, violent, threatening, sexually explicit, disruptive, attacks or impersonates another person, or suggests that you do not intend to contribute positively to Wikipedia." (emphasis added). Obviously, the only applicable one is the impersonation one. It might put Wikipedia in the unenviable position of seemingly defending Santos in the eyes of the general public.I think any resolution should consider whether to edit the wording of the block template if it stays up. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Last night, just before going to sleep, I was using my iPad and saw this on Facebook. I went to the page and didn't notice the date (I'm hoping to get Specsavers to come to my home to get me new glasses, I clearly need them. I thought it was someone picking this up from the news and creating an account and the userpage and even wondered if CU would be advisable. Clearly I messed up. My take is that if it had been current it would be suppressible, but 2011? No. It's clearly not someone picking this up from the news, creating an account and a userpage for fun. Was it actually Santos? Who knows. I've unsuppressed already. The block isn't necessary given the date so I'll go undo that now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 09:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I forgot, the Disney thing had me convinced it was a hoax and an attack on Santos. Puzzling though, why do that in 2011? Doug Weller talk 09:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

He was an unknown 22-year-old with an active imagination, using a Wikipedia user page as a kind of dream board/scratch pad/place for brief, late-night, stream-of-consciousness musings. It doesn't seem particularly puzzling to me, for what that's worth. Wikipedia has long attracted all sorts for the simple thrill of knowing that anyone can write their way into a tiny bit of the internet. Moncrief (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure because I don't have visibility of deleted edits but I believe the sequence of events is this: (1) created the account, (2) wrote an autobiography (of sorts) on his user page, (3) attempted to write an autobiography in mainspace but was prevented by the edit filter (in part because the account name and article name were the same), (4) abandoned the account and used other accounts with different names. Levivich (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

It's in the history, it's not suppressed or revision deleted. Doug Weller talk 17:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe Levivich means the trajectory of Santos's alleged involvement in Wikipedia, not just this page. I don't know about (2) or (3), but I don't think they were related to this user name. (4), as far as I'm aware, is regarding two or more sockpuppet accounts in 2022, after the election. Anyway, I'll stop, as we're getting off the main topic. Moncrief (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

FYI, this account has zero deleted edits, probably for the reasons Levivich suggests. BD2412 T 19:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Does this mean we're done oversighting links to the Politico article or is OS still discussing that? Levivich (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for asking this. This is my question as well. Moncrief (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

At this particular point in time, yes. Primefac (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

See [User talk:Prose072#January 2023], should they be unblocked or block reduced? Sorry to just give a link, iPad copy didn’t work with the username for some reason. Doug Weller talk 18:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

OS team is discussing. Primefac (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult, but yes, what? There were two separate, oppositional questions, and I'm not sure which part the "yes" applies to: Does this mean we're done oversighting links to the Politico article or is OS still discussing that? Moncrief (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The former. Primefac (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• Aside from the OS issue, which is being vigorously discussed, why not just U5 this page? I'm not sure why we would keep an extant, yet blanked, version of it regardless of whether it is OS worthy. Its no different than the other spam userpages we get, which routinely get the U5 treatment. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  People are already complaining about it being only blanked. In my opinion, there's an element of transparency involved with the page. If it's deleted it will look like there's something to hide. It's not like we don't have worse pages to be getting on with. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  I agree. Normally, sure, U5 it, but in this particular case, where the page has already been widely published (in fact, that's what brought it to our collective attention), there really is little point to deleting it, and doing so may give the wrong impression, as zzuuzz said. For better or worse, the revision history of the page is evidence in a public debate, hiding it from the public would not further our basic mission of education, nor our values of transparency and... my favorite Wikipedia tagline... accountability through excellent recordkeeping. Blanking it is a good compromise. Levivich (talk) 06:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  "accountability through excellent recordkeeping" not heard that one before, I like it! Though I will push back a bit on the idea that we shouldn't delete things merely on the basis that its been widely published. I think that gives the wrong incentives for our trolls/detractors/mischief makers, and takes our editorial decisions out of our hands. If something should be deleted under our policies, I'm hesitant to change that outcome because of external factors. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  Some might say the fact that it hasn't been deleted for 11 years proves that the only reason we'd delete it now is external factors. :-) I agree though, that we shouldn't not delete things merely because they've been widely published. In this particular case, I think there are more factors in play. Levivich (talk) 07:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  Note that the account is now soft-blocked by Beeblebrox - the block I should have used. Doug Weller talk 08:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  I suspect if this had been initially U5'ed it would still be that way. However, given all the discussion that has happened if someone thinks it should be deleted it probably needs the formal consensus finding of MFD (given that it's been undeleted I don't think DRV would apply anymore). The page is full protected now, but if a non-admin wants to nominate it, please ping me and I will happily place the MFD notice to complete the process given that the User Talk isn't really the right place to find consensus to delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

• This is a ridiculous amount of ink to spill over an account that only ever made two edits, both to the editor's own user page, eleven years ago. If it wasn't for the famous name connection, this would never even make it to ANI. BD2412 T 19:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Request for previous edit to be removed entirely

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I made an edit to a page which had the incorrect source cited; although corrected now, please could someone assist in removing the initial edit from the page's history?

Many thanks UnknownBrick22 (talk) 01:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Why does it matter? We do not suppress/oversight edits without reason. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 01:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Admins are certainly capable of hiding the content of the edit, but there's no reason to. Edits aren't hidden to handle ordinary mistakes. They are hidden due to copyright violations, extreme disruptive text, potential libel (especially against a living person) or privacy violations. Your edit doesn't sound like any of these. Animal lover |666| 10:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:GoodDay reported by User:RoyLeban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Page: Hunter Biden laptop controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: GoodDay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [77]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [78] First revert by GoodDay, this one is not a violation (though I believe it is a violation of WP:VERIFY, I am not making that argument here).

1. [79] Second revert, violates 1RR in effect on the page

Diff of notice posted to user's talk page: [80]

Comments:
This is a 1RR violation. Their previous revert was 15 hours earlier. GoodDay also disingenuously argues in the change comment that cleaning up citations is a "big change" that needs consensus: "Recommend you get a consensus for such big changes". No change to the substance of the article was made. Citing the same article twice in same paragraph, in the middle, and at the end, made it unclear that the source for the entire paragraph was the single article. This same article is also cited twice in the previous paragraph, and that should also be cleaned up, but I didn't do that, because it was more complex (that paragraph has information which comes from multiple sources). So this means that, in addition to violating 1RR, GoodDay gave a rationale for the revert which does not hold water.

RoyLeban (talk) 08:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I've only made one revert of the edit-in-question. Therefore, there's no breach of 1RR. But, I have undid my revert anyways. I am concerned though, about recent edits & discussions on that page-in-question. PS: The 'report' should've been made at the Edit-war page. GoodDay (talk) 08:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Both reverts were in the same section of the article, the first section, plus you provided a disingenuous rationale for the revert. RoyLeban (talk) 08:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Again, this isn't the page for reporting edit wars. But I am concerned with what appears to be WP:IDHT, refusal to drop the stick & WP:BLUDGEONING behaviour on your part. Furthermore, since your return to the 'pedia on Jan 15, 2023? You've concentrated entirely your energies, on just one page & its talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 08:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't edit Wikipedia often because it is too frustrating — things like this happen all the time. You know that I never saw this article before 2 weeks ago, and that I assumed a malicious editor had put unsourced material in the lede. So your accusations above, like your rationale for the revert, don't hold water. I assumed my changes would be accepted, yet you and other editors are not only blocking that, as this inappropriate revert shows, this group of editors is acting like they own the page and even cleanup of citations is not allowed without their approval. It seems like there is a huge case of WP:IDHT in that group. I've kept at it because apparently the thirteen previous editors who came along and noticed the same problem were bludgeoned into giving up. You don't get to tell me how I should spend my Wikipedia editing time.

I very rarely report anybody. Sorry if I reported it in the wrong place. RoyLeban (talk) 08:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I can only let the other editors who've communicated with you (since Jan 15, 2023) on the talkpage-in-question, make their own assessment of your behaviour at that page & more so its talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 08:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

If you feel like people aren't "dropping the stick", it's because there's been a succession of 14 different people calling for improvements to lead sentence -- but that's not Roy's fault, he just got here.Feoffer (talk) 08:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Password forgotten

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Dear administrators, I have forgotten the password of my original account User:Paytime, how can I recover my password (I have not added any email address). Paytime3 (talk) 09:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Paytime3 This isn't specifically an administrator issue(the Help Desk is the forum for this)- but if you did not have an email address on your old account, there is no way to regain access. You will need to use your current account and identify it as a successor to your old account("I am Paytime3, I was previously Paytime but lost access"). 331dot (talk) 09:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@331dot:, My another account in this English Wikipedia (Paytime2) has been blocked by User:Zzuuzz. Paytime3 (talk) 09:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Look, it's just not a great idea to arrive at the admin's noticeboard saying simply "I'm a sockpuppet of x". I'd unblock the account, but you don't need 3 of them. You may ignore the 2nd account. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

It's also not a great idea to post to a checkuser's talk page saying simply "I am back, you blocked my previous account". @Widr: FWIW. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

It's a lie. I dont know them. Paytime (talk) 11:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

{{checkuser requested}} See the discussion above and Paytime's latest comment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

On it. --Blablubbs (talk) 11:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Paytime2 is more or less  Confirmed to Paytime3; these two are also a decent technical match for an LTA (who has a habit of showing up at noticeboards saying "I'm a sockpuppet of x"), but I'm not familiar enough to be certain about that connection and I don't think it matters too much, so I'll leave it at that. Paytime didn't show up in my check of those two, and I don't see any reason to check them independently. --Blablubbs (talk) 12:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Blablubbs. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Need help at Miss World 2022

I procssed a speedy for Miss World 2022, and recieved a message on my talk page at User talk:Paulmcdonald#Miss World 2022 that makes a lot of sense. To make a long story short, I think it's best to restore the article and then roll back before the broken re-direct as requested. I've attempted to do so but I'm getting some database issues and now I'm concerned that I'm making the issue worse and not better. Can I get some help?--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Paulmcdonald: I agree that attempting to undelete that page causes a database error. I have submitted a bug report to this effect, a developer with access to the logs will be able to investigate and see what is holding it up. The train did deploy to enwiki today I think, so maybe WP:ITSTHURSDAY... ST47 (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Worked fine for me. That being said, it's going to take me a week to un-split this ridiculous pair of histories... easier than I thought Primefac (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Adding an article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi I am trying to add an article about https://mizmash.com/ which is a price comparison site for appliances. It is saying i dont have permissions, how can i add this? thanks Christampa999 (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

That's a feature, not a bug. Per WP:AUTOCONFIRM, your account needs to be at least four days old with at least ten edits before you can create an article. That's not a matter for the administrators noticeboard. Also, please read WP:COI, because you have one. Acroterion (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Chhapra Family

I stumbled across this page doing routine NPP work. It clearly wasn't ready for main space - it was a single run on paragraph of bolded text and the actual subject/focus of the article wasn't clear. So I WP:DRAFTIFY'd it, which is the typical course of action in these situations. Subsequently, the original author recreated the page into main space with the exact same content. I reverted this by performing a round-robbin move (moved the draft to a temporary page, then moved the recreated article back to draft, blanked and tagged the temporary page for G6). However, the original author has recreated the exact same page in mainspace again, despite me notifying them of the move to draftspace. I've warned the user for disruptive editing, but I don't want to do yet another round-Robbin move (in fact, can't right now since the temporary page is still pending deletion). I've temporarily created a cross-namespace redirect from the mainspace title to the draftspace title in the hopes of getting the author to work on the page in draft, but I know that such X-namespace redirects usually aren't allowed. Thus I ask for help as to what to do next. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

First of all, protect the page from being recreated. Additionally, look at the user's edits and decide of this user needs to be blocked. Animal lover |666| 07:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I have protected the page in article-space. Lectonar (talk) 08:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Change to the CheckUser team

At his request by email to the committee, the CheckUser permissions of MusikAnimal are removed. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks MusikAnimal for his long service as a CheckUser, and his continuing service on Wikipedia.

For the Arbitration Committee, Primefac (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Change to the CheckUser team

• MusikAnimal, I and no doubt many others appreciate your service: thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Category:All Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons

Hi, How often these are checked / deleted? There are currently 200+ files in this category? Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

And on a related issue, how to add {{PD-UK}} to the acceptable license? See File:Livestock on the road outside Rhos Inn, Blaenffos, Pembrokeshore, circa 1900.jpg. I get the message This file cannot be imported to Wikimedia Commons because it is not marked with a compatible licence. Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

On File:LeekTowngraph.svg, I get This file (or an older revision of this file) contains elements that cannot be accepted for security reasons: Setting event-handler attributes onload="g237al(evt)" is not allowed in SVG files. Yann (talk) 13:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

And in Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons reviewed by a human, many files can't be imported to Commons for various reasons. Many because of hidden revisions, so these should be made visible. Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Yann: My guess is that the category is reviewed by only a few admins at irregular intervals. I do look at it but have been a bit busy lately. WRT {{PD-UK}}, the corresponding Commons template (c:Template:PD-UK) is deprecated. When I updated the license here locally to use {{PD-UK-unknown}}, I was able to export the file to Commons. We should probably deprecate the use of this template locally as well. I know nothing about technical aspects of SVG so no comment there. AS for dealing with various impediments to copying a file to Commons, I have no good suggestions. -- Whpq (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

It's worth noting that a good percentage of the files in this category should not have been transferred to Commons; these need to be individually reviewed and vetted for authorship/copyright issues. This also isn't an urgent backlog, there shouldn't ever be a rush to delete such files. -FASTILY 23:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, they were reviewed before being transferred to Commons. Yann (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying that about you in particular. We often see files transferred by editors who aren't familiar with copyright. As such, standard operating procedure is for an admin to manually review each transferred file before deleting. -FASTILY 07:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Unblock request for Rathfelder

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I feel very much discredited, which is perhaps only right. Even reading Wikipedia is quite upsetting. I would like an opportunity to reinstate myself and show that I have learned from my mistakes and wont repeat them. I still think I can make a positive contribution.

Process

I was not clear how, or indeed if, I was supposed to respond to the community consensus discussion. I didnt feel I was able to put my case.

I feel that the decision was an excessive punishment as far as the WP:BANPOL is concerned. I fully accept that I have done wrong. I recognise that and I would like an opportunity to explain how it happened and show that I have learned from my mistakes.

I had been attacked several times, generally without reasonable cause, and I have not felt much support. I dont feel that the collaborative approach is very effective. Very few projects seem to be operational. It is completely open to individual editors to be confrontational. On one occasion I was threatened with an immediate block because I was said to have committed three copyright infringements. It was true, but they were spaced over three years, were all minor, and one was in respect of material I had written myself. I was very sorry to find that Fayenatic london said that I had been abrasive. That was certainly not intended, and I have done my best to be supportive to other editors. However I have increasingly felt threatened, for example by those who express disbelief that I might not be aware of some policy which they find important, and by those who say that because I did something it should be treated with suspicion. That, of course, has been considerably exacerbated by this block.

I am asking for a more balanced approach. I have put in a lot of time and effort over the last ten years and I think I can properly say that the things I did wrong were a very small part of that. I still think I can make a positive contribution, though I would have to work hard to build up trust.

If I was allowed to return I would propose to continue to avoid categorisation altogether. I would certainly avoid the articles which got me into trouble. However I have done very little Wikipedia:BLP editting and I dont think any apart from Alex Scott-Samuel have been controversial. Biographies of living people understandably attract more attention than most other articles and I have been very careful with them.

History

I started editing in December 2006 primarily working on the history and organisation of the NHS. I did start Socialist Health Association, which was the organisation I worked for, and clearly I had a conflict of interest, although I was then very inexperienced and did not appreciate that was important. In fact the article was almost entirely historical, and I had priviledged access to its archives. I dont think there was anything controversial in it until 2019.

Mostly I worked on articles relating to British healthcare organisations. I didnt do much work on categorisation until 2013, but after 2019 I did a lot of that. The huge majority was completely uncontroversial - adding articles to existing geographical and historical categories and developing existing categorisation schemes.

I was blocked and accused of vandalism while I was creating Dewrance & Co. Ltd, without, as far as I saw it, any justification and without any opportuity to discuss it. I created User:Harry Boardman in December 2016 as an insurance policy. I havent used that since August 2019, and I lost the password so dont have access to it, which is why I didnt mention it.

I created User:Bigwig7 in August 2018 also as an insurance policy. I used this account to create Alex Scott-Samuel‎ in February 2019. I fully acccept that this was wrong and I had a conflict of interest. I didnt see it as an attack page. I took some trouble to include his academic work. At the time there was a great deal of media coverage about him, almost entirely hostile and I did try to produce a more balanced view. He was the chair of the Socialist Health Association of which I was the only employee but what he did to me was a very small part of what drove the extensive coverage of his activities in the media. There were battles over the Socialist Health Association article but I kept out of them. Only one significant contribution was from me, and that was defended by other editors, not me. I didnt make any significant edits after 2019 because I realised this was a mistake.

I should add that User:BarleyButt is nothing to do with me, although they have edited both those articles.

I now see that what I did was dishonest. There is no reason for me to do such a thing again. I am now retired and have no employer so there is not likely to be such a stressful situation again. My user name is such that it is immediately apparent to anyone who I am. That is not generally a problem, but it was in that situation.

I am quite upset to be accused of acting "as though he's superior to the community for so long, " I dont feel superior. I am well aware that there are plenty of editors who know a lot more than I do, but I often dont feel much sense of community. There are areas where I have more experience than most editors and I have tried to be helpful, but they are mostly rather out of the way.

I would say in my defence that my actions actually had little effect. I dont think any decisions about categorisation or deletion were altered by my piling in, and my edits on those two articles were all referenced to reputable sources and survived subsequent discussions in which I was not involved. After things settled down in my personal life I decided to keep away.

I value Wikipedia and I have devoted considerable time and attention to improving it over the last few years. I have contributed quite a lot of photographs and I have made financial donations. I maintain my subscription to the Health Service Journal primarily to inform the coverage of NHS articles. I ask that the things I have done wrong should be considered in the context of the things I did which were right. I am happy to accept any restrictions which are thought appropriate. Rathfelder (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

This is WP:CBAN following this [81] AN thread, and the unblock request has been copied here at Rathfelder's request, per WP:UNBAN. Meters (talk) 11:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• Oppose - lost the trust of the community about two months ago, due to serious abuse of Wikipedia: vote-stacking with socks, in conjunction with socking to create and maintain a conflict-of-interest BLP attack page. Is the punishment excessive? Absolutely not. Even if we were to forgive you, it would not be so soon. starship.paint (exalt) 15:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
• Checkuser note - I found no evidence of recent (as in more recently than their banning) abuse of multiple accounts, and agree that User:BarleyButt is  Unrelated. This is not an opinion on the request, I may comment later. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - This was only two months ago, and I don't find the unblock request in any way persuasive. I'd feel differently if the editor edited some other projects for a long time (at least six months, preferably over a year) without having any COI, sockpuppetry, etc. As I said in the siteban discussion, using Wikipedia to advance personal real-world disputes, and sockpuppetry to game consensus, are two "high crimes" on Wikipedia. A simple, "I shouldn't have done that, won't do it again" two months later just isn't enough for me. I want to see proof that this editor can edit collaboratively (elsewhere) without abusing the privilege. Levivich (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
• Conditional support - if you haven't socked since your ban. PS- IMHO, you should've waited 'at least' six months, before requesting your ban be lifted. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - I have conditions in mind under which I could support in the future (and they are harsh) but this is too soon. If we start giving the impression that you can run amok abusing multiple accounts to defeat consensus and write hit pieces on living persons you know personally, and then once caught you can just apologize and move on like nothing happened, we will never recover from it. Some will call out WP:NOTPUNITIVE but I have always said that there is a benefit of deterrence in treating harshly editors who commit harsh offences, as Rathfelder certainly has, over the course of years and up to very recently. The standard is six months, though I can't say I feel even that is long enough. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:33, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Let me quote what I say just 2 months ago: "No one is bigger than the project, and I don't care how much "good" was done, socking to vote stack, on top of having a COI negates all of that and then some. Also if someone is going to need multiple topic bans to even be allowed to edit, they shouldn't be editing period." That was 2 months ago. I'm stressing that because that is WAY too soon to even consider lifting the site ban, let alone what led to it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
• I cant respond to the discussion, but if the appropriate period of blocking is six months I am content to wait. Rathfelder (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC) copied from user's talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meters (talk • contribs)

  I can only speak for myself, but I want to clarify that I did not say that six months was the appropriate length of time. I said that's the standard, and I also said I wasn't sure that would be long enough in this case. There are lots of editors who did good work over long periods of time who got into similar levels of trouble and are still blocked years later. I don't want to discourage you, I don't think you're at that point, but I can't predict what's going to happen with this over the course of time. I've just seen a lot of "I waited six months so unblock me" ban appeals in my time here, and they are never successful. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Rathfelder: - my personal opinion, is two years, no socking, and edit other projects without much incident in that time. Plus, when you’re back, you’d still be indefinitely topic banned from certain areas. starship.paint (exalt) 01:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Starship, Rick, and Ivan. This unblock request coming so soon after the block feels shortsighted and frankly a bit arrogant. I'm simply not convinced that the net benefit is there - we'd have to tie one hand up watching both of his hands, and all the good content work in the world can't make up for a complete and utter lack of trust. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) I hate to say it, but as far as being an unblock request goes (i.e., regardless of the severity of the offence, socking, subsequent banning etc), it reads as mixture of "not my fault" and "didn't mean any harm", which fails to acknowledge that a) it wasn't anyone else's fault, and that b) harm was clearly done. SN54129 15:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose It's a shame Mr. Rathfelder feels like the community was unfair, but Wikipedia has a right to protect itself from abuse. The request is long on excuses and short on apology. I see no evidence he has learned from this experience and in any case, he hasn't even waited long enough to request Wikipedia:Standard offer. Try again in six months with less whingeing and fewer excuses. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 16:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. I see no meaningful signs of remorse. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Starship, Rick, and Ivan. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm disappointed to still be seeing things like "I used this account to create Alex Scott-Samuel in February 2019. I fully acccept that this was wrong and I had a conflict of interest. I didnt see it as an attack page. I took some trouble to include his academic work. At the time there was a great deal of media coverage about him, almost entirely hostile and I did try to produce a more balanced view." It suggests that including his academic work is a sufficient balance for also including a nasty quote calling him "a swivel-eyed middle-aged conspiracy theorist" (attributed to The Times as "the Times called him...", but sourced to a clearly strong anti-Corbyn opinion piece from a columnist). I'm sorry, but I remain unconvinced by claims that it wasn't written as a deliberate hit piece by one of his professional enemies hiding their true identity with a sock account. As written, the article was around 50% "Controversy". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I doubt that I would support an unblock even after six months, but this appeal is way too soon to even consider. I find it hard to believe an experienced editor has this severe a lack of understanding of the standard offer, and of how the community views using socks to vote stack and to create a negative COI BLP. Both sock accounts were inactive for lengthy periods (eight months for Bigwig7, and two years for Boardman) but returned to editing. All three of Rathfelder's known accounts have been active at the same time, including tellingly, all three on Alex Scott-Samuel‎ in less than a one-week span. I find Rathfelder's explanations disingenuous. Meters (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - this is just trying to get everybody else to see the history with the same rose-tinted glasses that he is apparently wearing. But no, socking to include the quote swivel-eyed loon about a real life adversary in their BLP is not try[ing] to produce a more balanced view. Idk what it would take to convince me to support an unblock, but an acknowledgment of what actually happened would be the first step. nableezy - 00:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per above NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 00:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Open proxies

I am currently under attack of an LTA who hounds me cross-wiki for more than a year now (SwissArmyGuy, see the latest case). Of course the LTA uses a lot of open proxies. Some of them are already detected and blocked, some are not. For instance, 179.63.255.230 looks like one. I'm afraid there are more to be seen, so I wonder where to report them. Is this board a right place, or is there a more specific venue? — Mike Novikoff 02:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I took a quick look at Special:Contributions/179.63.255.230. They are blocked for six months as a proxy on the Russian wikipedia so I've gone ahead with a two-month block here. In general you can report possible proxies at WP:OP. EdJohnston (talk) 04:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! — Mike Novikoff 15:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

RFD backlog

I haven't seen a substantial CfD backlog as has happened several times in the past few years, but on the other hand there are currently 52 old WP:RFD discussions. The listings on the main RfD page have reached 903 KB after substitution, which has made the page difficult to load; I'd suggest reducing the number of closed RfD's collapsed on the main page by closing or relisting the oldest discussions, especially on dates with few open discussions, to hone down the older entries. A few of these RfDs have been listed by me at WP:CR. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

After several closures, it is now down to 780 KB and 44 old RfD's. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

How is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARedirects_for_discussion%2FLog%2F2023_January_6&diff=1135581898&oldid=1135350819 aas a closure? Animal lover |666| 15:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I've worked the oldest discussions up to about the second week of January, but I'm going to have to step away. Any discussions that are older than Jan 18 (if I counted right) and not obvious results can be relisted to clear up the logs, that will save space on the main list. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Personal attacks etc.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like for someone to look over my shoulder at User talk:Qalandar303. I've made a few edits to the article the editor is fighting over, so I'd prefer to withdraw administratively, so to speak, and the editor is testing my patience (which, admittedly, is in short supply). The editor has made some serious personal attacks on Talk:Subh-i-Azal, following their edit-warring with User:Cuñado over something silly--they wanted to add two citations that weren't actually being used, and in arguing their case crossed a few boundaries, IMO. I warned them for this edit, which put the cherry on top of the sundae. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• I think they upped the ante with a legal threat involving various other (?) editors. Drmies (talk) 03:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Other editors may also wish to take into consideration consistent personal attacks and slurs by User:Cuñado - one against me personally, here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Attempted_schisms_in_the_Bah%C3%A1%CA%BC%C3%AD_Faith#This_Page_Needs_a_Rework (which was admitted as being such by another editor) - against anyone who attempts to contradict narratives of the organization he has openly admitted to belonging to. I would also like to cite the following entry Criticism_of_Wikipedia as context. Qalandar303 (talk) 03:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Indeffed for legal threats. Acroterion (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Quick note on my comment mentioned above. There was an argument on Talk:Baháʼu'lláh/Archive 8#White washing, biased, and imbalanced about one month ago involving Qalandar303 and Drcombo (not to be confused with Drmies). Both were brand new accounts. Qalandar303 accused Drcombo of representing the Iranian government (to be fair, that's a real thing when it comes to Baha'i pages). When Qalandar303 appeared again recently, I forgot which was which and made this comment. Obviously in retrospect I should have just kept it focused on page content. Cuñado ☼ - Talk

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Vector 2022 has an RFC

Administrators, there is an RfC on whether Vector legacy should be restored as the default skin on the English Wikipedia. If you haven't already and would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rollback of Vector 2022. Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

On a related note, it has been suggested at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rollback of Vector 2022#Publicizing this RfC that mass messages (WP:MMS) be used to publicize this RfC, as this issue affects millions of users who use this website, and WLNs and Village pump posts alone proved ineffective last time in gauging an accurate consensus. Editors have proposed sending these messages to either (a) all active users in the past 30 days, (b) all active extended confirmed users and administrators, (c) a random sample of active users, or (d) everyone who was on the nine 2022 ArbCom election mailing lists. Is this a good idea, is it feasible, and which group of users should receive these hypothetical messages? InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

No, because as many have already pointed out to you there, this RfC is fundamentally toothless per the third fourth point of WP:CONEXEMPT, and we already had a widely-advertised RfC on Vector 2022 just a few months ago. – Joe (talk) 05:27, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Wait, the third point? ArbCom? And the previous RfC was not widely advertised enough, as evidenced by how many users were blindsided by the launch. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Fourth, sorry. And you will never reach everyone, but the last RfC attracted ~328 participants, which is far more than usual. – Joe (talk) 06:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

In the previous RfC, the Web team wrote (emphasis in original): If the community decides against deploying the skin, no deployment will be made. Which means that the WMF was willing to comply with the community's will, and they were prepared to stand down if the community was against deploying V22 at this stage. If you're suggesting that the WMF will do an about-face now that Vector 2022 has launched and refuse to honor the consensus (or lack thereof) of the community, then that is truly unfortunate. And yes, 328 is indeed a higher number than usual, but guess what: it wasn't enough. We're talking about a UI change that affects millions of visitors, this wasn't a debate on what to put in an article's lead or what speedy deletion criterion should be amended. We need to do better this time. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I can't say what the WMF will do. But if I were making a bet, I'd go with what the web team has already politely implied that they will do: continue with their years-long programme of pre-deployment UX research, community consultation, incremental change, and post-deployment UX research. – Joe (talk) 06:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Mass messaging seems a massive overreaction. Doug Weller talk 09:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Over complex perhaps. Just throw it into MediaWiki:Sitenotice on the 25th (a week after deployment).©Geni (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

• I said in the RFC that there is nothing to suggest that it will be more representative than the original, well attended(relatively) one. And people are always quicker and more likely to air grievances than offer praise. 331dot (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  I'm still not even sure what purpose the RFC serves other than to register a note of protest. Per WP:CONEXEMPT, WMF is not required to abide by it. "Truly unfortunate", yes, but I doubt that people who are predisposed to dislike WMF are going to have their opinions changed whether or not the skin is rolled back. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 19:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

  There are some people who will never change their mind about the foundation. But I believe most people who are Wikipedians are willing to go where the evidence takes them and so if the foundation starts acting differently (better) I believe that people will see the evidence accumulate and change their opinions. The foundation, at great negative financial impact didn't try to pull CONEXEMPT with the fundraising banners and I hope they will work hard in this case, even if they strictly don't have to, with the community. Now I will admit that so far this team's record on working with, rather than viewing the community as an obstacle to be overcome, is mixed to poor (depending on how charitable you are). But that doesn't change the idea that "the foundation shouldn't even try to work with Wikipedians because we're set in our ways" is, I think, a disservice to the editors that work on this project. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

  You're absolutely right, Barkeep49, and my comment was a bit off-the-mark. Still, after seeing vocal commentary directed against the WMF for all of these years, it's difficult to imagine that people would not continue to join that bandwagon due to the fundamental relationship they have with Wikipedia's editors (i.e. they're paid, we're not; they dictate, we contribute). But I concede that you have a valid point, and that their reputation among the active editors would be a lot better if they made some different choices. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposed motion for amendment to Arbitration procedures: Documenting transition procedures

The Arbitration Committee is considering a motion to include a section on arbitrator transitions in the Committee's procedures. Comments are welcomed in the relevant section. For the Committee, — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Ban

I can't create a account because of some sort of IP ban but this is the 1st time I have tried to create account what's happening here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.48.45 (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello IP! Unfortunately it appears that your IP is caught in a very broad partial range block due to persistent vandalism coming from the range. An admin or more experienced user will be able to tell you what to do in this case. Also, could the IP range's partial block from my talk page be removed? I don't think it's necessary for them to be blocked from my talk page anymore. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf: took care of that for you. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Page Update/Photos

A few of us were attempting to update the photo on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Micky_Dolenz#Micky_Dolenz_Infobox_photo User Wes Sideman seems to have a bias and repeatedly has changed 2 images back to an original that is somewhat unflattering of the subject. 2 photos from 2 different people were contributed. Wes has attempted to make points against updating the photos however, he has contradicted himself on this repeatedly based on his own profile statement "This user believes that one's edit count does not necessarily reflect on the value of their contributions." as well as other factors. We would like someone to step in and provide input on the matter at hand and perhaps exclude this user from future editing on the Micky Dolenz page as he is not qualified to make changes, he does not have valid information and has provided no valid insight as to why photos cannot be changed out for more recent ones that more accurately depict the subject. RG137 16:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RegionalGirl137 (talk • contribs)

Pinging Wes sideman out of an abundance of caution. Happy Friday to all. Dumuzid (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:OWN. Any editor can contribute in good faith, and no one is going to exclude Wes Sideman from discussing what he believes is the best image to use in the article. You don't hold any monopoly on the discussion, and unless and until Wes is disruptive to the discussion in some way (and I don't see how he has been) he's allowed to express his opinions on the article talk page. I'd suggest RegionalGirl137, that you let the matter rest for a bit and let other voices contribute to the discussion, which Wes Sideman themselves recommended when they said "I would do that regardless; you'll just get more eyes on it that way. You're only going to have 3 people talking about it here. More input is better." in response to another user's comment. --Jayron32 16:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Jayron. With the increasing personal attacks from one of these editors, (and both of whom acknowledge their connections to the Monkees), I feel it's best if I sit the rest of this one out. My goal was always for additional editors to weigh in on the discussion because 2 people isn't a consensus, and I even tried to be helpful and pointed HomecomingQueenEmily to the best place to ask for input. She didn't do that. Then she tried to pass off RegionalGirl137 as a random person that agreed with her, and didn't admit the truth until I called them on it. At this point it's a mess of meatpuppeting and conflict of interest. I'm hoping other editors can handle it from here. Wes sideman (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

MOVEment

My head is spinning and I need dessert. Can one of you smart(er) people figure out how to repair the damage done by User:345NHL, and the subsequent moves by User talk:BornonJune8? Thanks. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@Drmies: - I'm not sure this countermove of yours was the best idea - the article content is specifically about the MLB on a TV network, not the MLB as a whole. Hog Farm _Talk 01:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure either--which is why I asked for a smarter person to take over: I think I made a mistake and copied the wrong title from a nest of similar ones. Please go ahead and correct me. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I've moved it back to History of Major League Baseball on ABC and have undeleted the original redirect content at History of Major League Baseball. Major League Baseball on ABC was the title for the main article there until the sock farm moved it to MLB on ABC w/o discussion. That should probably be restored as well, although I can't effectively look into this and make sure I don't burn the frozen pizza at the same time. WT:BASEBALL would be a good place to ask as well. Hog Farm _Talk 01:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Tables of Contents

Why is that people have to take something that works, and then change it, breaking it in the process.

I do not like the new layout because articles are missing the tables of contents making it much harder to locate specific information. The new layout also means that there is a large are a wasted white space to the right of the text. 86.164.61.82 (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

You are not the only one who does not like the new layout. Feel free to voice your thoughts at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rollback of Vector 2022. Also, if you create an account, you can revert to the old layout in your preferences. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@Drmies: I edit conflicted with you removing this discussion. I went ahead and overrode the conflict; just in case the person comes back here looking for it, so they can see my response linking them to the massive RFC and explaining that if they create an account they can adjust it in their preferences. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

User:ONUnicorn, please see the IP editor's talk page. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I did see your comment directing them to the village pump; but do we know what kid of device they are using? Have all the Wikipedia:Mobile communication bugs that make communicating with many mobile users difficult been fixed? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

None of the IP's edits are tagged as coming from any of the mobile interfaces so I'm not sure why those problems are relevant. I'd additionally note it makes no sense even without looking at the IPs contribs that they are using any mobile interface since if they were, they wouldn't be complaining about Vector 2022 Nil Einne (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

According to How to restore Wikipedia's old design, you can do it without creating an account too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Kenny Dinh

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Sockpuppet of Niponese Dog Calvero - Ryder1992 (talk) 12:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

You mean Nipponese Dog Calvero. I'll leave this to people with more experience identifying this particular LTA. --Yamla (talk) 12:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pages created for EC restriction on Armenia/Azerbaijan, Kurds/Kurdistan

Hi everyone. I recently created Wikipedia:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan and Wikipedia:General sanctions/Kurds and Kurdistan so that editors and admins have somewhere to point to when it comes to the extended-confirmed restriction on these two topics. This is a result of the January 3 close of this discussion, which no one else has parked somewhere to my knowledge. I have never created a page to record a community sanction before, so I would appreciate some review/correction/trouting as needed. Pinging TonyBallioni in particular, the closer of the discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Having such pages is important and very helpful, thank you very much! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Doug Weller talk 08:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Fine by me. I assumed one of the people invested in the topic would be the administrative bit after the close :) TonyBallioni (talk) 01:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons with hidden file revisions

Hi, Could you please unhidden the revisions for these files? I am going to transfer them to Commons after reviewing. Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@Yann: You would be better off requesting individual files be restored at WP:RFU, such as how Mdaniels5757 has done. (See their edits there.) - UtherSRG (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. There are currently 314 files in this category. I won't make 314 requests, as it doesn't make sense, but I made one. Yann (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Doug Coldwell

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Two socks continued in January 2023 the same editing pattern that led to Doug Coldwell's block last October. The new edits include poor use of archaic sources, too close paraphrasing, and copying public domain sources without attribution at Willis Fletcher Johnson and Charles Henry Ludington—after Coldwell's December request to be unblocked to work on "his" articles was declined. I bring this before the community for a community ban discussion, as well as some consensus on how to move forward on the cleanup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

History

Accounts

• Doug Coldwell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • Douglas Coldwell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • LordGorval (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • Thomas Trahey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Blocks and ANI: ANI 1 (September 2022) · ANI 2 (October 2022) · ANI 3 (January 2023) · Talk page discussion of block · Older ANIs: 2007 and 2016

SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Doug Coldwell

Copyright Contributor Investigation (CCI): No 1 (533 pages) · No 2 (718 pages) · No 3 (78 pages)

GA and DYK Stats: 233 GAs (no record of which have been re-assessed, but there are seven GAR templates on his talk page) · 549 DYKs, and a number of awards for both speed and quantity

Added post-closing: the 233 GAs above was a typo; at that point, the correct number was 223. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Follow up discussions DYK talk; Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Doug Coldwell GAs (permalink)

Notifications: DYK [82] · GAN [83] · Doug Coldwell [84]

Summary and sample

So to recap, we now have a giant mess of copyright violations, improperly attributed sourcing, dodgy sources which don't properly verify claims, and outright tripe to clean up, and need to figure out how that will be done. That isn't exactly within the scope of ANI. So, the question now is, where does that discussion happen?
— Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:00, 28 October 2022 (UTC), Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1112#Where to now?

I feel I should add the following, for the record in case years later someone can't understand why all this happened. Bluntly, it's the only thing you need to know to understand why Doug Coldwell simply cannot be a productive editor here until he allows himself to be tutored in the proper use of sources. On May 31, 2016, he added the following to the article Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation [85]:

The largest plywood panels ever made were manufactured by the Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation

This is cited [86] to an article published in 1918 and written by a Haskelite employee [87]. What's going on here is wrong on so, so many levels:

• Even if the claim was "As of 1918, the largest plywood panels ever made had been manufactured by the Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation", we wouldn't accept that with a source written by the manufacturer itself -- we'd need a reliable and independent source.
• But the statement made in the article, in Wikipedia's voice, is that Haskelite made the largest plywood panels ever made, period. And it's cited to something more from more than 100 years ago. This is so monumentally stupid that even my very substantial powers of invective cannot do it justice.
• And to add the cherry on top, the cited article isn't talking about the largest plywood panels ever made -- it's talking about the largest waterproof plywood panels ever made. That qualifier just got left out.

It's just hopeless, and it's not occasional -- it's typical of DC's work. I'm really beginning to think we need a special process to deal with the stupefying amounts of crap he's woven into the fabric of the English Wikipedia -- a sort of nuke-on-sight authorization for deleting his articles, or reducing them to harmless stubs, without the usual ponderous processes. We did something like this, IIRC, in the Neelix situation.
— EEng 15:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC), October 2022 ANI

Proposals

What looked initially to be ownership and lapses in DYK and GA reviews has now extended to outing, socking and a 3-page contributor copyright investigation. Other than CCI, there has been no formal attempt to coordinate clean up of the mess left behind. Three proposals below: the second and third are necessary for gauging community consensus because of the type of issues one encounters when attempting to address Coldwell content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Community ban of Doug Coldwell

Per WP:CBAN, "discussions may be organized via a template to distinguish comments by involved and uninvolved editors". Please declare prior involvement and post in the "Involved" section only if you were previously involved.

Support

1. Support The scale of the problems with material not supported by sources is sufficient to justify a ban, and the sock puppetry indicates that this person is not interested in editing constructively at present. Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
2. Support. I was the reviewer for some of Doug's GAs, and participated in the September 2022 ANI thread, but I don't think that makes me involved. I had hoped at the time of the ANI that Doug could be persuaded to fix some of the problems in his articles, but the sock-puppets have convinced me that he should be banned. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
3. Support This is mostly symbolic due to the fact that he will hit 3X the next time he uses socks or meats, but the cban will send a clear message --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
4. Support I have reviewed some of Doug's GAs, but I have not participated in previous ANI discussions (though I did roughly follow the conversation at the time). The socking is not helping, and it seems like Doug is not able to self-reflect on how to improve his behaviour, so a CBAN should be in place until such time that Doug can demonstrate how to improve their editing, per an unblock request. Z1720 (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
5. Support While it may have been Doug's long tenure and prolific content creation that made him lapse in adequate sourcing, his attitude when asked to improve articles he worked on was uncooperative, and his insistence on continuing to make poor edits after cases were opened shows an unwillingness to work towards Wikipedia's goals, rather just to get "his" content onto Wikipedia. Kingsif (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Involved

1. Support ban. (AFAIK, I had never encountered Coldwell before these incidents, but can probably now be considered involved because of bringing forward the ANI that uncovered the socks.) I believe Coldwell was a good faith contributor whose competence to edit Wikipedia should have been questioned a decade ago. Along with the burnout factor of those who work in the area of copyright patrolling, we have a cleanup problem that is beyond Coldwell's capability to help with; he has demonstrated again this month that he is not able to contribute content written in his own words, using appropriate sources and reflecting them accurately. Whether the new editing represents socks or meatpuppets, it is concerning that others may be emulating Coldwell's poor editing habits. It is time to send a clear message to Coldwell and any Wiki-associates that their time might be better spent elsewhere, and meatpuppets will be reverted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
2. Support ban. Like SandyGeorgia, I don't believe I encountered Coldwell before September 2022. I tried direct engagement with him at Talk:New York Central and Hudson River Railroad No. 999 and came away unimpressed (in particular, he incorporated part of a source assessment I made on the talk page word-for-word into the article). My impression is that Coldwell doesn't have a good grasp of the spirit and intent of our policies. I think this is clearly illustrated at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1112#User Doug Coldwell at Haskelite Building and 801 N. Rowe Street--keep in mind that this incident occurred a month after a long ANI discussion in which he was banned from GA/DYK nominations, had autopatrolled removed, and came pretty close to an indefinite block. Since then the poor-quality editing has continued, and he's either socking or encouraging people he knows to edit (badly). He's well past the point where his editing is a net negative, and the CCIs will take years to resolve. Mackensen (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
3. Support ban. I was one of the first editors to investigate Coldwell for copyright violations after an editor reviewing one of his GAN submissions raised some concerns to me about copyvio, and I was the editor who filed the CCI case request that got us to this point. I'm not going to say that Doug Coldwell should have been caught and disciplined years ago. I'm not going to say that because our processes back then were weren't very good. But now he has been caught, and he's refused to change, and he's has made a big a mess for actually good editors as Billy Hathorn made. Coldwell and Hathorn are not learning types, so as punitive as I feel writing this, advocating for and obtaining a CBAN for Coldwell is not a punitive act. This is the driving into the turf of a fence post for razor wire that will keep future copyvios off English Wikipedia. I do not doubt that as a consequence of his CV and the cleanup required to remove it all, a lot of our coverage of American history is going to regress by years. If it even moved forward in the first place. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 23:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
4. Comment: I would support a ban and I think that it is needed as can be seen from his block appeals however due to the fact that I have been started multiple GARs for his articles and in one of his block appeals he said that I do believe I know who is behind having me banned - User Gusfriend. His campaign is to have all my Good Articles delisted. I believe that I am too involved for a formal !vote on this section. Gusfriend (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
5. Support - my involvement is that I participated in the Sep 2022 ANI thread which led me to do a little editing of the 999 railroad article Mack linked above. I just read the 2007 ANI thread and it's stunning how similar that one is to the one I participated in. After fifteen years we just can't risk spreading more misinformation. Levivich (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
6. Support ban. My first encounter with Doug Coldwell took place in January 2022 with the GA3 review of Cone Mills Corporation. Cone Mills had failed GA1 on copyvio concerns, which I found to be remediated. The reviewer for GA2 never returned, but a comment was left casting doubt on the broadness of the page. I quickfailed Cone Mills on GA3 for failing to address in any substantive manner that comment. I then reviewed five more Coldwell pages, passing two (since delisted at GAR; I have participated in attempts to improve the pages) and failing three others. I participated in the September 2022 ANI but not the October or January ones. The issues have since been revealed to be far broader than poorly cooked GANs and indeed will require long-term, multidisciplinary collaboration to resolve. The mess he has left us, his continued socking activity, and his disregard for some of our most important policies and guidelines merit a ban. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:09, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
7. Support ban In my early days of editing in 2021, I reviewed one Doug Coldwell GAN. I am clearly involved, as the first ANI thread that kicked all this off was started by me. At the time, it was just Doug adding photos of himself into articles along with self-promotional text and then ignoring all attempts to communicate with him, forcing a block just to make him engage at ANI. And then he started posting his "I have over 300 confirmed kills 200 GAs and 500 DYKs" copypasta, and accusing me of being jealous of him (LOL) and otherwise acting poorly. At the time there was hope he would learn from the experience and so an indef block proposal didn't pass. And then the second thread happened and an admin rightly indeffed him. Cue repeated insane unblock requests, one over 50 kb long, and Doug having to get OS'd for OUTING another editor, and then the socking/meatpuppetry. There is no alternative but to impose an outright community ban so any further socking can be reverted on sight. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
8. Support Was not in any contact with Doug, that I am aware of, before the first ANI thread in September 2022. I believe I first saw it after a link was posted in the Wiki Discord, and watched the goings-on for some time, as I rarely get involved at ANIs unless I have to, and watched as the conversation evolved from mild ownership concerns to severe copyright concerns and failure to communicate, requiring a brief block to ensure actual communications. There I got involved, and there saw paranoia, refusal to learn, and petty insults. By near the end of the discussion, I expected Doug would run himself into an indef at the very least, even when he narrowly escaped it at the first ANI thread. Soon after, he did, only to come back with sockpuppets. The CBAN is an unfortunate necessity. Prolific editor, but unwilling to learn, refusal to communicate, and the whole trainwreck of the unblock request... Has to be done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

   Iazyges, you posted in the "Involved" section, without declaring an involvement. Did you mean to post in the "Support" section above? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

   @SandyGeorgia: Amended to declare involvement; should have occurred to me that that should be included. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

   Thanks; I was concerned the format was unclear, so added a line of instruction. I'm not sure if participating in an ANI makes you involved, but the closing admin will have to sort that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

9. Support - copyvio sockpuppeteers need to be dealt with in the harshest of manners because of the massive timesink they cause. No idea as to whether I am involved, so I am parking myself here. MER-C 10:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
10. Support per above. I think the fact that I failed the now-deleted Preparation (principle) article's GA review makes me involved in some form. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 16:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
11. Support Back in 2020, I decided to try my hand at GA reviewing and help out with the backlog. I picked an article that looked not too long, and then I quick-failed it for copyvio and unclear writing. Coldwell then showed up at my Talk page to complain at me: I have created 500 Did You Knows and 50 Good Articles, so have an idea how this goes. [...] I'll ask someone else to do the Good Article review. I'll renominate it. Please don't interfere and just let another editor do it on their own with their own opinion. If I'd had more sense, I would have looked into those 50 GA's back then, and we might have known about the problem 3 years ago. I'll call myself "involved" on those grounds. XOR'easter (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
12. Support ban. I first ran into Doug at Talk:Star Watch Case Company/GA1. It was only my 2nd GA review at the time, but it was obvious that the (low) quality of the writing didn't jive with the number of GAs logged by the author. The perfunctory way they responded to my review also pegged my WTF-meter; it was obvious they weren't giving any real thought to my comments. It was so jarring, I made some off-wiki inquiries to find out what was going on. It wasn't until later when the extent of his GA and DYK gaming came out that I fully understood the situation. And of course the socking (which goes back 15 years) removed any doubt that we're better off without him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 23:33, January 29, 2023 (UTC)

Delisting Coldwell GAs

Pending completion in early March of GA process mergers now underway, the proposal under discussion at GA is that Coldwell GAs will be delisted via a global process except for those articles where a reviewer has opened an individual GA reassessment and vouched for/verified content of all sources, including offline sources (that is, AGF on offline sources is suspended because of history). During the ItsLassieTime CCI, a handful of copyvio GAs were stubbed and delisted via individual GARs; there are over 200 GAs in this case. See implementation details at GA talk, and an encouragement to wait for the GA process merger to be completed.

Discussion of proposal to delist Coldwell GAs

• Support. Implementation detail is being worked out at the GA talk page, and is similar to what is done at Featured article review. Opening 200+ GARs would be a burden, and a combined process will be more efficient. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support this is unfortunately necessary, the problem is widespread enough and reviewing these individually is unrealistic and unfair. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support GAR is overburden as it is --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Save a massive amount of time and effort by avoiding GARs. Basically every single one of his contributions is getting reviewed at CCI anyway. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support, per my comments on the GA talk page. GAR cannot possibly scale to handle the volume, and a GAR without a user to work on the article is something of a dead letter anyway. Mackensen (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support. This is going to be necessary given the experiences I had with the only two Coldwell GAs I passed of six nominees reviewed, Mail chute and Shelby Gem Factory. Not doing this would cripple GAR at a time when GAN itself is also sorely backlogged. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support I'm not sure if there are any precedents for such a large scale GA delisting, but it is warranted in this case. I note SandyGeorgia's comment at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations that her spot checks have found significant problems that are time consuming to fix. Nick-D (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support as in my comments linked above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support per the various comments above. There's no realistic alternative. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support There are too many articles that would need to go to GAR and it would not be sustainable to take them ther individually. Gusfriend (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support - going through them one by one is too much of a burden to place on volunteers. Levivich (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support This must be done in order to preserve the GA rating having any meaning anymore. Doug Coldwell mass-produced these with little care for accuracy or avoiding copyvio; we should not spend the time to rigorously check each and every one when many if not most are chock-full of copyvio, failed verification, and factual errors. I've personally looked at several and they all had massive issues to the point they never should have been promoted to GA regardless. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support I agree that sending all of Doug Coldwell's articles to GAR would be too much work for reviewers. Better to mass-delist and then renominate those that seem like they have some value (not that I think there are any.) NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 04:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support, as unfortunately necessary. No prejudice against anyone who chooses to re-nominate one to GA, although anyone doing so should be warned to enact a full rewrite. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support, on the understanding that any article which is clean of copyvio gets relisted. Animal lover |666| 07:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  Issues are beyond copyvio (misrepresentation of sources, for example), although nothing prevents anyone from re-nominating an article to WP:GAN after a WP:GAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:02, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support, articles often fail broadness and copyvio criteria. GAR costs too much time. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:50, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support per above. MER-C 10:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 16:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support The very first one that I randomly plucked from the list, Typographer (typewriter), reads like it was written for a school assignment, and not for a very old student either. For example, He observed office workers overwhelmed with laborious tasks of handwriting lengthy official documents that took a long time. It would be surprising indeed if the laborious task of writing a lengthy document were completed in a short time! XOR'easter (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support as someone who quickfailed several Coldwell GA nominations only to see them quickly renominated. The GAR process is too cumbersome and there are too many articles for it to be possible to review them individually. And delisting does no real harm to the encyclopedia as the articles are all still there and can be renominated if someone wishes; it merely removes undue credit from Coldwell. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support Too much community time will be taken up by reviewing all of this user's GAs to ensure that they comply with the criteria. I would rather that these are delisted, and interested editors can check the article (and maybe make improvements) before renominating them. Z1720 (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support. I took a look at Star Watch Case Company, which I failed in GA1, but I see was eventually passed in GA3. The quality of the writing is still abysmal. It's fine as far as spelling and grammar goes, but it's stodgy, stilted, and just plain boring to read. I plugged most of the text into a "readability estimator" website which ran a bunch of scoring algorithms on it; the rankings ranged from 5th to 9th grade reading level. If I were reviewing it today, I'd fail it again. I assume this is typical of his other GAs. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  Another Ludington company. I'm beginning to wonder how much POV there is throughout anything now on Wikipedia related to Coldwell's Ludington, Michigan due to COI, and why COI has never come up in these discussions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support As someone who has done hundreds of GAN reviews, I may be the most prolific reviewer to have never touched Doug's work (I'm pretty sure). There were two reasons for this: 1. he had hundreds of noms with zero reviews. 2. when one of his noms for one of the Hall family became the oldest unreviewed nom, I looked over the article and decided that I would not be able to pass it, but that I was not sure I could adequately explain why, at least not without an essay in the review. If we were to run reassessments on all of those articles, those same two issues would make life hard: there are hundreds. There are issues it will likely be hard to explain. But we know there are issues.
  And I honestly do not think delisting should be seen as some horror solution. A GA assessment should be viewed as an assessment, not a badge of honour (as much as we know we wear listed articles as such), and there will be plenty articles out there that could be GA listed or nommed that aren't (GA status is not all-encompassing); i.e. delisting Doug's articles means that they require assessment, is all. I think that's already been established. Kingsif (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Removing unverified content cited to offline sources added by Coldwell

Application of WP:PDEL. Any content added by Doug Coldwell that is cited to an offline source may be removed by any editor from any mainspace article, except those that have passed a new Good article reassessment.

A similar past example for User:Oanabay04

An example of how content from Oanabay04 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was handled: Posting to WP:Trains: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains/Archive:_2015#Major copyright problem Block discussion: User_talk:Oanabay04#Block_extended Sockpuppet discussions: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oanabay04/Archive Sample notice used when reverting articles: Talk:Pennsylvania_Railroad#Copyright_problem_removed Sample AfD of articles: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fox Chase Rapid Transit Line

Coldwell's articles are already at CCI so WP:PDEL applies, but community consensus to shoot offline sources on sight and stubbify articles might help advance the cleanup by at least removing instances of too-close paraphrasing that are extremely time consuming to chase down.

Discussion of removing content cited to offline sources

• Support, but hold off on stubbing articles until the GAR processes complete the planned merge and it is determined what GAs other editors intend to rewrite. I was surprised to find the same issues recurring in 2019, and in the recent sock edits. Of particular concern is the difficulty in tracking down copyright issues in Coldwell's edits because of the extensive use of very old and offline sources; it takes hours to examine one article. The damage spread across content, has been seen already in a healthy sampling of articles. With misrepresentation of sources along with copyright issues, inaccuracies, and archaic sources, WP:AGF on offline sources in GAs is not useful. My own sampling reveals everything covered in the post above with EEng's sample, and the often-archaic sources along with misrepresentation of them combined with plagiarism or too-close-paraphrasing. Because he is often the only editor on obscure topics, it is fairly easy to see what can be deleted if it can't be verified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  To confirm - if an article is not a GA, then it can be stubbed/deleted without waiting? MER-C 11:02, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  Correct. I believe the GA folks are wanting to preserve some GAs if possible, but there are technical issues in how and when to make it happen, so we are asked to hold off until they finish the Proposal Drive and get everything in place. No reason not to deal with other (non-GA) content per usual. Of course, if the copyvio is egregious enough on any given article, I would think that CCI admin action would override GA preferences. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support, and ask that copyright inquisitors not to be expected to restore the articles that CCI will necessarily, as a part of the process, eviscerate. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support This seems uncontroversial and there are a number of precedents for this where we have had to assume everything an editor has added is unreliable and/or a copyright violation. I've handled some instances of this over the years, though not on anything like this scale. Nick-D (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support but, as Sandy notes, delay until implementation of some of the other points. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support but hold off per above. Levivich (talk) 01:50, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Anyone can do this anyway using existing policies but I have found that (1) a community ban and (2) explicit approval from the community for PDEL makes it much easier to deal with. MER-C 10:50, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support Especially given the scale of the problem. Details as per SandyGeorgia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support Sounds like the sensible course of action. XOR'easter (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support Time is an important resource for Wikipedia editors. It takes too much time to track down and evaluate offline sources, so this solution is a better idea. I hope that editors who go through this process will keep the sources in a "Further reading" section so that future editors might be able to use these sources to improve the article. Z1720 (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  Great idea ! You should bold that, Z1720. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

General comments

Image copyright issues

I have yet to dig to find if this is a pattern, but File:1965 Time Capsule II interior.jpg is not in the provided source and is tagged at as FDL image for some reason. File:See-through of Cupaloy.jpg is also improperly tagged. File:Westinghouse 5000 year pin.jpg provides no source so I can not find if DC was the author of the image or not. Someone at commons is going to need to do a CCI as well. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I contribute File:1960s TV camera.jpg and the bizarre recreation that is File:Lionel Flash Lamp.jpg Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:49, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Deleting articles for copyright violations

When it is necessary to seek the deletion of an article on grounds of suspected copyright violations based on precedent by the user concerned, like for example with Billy Hathorn, copyright inquisitors do not use AfD; an AfD wastes time for CCI and AfD regulars (believe me, I know). Instead, copyright editors use Wikipedia:Copyright problems (CP), which gives a seven-day grace period to allow for rewrites before MER-C an admin deletes the article. The method used at CCI for determining what can/should be sent to CP to save volunteer time is demonstrating majority authorship of the article text by a proven copyright violator. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Concurring. MER-C 10:50, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Talk page header

I would like it if a talk page header was created with a link to this discussion plus any other relevant information to be added to any article which was one of the GA articles including those that have already been delisted. This would give people context when they come to the talk page and wonder at the history of the page. Gusfriend (talk) 01:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe note it in the article milestone. Where we'd normally link a GAR, we could link to this thread, perhaps. Levivich (talk) 01:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

There might need to be a project space page with an explainer. Something like Wikipedia:Doug Coldwell copyright violation removals or Wikipedia:Delisting of Good Articles by Doug Coldwell. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I think something bespoke would work best here much like Sammi suggests -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I've now spent more time looking at the script used to close GANs and GARs, and unlike when Gimmebot processed all content review processes into articlehistory, GA now uses a script which operates very differently from the original (gimme)bot or FACbot. (And doesn't give oldids on GARs or roll in DYKs, etc) I've some ideas of how to make the process work, but it will involve some combination of new coding or mass message sender or something. My idea to do it the way FAR does won't work. But better heads can convene elsewhere to figure out how to effect a delisting of a couple hundred GAs without having to initiate a couple hundred GARs. Whatever is written for transclusion to the GARs or talk pages would hopefully not name DC rather be written more generically. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

If GAR uses a process similar to what FAR does, the end result would be a GAR listing in articlehistory that points back to this thread. Should they decide to go that way, I am familiar enough with {{Article history}} and the FAR process to help them set it up. However. Coldwell has many more DYKs than GAs, so that leaves a lot of articles uncovered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I just had a look at User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/GANReviewTool, and it will be trickier than I thought. Some special script coding may be needed, but for 200 plus articles, probably worth the effort. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SeeAlsoPolice

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The user SeeAlsoPolice seems to be displaying a number of odd behavioral problems:

1. they vandalized another user's Wikipedia page, see [88]. They have also refused to stop posting on his page, even edit warring about it: [89], [90], [91], [92]
2. they seem to be using our Wiki to try to make sock edits on Dutch Wikipedia, where they are banned see [93]
3. They are edit warring, see [94], [95], [96], [97]
4. they are rude, see [98] nobody did them because someone falsely claimed I did not provide a X to Y statemen, [[99]] This page should not be speedily deleted because... the user's behaviour on Wikipedia is the digital equivalent to book burning.

--00:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC) Ermenrich (talk) 00:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Came across this at AIV, I indefinitely blocked them for disruptive editing, personal attacks, vandalizing another editor's user page, and edit warring. DanCherek (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:7&6=thirteen and Doug Coldwell content: Topic ban consideration

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is clear consensus for the following:

1. 7&6=thirteen is topic-banned from "all issues relating to [Doug] Coldwell, broadly construed". There was not much discussion of what precisely that means. Based on this discussion and previous ones about Coldwell, I will interpret this as
   1. All content pages that Doug Coldwell has significantly contributed to, broadly construed, or discussions in other namespaces related to those pages, again broadly construed
   2. Ludington, Michigan, broadly construed (largely a subset of 1a)
2. 7&6=thirteen is topic-banned from participation in WP:DYK, broadly construed. While there was little opposition to this proposal, it received less support than the other, and a fair amount of the support was qualified or hesitant; as such, I interpret the consensus relatively narrowly, applying only to participation in pages part of the DYK process and not, more broadly, to commenting about DYK in other venues (which is not to say the latter is a good idea).

The proposal for a community ban fails. However, 7&6 is advised that, while there was general opposition to a CBAN, that opposition was fairly shallow. Given the choice, in some future discussion, between applying a fourth TBAN or applying a CBAN, a CBAN seems much more likely. Likewise, given Wugapodes' note at the November 2021 discussion and TonyBallioni's action here, there is also the possibility that further disruption would be met with a regular indefinite block that would be an uphill battle to overturn. As Amakuru said below, you are at a fork in the road. Only you can decide where to go from here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

---

See User:Doug Coldwell Community Ban

User:7&6=thirteen was involved at many of Doug Coldwell’s GAs and DYKs, issued most of the barnstars awarded to Coldwell (scroll down), and initiated Coldwell's Editor of the Week award. He had the confidence to edit Coldwell’s user page, was the top editor at Coldwell’s talk page (after Coldwell), and that relationship went both ways: [100] [101]

The community has spoken unequivocally with respect to Doug Coldwell’s content. While being friends or Wiki-associates cannot and should not be held against anyone, being unable to see the level of issues with Coldwell’s content, or respect community consensus in the matter, is a problem, and one that should be nipped in the bud as the community moves forward with a CCI and GA reassessment.

Considering the amount of work ahead to clean up the messes left behind, please review the following to contemplate whether 7+6 should be topic banned from all issues relating to Coldwell, broadly construed:

• At Willis Fletcher Johnson, 7+6 reinstates content under discussion for copyright issues (and more) before discussing on talk
• Johnson talk page discussion
• At Ludington Public Library, see stonewalling and uncooperative responses at the talk page of the Coldwell GA, beginning 25 January

For disclosure purposes, I am involved at Johnson as I removed the content originally. I could be considered involved at the library (?) as I flagged it as part of the CCI. Ludington Public Library still has sources that do not verify the content, and the majority of the sources are offline and not available at newspapers.com. Further, the lead gives UNDUE attention to one Ludington, who wasn't even instrumental in the library funding, as he withdrew his pledge (an example of POV seen in Coldwell’s articles). If the behaviors seen at the library article and the Fletcher article are what we can expect going forward with the CCI and GA reassessments, even more time by more editors is to be misspent, and I submit that 7+6 is not neutral, not collaborative, not working in the best interest of content, and should be removed from those conversations.

Separately. Whether 7+6 should continue to participate in DYK nominations might be contemplated.

Notification: [102] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Guilt by association? Really? No cited grounds.

The article that she "flagged" has been improved. Article improvement is supposed to be a shared goal of all of us.

Shutting off any opposing vieiwpoint seems to be contrary to the basic underpinnings of Wikipedia. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:21, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

If you're restoring Doug Coldwell's contributions then you're taking ownership of it. This doesn't seem like a great choice given the community consensus above about Doug's contributions. Is your "opposing viewpoint" that Doug's contributions are in fact good and should be retained? Please elaborate. Mackensen (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Mackensen, there is a valid point being raised here and dismissing it as "Guilt by association" is just childish. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Personalization seen at the library continues at Johnson. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with the article to begin with. I am not talkng about all of his articles, only this one. Indeed, User:SandyGeorgia are again taking inconsistent and mutually exclusive positions. "cut and paste" copyright violations and WP:OR. You can't have it both ways. But these are mutually exclusive by definition. You need to spend some time on a logic course if that is your position. Res ipsa loquitor But it you are saying that Wikipedia is treating Doug Coldwell and all of his edits is nonexistent, and something along with his history, accomplishments, improved articles 500 DYKs and untold GAs are to be summarily expunged — I get that. But I think WP:Preserve and the established procedures for individual consideration are to the contrary. Remaking history is anathema to our values, and is something endemic elsewhere.

I personally edited the Ludington Public Library article 58 times, and made it substantially different than this. Nobody can improve or change the 'tainted articles'? Really?

If those are your rules, then torpedo them all, but put up a warning notice.

As a responsible editor with damn near 150k in edits, I expected better treatment.

Personalization continues here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to look into the context here but it should be obvious an editor can easily be guilty of both OR and copyright violations in the same article. Even in the same paragraph. Further OR is often used loosely to include taking material from primary sources or other unreliable sources, and especially taking material from primary sources and advancing a position not stated in the primary sources. It's clearly trivial to add material not stated in the source while also copying as I can do right here "As a responsible editor with damn near 150k in edits, I expected better treatment. Personalization continues here. I suggest a siteban for SandyGeorgia." The first two sentences I copied from you. The last one is just some shit I made up. Nil Einne (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support block for thirteen. The last time they were here was also in a matter regarding their lack of care regarding sourcing―which puts it generously, frankly, considering they were effectively being accused of falsifying a source―a lack of concern which the above complaint would seem to indicate hasn't been addressed by 13, but which has instead become a pattern, or habitual. Nor, would it seem that that they took the closer's final words into account: this discussion should serve as a sufficient, final warning. If problems continue, administrators responding to editor concerns should consider resolving the issue using existing tools. By now, they're approaching, if not actually, a net negative to the project. SN54129 17:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  Wow. Considering that the "made up sources" was a lie and was found to be wrong, and I was acquitted, User:Serial Number 54129 has jumped the shark. But double jeopardy, innocence and due process of law are seemingly alien concepts with no application here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  A jump to a block is ridiculous, SN. A topic ban, as requested, yeah, I can see that being something to discuss. But to throw petrol on the fire with a leap to a block seems... excessive. — Trey Maturin™ 17:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  Not at all, merely following the recommendation of the last admin to warn 13 of his behavior. It would certainly not 'throw petrol on the fire' any more than the usual sprawling threads that seem the inevitable outcome of any discussion with them at the heart of it. It would also take into account the continuing WP:LISTEN issues they continue to demonstrate here: they literally argue that they were 'acquitted' last time, when in fact they received a final warning. And anything that enables an impression of being fireproof...however many edits... is unhelpful. SN54129 17:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  A sprawling thread is now guaranteed by escalating this to a drama, SN, and the likely result will therefore be no action. I'd assume this is the opposite of what you were seeking, but so be it. — Trey Maturin™ 17:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• The underlying charge of "making up references" was untrue and found to be a mere typographical error. Check the record before again repeating the lie. I am not niffnawing about the warning or the topic ban. I know that they exist, and I've acted accordingly — which I have scrupulously respected. But you folks will have to follow your own conscience.

FWIW, I thought the arbitrator's got it wrong. That is a closed issue, however. As arbitration has to be final and binding for the community to function; as the community ruled, I obeyed. See Socrates and Hemlock. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• I am not niffnawing about the warning or the topic ban = ∴ "the next step is escalating blocks". Cool word, niffnawing though. SN54129 17:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps someone will separate the two (topic ban or block) via subheads? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  Never mind: I just read Wugapodes closing statement at the previous topic ban discussion, and see that it is quite relevant to behavior that continues here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support t-ban - There was nothing wrong with the article to begin with. - and yet, unattributed public domain copying and source-text-integrity issues (AKA the "bless-your-heart" version of saying something is OR) noted on the talk page well before this. And yes, unattributed public domain copying is still problematic even though the source is PD, we need to be indicating where material came from. And bragging about edit count (150k edits ...) is not too far removed from what got Doug in trouble. Thirteen, I'm starting to wonder if you have trouble identifying sourcing issues with articles, given the past AN/I discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 18:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

There are lots of sources. If it needed more quotation marks, that could be done. Indeed, that was one of my suggestions. Blowing up articles that are well sourced and attributed, like Ludington Public Library which is fully attributed, seems extreme to me and contrary to the best interest of the project. Improving and rewriting the article is permissible. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

You're not grappling with the main issue, which is that given an article that was substantively edited by Doug Coldwell, many (most?) editors don't trust the attribution. You should read over #User:Doug Coldwell further up this page, if you haven't already, and consider what's been said and proven there. Looking briefly at Ludington Public Library, I see many offline sources that will be difficult to check, including a number well over a century old. Given Coldwell's record, I don't trust any of those to say what he claims they say without seeing them for myself. Mackensen (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Use of real library books used to be encouraged; and their use (instead of whatever you might find on line) does not make them unreferenced. I 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

This is not all responsive to what I or others have written. Mackensen (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The question is though: have you read them, and can you vouch for the statements and accompanying sources? If so, can you share the sources for others to vouch for the content similarly? – robertsky (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

AND can you confirm that they aren't copied or closely paraphrased. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not for us to question AN consensus. But.

How many of the offline sources at Ludington Public Library have you reviewed? Most of the article is cited to offline sources. It is difficult to consider that you have accessed the offline sources, because your rewrite still includes online sources that are inaccurately represented. I'm hoping you understand that the frequent misrepresentation of and misuse of sources, besides our inability to verify copyright issues in the offline sources, is why the AN found consensus to stubbify these articles (which WP:PDEL provides even without the AN consensus).

Separately, it's curious that you revisited talk to sign, but did not remove the personalization;[103] logic was a core course in my undergraduate major. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Unless 7&6=thirteen is personally taking responsibility for the sourcing of the content (as in they have checking and confirm the details) they are restoring they need to stop. There has already been discussions about the issues involved. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  Maybe you need a refresher. I know User:Doug Coldwell from Wikipedia for over a decade. He is an honest contributor. I know that he regularly consulted with the library (including the Library of Congress. I know that he would send me copies of off line sources if a question arose. WP:AGF should cover those. I also know that his Wikipedia articles and research have actually become the basis of newly published scholarly books, and that he got letters and mention in the books attesting to his conribution. I also know that he was a pain in the ass, who bombarded me with missives telling me how to research and conntribute to Wikipedia; he is a true believe in article preparation (he had a second account for his drafts, but always posted them to the main space from his own account) and careful off line research. He had a standard method of operation, and would get the books, do the drafts, redo the drafts, and only belatedly post a full blown article. He had more patience and persistence than I in the whole good article quest. His work was repeatedly reviewed at DYK and GA. He had no incentive to lie about what he found. His format style was not always electronically informed, so that when we edited the same article we would work on that together.

  I did not keep track of off line reviews of materials. It was not part of my job description. With 150k (almost) edits, I have little recollection.

  As to your opining that the off line sources do not exist, that is contrary to what Wikipedia says about off line sources. As Jonathan Swift Charles Kingsley once wrote, "you cannot say that water babies do not exist, unless you have seen them not existing."

  You expect me to confess, recant and thrown Doug under the bus. As Galileo said as he left the Inquisition: "And yet it moves."

  That you folks think your evil thoughts of him is not my experience. Honi soit qui mal y pense 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  I missed where someone said "the off line sources do not exist"; pls clarify.

  So, you have not answered the question, but it appears from what you have said that you have not read the offline sources for Ludington Public Library, nor have you yet corrected the content that misrepresents accessible sources. (You might recall that I found one of the books-- which was incorrectly cited-- at archive.org; as more and more of these archaic sources are being indexed at archive.org, the problems are becoming more and more evident.)

  So, when you revert content back in, how do you know you aren't reinserting copyvio? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  AGF is not a suicide pact. With respect to Doug's editing, there is currently a CCI case open against him, due to repeated findings of copyvios and close paraphrasings in the article text. Just a few days ago, because of the volume and nature of Doug's problematic contributions, it was decided to apply WP:PDEL to any content added by Doug which was cited to offline sources. We are very, very far past the point of AGF on this.

  7&6=thirteen, when you are restoring content written by Doug, that editors have removed on PDEL or any other copyvio or CLOP grounds, are you actually verifying that the sourcing is correct and supports the text in the article, and that the text in the article is neither a copyright violation or close paraphrase of the source material? Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban (involved): 7+6 had a chance to answer the concerns, but instead keeps digging, doesn't answer direct questions, can't acknowledge the problems, and time is being misspent on an issue that has already taken more than its due. Wugapodes previous close of a similar tban discussion should also be considered in light of the personalization. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  Support ban from DYK as well; it is not hard to see how we got such a big Coldwell problem, and we need to remove reviewers from DYK who don't understand core policies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. 7&6=thirteen's post above, in reply to ActivelyDisinterested, convinces me that he other does not understand, hasn't read, or doesn't care about the problems with Doug's editing. Hundreds of edit hours are being spent to clear up the copyright and paraphrasing problems Doug refused to acknowledge or help with. The community needs to be able to trust in the commitment of the editors working on trying to clean up the content Doug wrote. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support - we know that final warnings don't work because 13 has interpreted the last final warning as being "acquitted". In response to the "but did you check the sources?" query from multiple editors, 13 admits they did not, but thinks that because they have 150k edits, they deserve better treatment. In addition, 13 denies that Doug Coldwell's articles were problematic, ignoring community consensus to the contrary. 13 reminds me very much of Doug in this way: either unwilling or unable to comply with our sourcing policies (or even to recognize the difference between good sources and bad sources, or the importance of actually checking sources). I'm not sure what kind of sanction exactly (a block or a ban, and if so, how long/from what, etc.), but clearly talking to 13 isn't working, warnings aren't working, and nobody should have to deal with someone wholesale reinstating Doug Coldwell's content with offline sources without even checking those sources, that's disruptive and a timesink, and contradicting recent community consensus. The incivility (telling another editor take logic classes, "evil thoughts" above and the comparison to Galileo and the Inquisition, etc.) is an additional layer of disruption, but recklessly adding stuff to mainspace without sufficient care for accuracy and policy compliance is more important. Levivich (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support topic ban at minimum per Levivich. Given the disregard for a consensus regarding Coldwell arrived at after careful analysis from the community, 'reckless' seems a fair description here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I found the book on line, and there was an extended discussion about whether the ISBNs were right.

I recognize your power. I respectfully submit that no violation has been proved, and telling everyone that articles are to be nuked (without considering other editor's input on them, for instance) is a bad idea. But I also understand that I am now to be collateral damage when all I did was improve articles. You are destroying the village to save it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

You really aren't doing yourself any favours with such facile analogies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I recognize your power. I saw what you did there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Restoring content that is presumed to be a copyright violation, without actively checking if it is a copyright violation, is not improving the article. It is reckless, and as the header at WP:CV states, has legal considerations. If you cannot see the problem here with regards to the inclusion of text that is violating copyright, then do we need to open a CCI case into your contributions as well? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

If you "found the book on line", I wonder why I had to add it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from all things Coldwell at a minimum. Levivich summarizes the problem well. Cullen328 (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

You've already made up your minds. Now comes into play that they just want to delete Coldwell's articles and use the term "Nuke Coldwell's articles". Do they mean they want to delete articles he created = that means all the other editors that have expanded it since lose their work instantly. Take now for instance Columbus's letter on the first voyage that Coldwell created in 2008. However User:Walrasiad has been expanding for years and has 92% authorship. He will then instantly lose all his work = what will he say about that? It doesn't seem right that all these editors that have expanded an article Coldwell created will lose their work.

There are some articles that Coldwell didn't create but has the largest authorship into. An example would be Eber Brock Ward where Coldwell has 54% into it and 7&6=thirteen have 21% into it. The creator of the article is User:Krosewood\. Does that mean then that other innnocented editors lose their work instantly because Coldwell has the largest authorship into it and therefore must be nuked and deleted in 1 step. I guessing that "nuking" any article Coldwell has edited (989) might present a problem. Time will tell how this is going to play out. The complete Wikipedia project might have to be rewritten as to how it is to be done if you "nuke" any article Coldwell has edited. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Thirteen, I think you're misunderstanding the proposal. At least as I've understood it, content that's been checked/rewritten for copyright/verification issues (for instance, what I did with Appomattox Court House National Historical Park to keep it from being stubbed) isn't going to be removed, and content from other editors like Walrasiad isn't going to be removed either. Hog Farm _Talk 22:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

This is one of the (many) problems with so many editors having no idea how much work a CCI is, or even what is involved. Coldwell's content actually has to be teased out from other content, so that extensively rewriting his GAs before his content is removed makes the work even harder. 7+6 is seriously misstating the "nuke the article" issue, as one actually has to go into painstaking, time-consuming detail to figure out what can be removed. I did it last night for the Library article, took me over half an hour, but I didn't save the edit because the AN consensus is to hold off for GAR reasons. This half hour is after I have already spent days on that one article, and located as many sources online as I could. I shouldn't have to do that for every one of thousands of edits that need to be checked at the CCI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I was pinged here, haven't been following any of this discussion. The Columbus letter article took an enormous amount of work to write, so this is naturally frightening. I am not sure who DougColdwell is or what his crime was. But on behalf of other expanders like me, I would appreciate if editors would be careful with composition shares before nuking any article. Walrasiad (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Walrasiad: Doug Coldwell's 'crimes' are discussed just a bit further up this page, at § User:Doug Coldwell, but they include significant problems with copyright and apparently also misrepresentation of offline sources. There is, however, no "nuking" of articles beyond one or two users suggesting it as an option, and it's very unlikely to happen precisely because of concerns like yours over the contributions of uninvolved editors. The only content-removal remedy endorsed by the community that even approaches deletion is this one: [users] may remove any content Doug Coldwell added that is cited to an offline source. XAM2175 ^(T) 11:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support Regrettably there doesn't appear to be another option. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support TBAN and DYK ban 13 has been given ample opportunity to reflect on his actions with regards to this issue, and acknowledge the issues he has created when restoring content removed for copyvio reasons. For whatever reason he seems unable to understand, or unable to accept that Doug's contributions, particularly with regards to content supported by offline sources, were a problem. In order to prevent disruption of what will already be a long cleanup process, and in order to prevent future articles with copyvios from passing DYK, I have to support both bans. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
• This feels like a bit of a mob action. Now that doesn't mean the mob doesn't have a good point. But my sense is most of the folks commenting here are involved and have strong feelings about the user that predate the particular issue. That said, I think User:7&6=thirteen is doing a poor job of dealing with the issues and, at the least, is communicating poorly. I'd personally prefer someone open an ARBCOM case or, perhaps, find a set of uninvolved admins and get them to sort out the issues. I just don't think we have an unbiased jury. Which, I want to note, isn't the same as saying the defendant is innocent. Hobit (talk) 22:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  You're not wrong--I'm one of the people who have complained at noticeboards for a long time about 13's editing. Why does that make me "biased" as opposed to "perceptive" ... or "correct"? :-) Serious question: I have a greater-than-average knowledge of 13's editing, as do some of the other folks here. Why should our opinions be valued less than people who have less knowledge/experience with this issue than we do?

  As to opening an arbcom case... we just had one last year about 13 and deletion discussions, and 13 was TBANed from deletion as a result. If we open another arbcom case, who is going to post the evidence? Why make editors do more work? If I'm the one who posts the diffs, should they be discounted because of my past involvement? Does that help the community resolve this?

  Hobit, I encourage you to !vote, no matter how you vote. I fundamentally agree that this discussion, like most discussions, could benefit from more voices, but I don't think that an experienced jury is a biased jury. Levivich (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  I am the only involved editor entering a declaration, and my involvement is declared. On what basis do you claim that "most folks commenting here are involved"? Arbcom doesn't take cases that the community can solve. And an uninvolved admin will sort this when they close the thread. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  I saw some of the same names at the last 13 discussion. And at least two are, IMO, folks that sit in ideological opposition to 13 when it comes to inclusion/deletionism issues. And to answer the question about needing to post diffs: A) an involved person always posts diffs and makes a case at ARBCOM. The difference here is that you are making the case and serving on the jury by having a bold vote. And B) if you feel you'd need to do too much research and work to make a case ARBCOM would take, doesn't that say something about the case that's been made made here? A I don't have time right now to dig through all this and I probably won't until the weekend (I'm a single parent for a few more days). Hobit (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  Edit conflicted with Levivich, who says they are also involved; that makes two. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• Perhaps I missed it in the fast-moving thread, but I haven't seen anyone yet mention 7&6's reply to Sandy on their talkpage here, which strikes me as being at best astonishingly tone-deaf and in poor taste. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  I chose to ignore it as just another side show. I was hoping to keep focus on a user who should not be reviewing content at all-- much less his friend's content-- in an environment where so many people are asking how we let Coldwell happen. Coldwell happened because of Quid Pro Quo reviewing at DYK, that feeds a need for bling, that can be furthered by friends reviewing friends' articles. And suddenly the problem is huge ... and as EEng said, woven throughout the fabric of Wikipedia. Hence, the DYK ban as well. It all started there, and we have the same thing happening there today: people passing articles to the main page that shouldn't even be on Wikipedia. We don't need editors reviewing DYKs who don't understand COPYVIO or too-close paraphrasing, or OR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  13 makes comments like that in every one of these discussions (something I know because of my prior involvement...). Civility and battleground behavior is the finding that arbcom made in the deletion case. We're seriously talking about 3 TBANs on an editor in one year, plus ongoing incivility? I'd support a siteban at this point. Levivich (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  I did not know of this extensive history ... sometimes I amaze myself at what I stumble in to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked for 72 hours found this after SandyGeorgia followed up with me about the original close on my talk page. Reviewing the edits to mainspace and here, they're editing against community consensus in the AN thread above and are displaying battleground behavior on general and in this thread. I've blocked for 72 hours to allow the community to decide if further action is needed without having to worry about continued disruption. If there's consensus here to undo my block at any point, I'm fine with it being lifted, but I thought it would be helpful in allowing the process to continue while limiting disruption. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support Topic Ban 7&6=13 simply doesn't understand what the issue with his actions are with regard to Doug Coldwell articles, and unless he shows significant understanding, there is no choice but to topic ban him from the area given the massive amount of editor time already being spent dealing with Coldwell articles. Also, Comment since another user has already proposed a block, I am not yet weighing in, but 7&6=13's past of sanctions must be considered. In 2022 he was a party to an Arbcom case in which he was topic banned from deletion, and one arbitrator (Worm) supported a site ban even at that time. ( Two other arbitrators abstained.) Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support both topic bans— at a minimum. We need a cooling off period here so that editors can dig into the DC mess without unnecessary impediments in their way.
  Now, let me address 7&6 for a moment. He and I have worked together a little long ago, and I know him to be well meaning in the past. 7&6, I understand that you think that you're defending the honor of a friend. I know you want to preserve contributions to Wikipedia that you think are valuable. Loyalty like that is commendable. The trouble is that the object of your loyalty has been found to have breached core levels of trust with the community and opened that same community up to potential legal ramifications. Unfortunately, a lot of Doug Coldwell's contributions will have to be undone. They all need to be scrupulously checked against all of the original sources. We can't assume good faith anymore at this level. We have to verify everything he's done to get rid of these issues. You need to step aside and let people do that work. Doug has no more honor to defend.
  Now, 7&6, you have a temporary block to give some time for this discussion to proceed. This time should also allow you to reflect on the situation. If you come back guns blazing, obstructing the CCI work on DC's articles, if you fight the process to delist GAs that aren't adopted and rewritten, etc., then I will support a full site ban given the past history of warnings and the behavior here before your temporary block. Imzadi 1979 → 01:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support both topic bans. I've followed this since the Doug Coldwell problems came to light recently, and more than anything it just makes me very sad. But sometimes hard decisions need to be made, and the right one was made in his case (with a strong community consensus). Now, 7&6=thirteen has clearly been working too closely with Doug to have been the right person to do DYK or GA reviews, and is too emotionally involved to attempt to work on any cleanup. That alone would mean they should be excluded from the work. But the refusal to understand and accept the consensus decison, the deliberate attempts to obstruct the cleanup, the evasion, the obfuscation, the hyperbole, the battleground, the personal attacks, all make that exclusion more urgent. This is very disappointing behaviour from someone with such extensive experience here. I hope further sanctions aren't needed once the current short block expires. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

  PS: I just want to add that, to the best of my recollection, I've had no past conflicts with either Doug Coldwell or 7&6=thirteen, I don't think I've overlapped in any subject areas with them, and I'm not aware of any ideological differences with either of them. I'm about as uninvolved as I can be, as far as I know. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support both topic bans, per Levivich (at 21:38, 30 Jan), and Boing! said Zebedee directly above. I also suspect, with comments like You've already made up your minds. Now comes into play that they just want to delete Coldwell's articles and use the term "Nuke Coldwell's articles", that Thirteen might be approaching this as a proxy battleground for deletion as a whole. XAM2175 ^(T) 11:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

As I am processing through a chart to sort article history and template errors for the talk page notices to be sent re User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox9 and implementation of the GAR process, I happened across an interesting example of 7+6 participation in a GAR: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/James L. Buie/1. Worth a read as relevant to this discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic bans at minimum Full disclosure: I have come into conflict with 13 before. Their conduct in this case falls below the standards expected of an experienced user, and I don't see any other viable alternative other than to topic ban them to avoid continuing disruption. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support topic ban at minimum: It is glaringly obvious to me that 7&6=thirteen is suffering the same hardness of hearing that Coldwell had, and his combative stance (to say nothing of linking common argumentative devices like "mutually exclusive", which I read as an insult to the target's intelligence)—evidenced quite clearly by the legal devices he is using as though this is an argument to be won rather than a discussion about problems (proven beyond doubt, I might add) to be resolved—do not inspire confidence that this will not eventually also escalate to a CBAN. The Coldwellian use of edit count as a barometer of competence and worthiness, as a shield against criticism, is particularly odious. Anyone reading this can think of plenty of editors who did likewise and found themselves hung with a rope whose length is equivalent in cubits to their edit count. More to the point, intrusions into CCI and obstruction of the removal of identified violations cannot be tolerated. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 10:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support topic ban What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If Doug Caldwell is banned for something, and 7&6 is picking up the mantle on the same kinds of behavior, I don't see why we shouldn't extend the ban to them as well. --Jayron32 15:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose all for now OK, I just looked over the links provided by @SandyGeorgia: at Willis Fletcher Johnson. I'm only seeing the vaguest of waive at issues with no specific details of any actual copyright violation. Can anyone, specially including the OP here (SG) provide exact and specific issues with the revert? And where those exact and specific issues were raised before being brought here? I'm seeing one quote of material that I think there is agreement is in the public domain (so while not what we should be doing it can't be a copyright problem) and vague mentions of "there are too many similarities and the possibility that offline sources are plagiarized or misrepresented exists". Which isn't the basis for doing anything frankly. At least not without consensus that there is an issue. Copyright violations should not be restored. Vague concerns about copyright violations are not copyright violations. Hobit (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I will. But I spent days going back and forth trying to repair Fletcher, so the history is complicated (at one point, fearing I had reverted too much from the first sock (not knowing at the time it was a sock), I had begun to reinstate pieces although I didn't have the sources-- this was before we had AN consensus to WP:PDEL offline sources so I had to AGF). In the final revert where I gave up and removed the whole thing, I had also found one instance of cut and paste from The New York Times (that is documented on talk, see this section) after finding sources contradicting his academic background.

  Here is the version 7/6 re-instated after I had spent already several days cleaning out original research after the socks, and that contains the NYT cut-and-paste ("He later received the honorary degree ..."). Other too-closely-paraphrased text in the article at that point mimics the upper case used in the sources. Here's the version the second sock left with Gwillhickers appearing to help. (Aside: Gwillhickers also has hundreds of DYKs, and close paraphrasing difficulties, but they had edited the article in the past.) And here is the inglorious version after the first sock, replete with blatant original research and UNDUE content at Selected works (the man wrote real books, yet the entire Selected Works here in the new and improved bio was about a minor self-published family account not even mentioned in his bios). That section also contradicts itself, as even one of the cited sources, Dacquinto, states DeVinne is a printer, not a publisher. This is the kind of sloppy source-to-text integrity found throughout Coldwell's work. In this case, there is a significant reason behind that writing and sock and Wikiassociate defense of this particular article.

  At the time of my final revert, I had invested considerable time already into locating offline sources, and at the point I found the NYT cut-and-paste, there were still several sources I had not located and could not verify. A CCI was open, and PDEL applies. At that point, I had found one source that claimed he graduated from NYT and another that stated he did not, so that remained to be sorted. As an example of the kinds of issues frequently found in Coldwell's writing, I invite you to spend as much time as you want on the first paragraph at Biographer and book author to attempt to repair the integrity of that wording. I invite you to verify the first sentence of Personal life. There is more, but at this late stage I can't recall it all from memory, and am not going to spend more time on it, as the basis for that revert was PDEL and the amount of problems and original research I had already repaired when I also found cut-and-paste. 7/6's edit might have been understandable if he had continued the repair work I had started, and instead of wholesale reverting, restoring a repaired article. What he reverted to not only had the NYT cut-and-paste; it had other unverified and contradictory content.

  More significant in the overall content the socks built at that article than the copyright issues was the original research. Coldwell's entire premise in all of those edits was original research, where he looked at a page at the end of the book with a printing stamp to conclude that the printer was the same as a publisher (DeVinne is a printer), and blatantly constructed an entire argument to that effect, using OR to contradict a secondary scholarly source. The COI/POV aspect of this stood out to me. He was using OR as a basis for defending the content he has spread throughout the Ludington family articles that is based on a laudatory account that was self-published by Henry Ludington's grandchildren. It appears that he chose to sock at Johnson because that article is foundational to much of Coldwell's work throughout a series of Ludington-related articles, and it is not curious that reverting that content back in became important to 7/6.

  There are sources to write a real article about Johnson, the socks provided many that might be used, and Johnson is worthy of someone taking the time to do that. The sources produced by Coldwell and Co. can be used, but the article has to be built from the ground up, avoiding cut-and-paste, and double-checking discrepancies between sources, and avoiding POV and OR. This is why going forward with PDEL on Coldwell content, I urge that the source list be kept on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  PS, I have not investigated, but before assuming NYT from that date is public domain, I believe it has to be ascertained if they applied for copyright extension. This is all a separate matter from the original discussion, though, which is that 7/6 wholesale reverted against AN consensus without addressing issues or ascertaining that content hewed to offline sources, or for that matter, even discussing on talk (he went to talk after the revert, and didn't address the previous concerns raised. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia:, as I hope you know, and just for the record, I was not trying to "help" inasmuch as I was going against consensus. At one point  I added an image and did a minor rewording in the lede. A day or so later I made a couple more minor edits. As I explained to you on the talk page I was going to leave matters in your hands given all the controversy going on at ANI and elsewhere. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC).

I understand and do not disagree; I commented because you had been there but proceeded to edit as if the article did not have huge problems, so we end up between your edits, my edits (before I understood we were dealing with socks), and two socks editing, with quite a convoluted edit history that is probably hard for others to follow. And Hobit asked for detail. By the time of my broad revert back to status quo, I had several days in at that article, and looking back (WP:PDEL), that was time misspent. I gave up trying to repair when I found the cut-and-paste on January 15. We found out on January 19 there was socking ([104]). On January 30, the AN closed with consensus. 7/6 went against consensus on 30 January, after the AN closed. So while you and I may have been editing earlier without having the full picture, that was not the case with 7/6. When I launched this thread, considering how brazen the revert was, I half expected 7/6 to simply say they were not aware of the AN, in which case everything might have been viewed differently. That didn't happen; instead, 7/6 has repeatedly dug in and refused to understand that issues with Coldwell's content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support TBAN in regards to Coldwell material. I neither support nor oppose a TBAN from DYK. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support both t-bans Discussion here alone makes it very clear they should have no involvement with copyright or DYK. Anyone who can even moderately assert that "WP:AGF should cover those." in terms of Coldwell runs head-first into WP:CIR; none of Coldwell's edits can be trusted, that much has been made very clear over the course of numerous discussions. Perhaps one might be willing to defend Coldwell the man or even Coldwell the editor, but anyone willing to defend Coldwell's work needs to be kept far away from copyright, and DYK removal seems useful given obvious lack of care taken. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 09:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support both TBANS Better with a 1 year autoexpire and appealable in 6 months. From process standpoint I have problems with this. It sounds more link a vague discussion from an angry mob. I don't even see specific allegations identified as such. But from the comments of many credible people here that there is damage to be undone and that 7&6 is an impediment to that. Also 7&6 doesn't seem to be taking any of this to heart or truly engaging on the specific problems. Their responses seem to be vague volleys. Despite flaws in the above process, I think that this moderate remedy is called for and needed.North8000 (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support the proposed topic ban. At first I was thinking of opposing as the dispute was primarily between SandyGeorgia and 7&6=thirteen, and the comments from other editors on the talk pages came later and looked like they could have resolved it, but from the discussion here it looks like that isn't going to work. I don't see enough evidence to support a ban from DYK - depends if it's part of a pattern or limited to Coldwell's contributions. Peter James (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposal for CBAN

Comment: I have created this subsection and moved prior support for a CBAN here because it's a serious proposition that I at least think should be considered giving the seriousness of this thread's subject material. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 10:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support both topic bans and site ban. Competence and a willingness to cooperate are both necessary to collaborate here. 7&6 is lacking one or both, and in plenty of contexts apart from Doug Coldwell's contributions. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

  Well, now that this is being seriously considered, I should elaborate my reasons for supporting a site ban. As other editors like Levivich and HJ Mitchell have noted, this is a recurring problem. It's not just Doug Coldwell. In fact, I would argue that his friendship with Doug Coldwell is, in some ways, happenstance; it is how he became aware of this situation, but not the sole and maybe not even the primary reason that he involved himself in it. After all, a vast amount of content is being deleted, and as we all know, 7&6 stridently opposes deleting content. Therefore, he has taken it upon himself to—in violation of his topic ban—obstruct the consensus to delete here, just like he obstructed deletions at AfD. I have no doubt that 7&6 means well and loves adding to this project. In fact, I fear he may love it a little too much: he does not seem able to understand why some content (e.g., copyvios, OR) is bad, or even to recognize that his understanding is lacking in this area, and when editors try to proceed without his agreement, it becomes a meritless purge, a show trial, to quote 7&6's remarks on how the community has handled Doug as well as himself. He has caused no end of disruption. He needs an indefinite ban, not a three-day slap on the wrist, both to end the disruption and to drive home the point that, yes, this is disruptive. 7&6 does great work, and I want him to contribute, but not like this. I pray that six months or a year and the process of writing an appeal will offer enough time and self-reflection for him to develop a healthier perspective. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic and community bans Anyone who compares being discussed at a noticeboard with being dragged off by the Gestapo lacks the maturity to participate in a collaborative environment.72.213.11.193 (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support TBANs and CBANs. This is just one in a long, long series of AN/Is related to 13's behavior and it doesn't surprise me in the least that he's here again. The same attitude that was incompatible with deletion discussions is also incompatible with DYK/GAR, and the continuing civility issues just push this over the edge. JoelleJay (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I think my involvement too high to opine at this level. With the original (Doug Coldwell) CBAN, I had never interacted with him, and my observations were from afar. With 7&6, I have now had direct conflict, I was unaware of the history, and I don't have time to investigate it. I continue in support of two Tbans (all things Coldwell broadly construed, and DYK participation). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  7/6 (blocked) has responded on talk. I'm not thrilled that 7/6 says "you should be ashamed" because an IP lodged a query on my talk, and I told the IP I doubted it, but it's unclear if 7/6's "you" refers to one IP or to me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - I'm not here to defend 13 but if the purpose of the sanctions are to stop disruption in the most effective way while doing the most minimal harm to the rest of the encyclopedia as possible then this makes no sense. If sanctions are meant to punish someone we disagree with or has made serious mistakes in the harshest way then this makes perfect sense. I'm not going to minimalize or trivialize 13's actions. I disagree with them wholeheartedly but I also believe that 13 can be a positive for the encyclopedia. I've worked with 13 in the past on very specific topics and they do great work when focused in the right direction. They have made a series of significant missteps and lost sight of the goal of this community and this encyclopedia but I don't believe they are a lost cause just yet. The immediate disruption has been stopped. If it continues after this latest block then I would agree that further action must take place. The proposals above of specific topic bans seems more reasonable to the potential of further disruption in the areas where 13 seems to have an issue at the moment. Hopefully 13 can refocus and get back to positive editing that is beneficial to the encyclopedia and that will be their choice. I think we should give them that opportunity. --ARoseWolf 13:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - CBANs should only be utilized during instances where the disruption is so pervasive and ongoing that blocks are not preventing them. The 72-hour block has not even expired yet; I would think that waiting would be prudent, with no prejudice against implementing any of the previously proposed topic bans. --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Cban, support tbans. Changing my stance, apologies; after all, I supported SashiRolls return, so this seems like an inverse, but not ultimately particularly different, situation to that. No more rope. Thirteen's disruption has been both persistent and consistent over the last few years, as was recognized in their receiving a final warning last time. No more rope, unfortunately, is available. Nonsense. On reconsideration, there's almost always more rope, even for Haman. SN54129 13:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC) SN54129 18:21, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Serial Number 54129: I admit I know nothing about the SashiRolls situation, but from your description, it sounds like they were appealing a ban. That leaves me confused, as these two scenarios presumably feature the basic difference that the SashiRolls admitted wrongdoing and apologized for it, whereas 7&6 has basically not. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - (Non-administrator comment) In line with ARoseWolf and WaltClip's views on this. I'd be more likely to support more specific IBANs/measures that deal specifically with offline source verification, but the idea that 13's behaviour merits such a massive hammer seems extreme in my eyes. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 14:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support TBAN and CBAN. This is a case of 7&6 winnowing the field he actually does any good work to an impossibly narrow area where he is more damaging to the community than beneficial. Stymying a massive cleanup and casting aspersions at the people doing the thankless work is absolutely the final straw for me, when it's coupled with the fact that he is acting like core policies regarding verification, sourcing, and plagiarism are no big deal. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose CBAN A topic ban should be sufficient at this point. --Jayron32 15:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Let's stop, at this point, and let things settle. I have not been involved at all with any of these people to my memory, but it does not take much digging to realize how sad and emotional the Coldwell situation is and how much of it is the responsibility of the community over multiple years. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for now (I'm not sure, but I think this is a separate thing from above, if not strike this !vote). I can't find an actual violation of, well, anything, in the OP's statement for at least the first article listed. So I'm having problems thinking anything needs to be done at this time. Willing to change if a clearer case exists. Hobit (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  I have encountered 7/6 at two Coldwell articles. In the section above (before this new proposal was created) I gave you examples for Willis Fletcher Johnson and why that particular article was significant. The other is Ludington Public Library, which 7/6 has vigorously defended and said there was "nothing wrong with". 7/6's style at that article has been (to use the term someone below used) Coldwellian.

  Here is an example of cut-and-paste from a source I had to dig up where 7/6 removed my inline without changing the cut-and-paste (and then stonewalled on talk when I was trying to determine if I had the right source, as the citation was incorrectly written and then 7/6 gave a non-working ISBN).

  Here is the simplest single example I can offer of characteristic Coldwell content, unchanged by 7/6:

  1. Source The Ludington Daily News
  2. Article content after 7/6 edits: "The Zonta Room, named for the local branch of Zonta International, includes extensive genealogical and historical research materials."
  3. Article content before 7/6 edits: "The Zonta Room, named for the local branch of Zonta International, includes extensive genealogical and historical research materials."

  After hours working to correct issues at that article, where I encountered stonewalling from 7/6 on talk, that is what 7/6 considers "nothing wrong with". Complete {{failed verification}}, content made up. The source is talking about, literally, a group of women hanging curtains and has no mention of "extensive genealogical and historical research materials" (OR yielding POV based on COI).

  Now, if that is good content from an accessible source we can all read, what are we to assume in content written by a now-banned CCI editor about the three-fourths of the article that is based on sources 7/6's acknowledges not having checked as to whether they contain copyvio ? 7/6 is defending the article as they copyedited and changed some wording. It's obvious they didn't check even the sources, like this one, that are easily accessible and only used on one sentence. WP:PDEL applies, and we should not have to swim against the stream with Coldwell's wikiassociates when attempting cleanup.

  I note the relevance of this particular article (as in the case of Willis Fletcher Johnson) in terms of why Coldwell's Wikiassociates and socks may have taken on those two articles: the library is where Coldwell worked closely with staff, which one of the blocked sock/meat puppets claimed to be. (COI in addition now to copyright issue and failed verification.) It's not surprising these two articles were defended.

  I'm not posting in this section to support a CBAN (a sub-section I did not create) rather to point out that you are missing the editing problems, which are laid out on article talk and linked in "the OP's statement" (I note you acknowledge not having gone past the first example, and maybe you should). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

• Weak oppose at the moment. My views on this hinge upon 7&6's behavior once the block expires. Continuing the same behavior as before would push me over the edge to supporting an outright CBAN. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't believe this is required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support - 3 TBANs in one year is silly, plus the ongoing incivility. It was final warning -> Arbcom TBAN -> more of the same in a different area... I'm not satisfied with adding more TBANs. Let him be blocked until he makes an unblock request that convinces the rest of us we don't need a block or TBANs to prevent problems. And I want to emphasize, it's not like 13's disruption is just annoying other editors or hurting people's feelings... he's recklessly adding misinformation to mainspace, without regard for core content policies like V, NPOV, not to mention copyright, and so on. The harm to the encyclopedia is real, it's been going on for a long time, and it's in multiple topic areas, and nothing has stopped it so far. Levivich (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support both. User has bee given enough chances, as noted by others. ValarianB (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
• Very weak oppose I agree with TAOT above, this all depends on how they behave after the block. If they return and stop all of this behavior, and find something else to do, then it's unnecessary. But they are on extremely thin ice, and if they continue with this battleground behavior then they clearly don't deserve to stay here. echidnaLives - talk - edits 01:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Look at 13's recent edits and see if they stopped all this behavior or are continuing with battleground behavior. Levivich (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Its seem excessive in this situation. Topic bans are just that. Simply no need to full ban. scope_creep^Talk 09:01, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
• Neutral per TAOT; some of the Coldwellian behavior is concerning, but hopefully TBan and temporary block will help. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 09:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose permaban. 13's unflinching loyalty to their wiki friends is to be commended. And there's nothing wrong with disagreeing with a community consensus, even an unequivocal one. On the other hand, one should be restrained about such disagreement and after a couple of tp posts or edits, drop the matter if consensus remains against you. 13 does seem to have been in error here, but the topic ban should be sufficient to rectify this, and lets us retain a good editor who has done much to improve articles and defend other editors work. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
• Weak support for a ban at the present moment. User:7&6=thirteen - you are really at a fork in the road here. I've known you on and off down the years here at WP, and I think that while we sometimes disagreed on certain matters, you are broadly cognizant of how this place works. However, the evidence provided by Sandy above really does not paint you in a good light at present. Sorry to be harsh, but your discourse at Talk:Ludington Public Library#CCI review is really poor. Sandy was working on cleaning up that article, following the demonstrated problems introduced by Doug Coldwell, yet you several times dismissed her actions and stated that everything was fine despite clear evidence that it was not, and effectively impeded Sandy's work in tidying the article up. I would have expected, when this issue was raised here at WP:AN, that you would immediately do a mea culpa and pledge to work productively to either help clear up the Coldwell mess properly, or to at least not impinge on those such as Sandy who are working on that and acknowledge that your contribution had not been helpful hitherto. But instead, I see just in the last hour that you are describing this process as "silencing" you and that it is "punitive and hostile". That attitude, in the face of clear evidence as to what led to this discussion, is not compatible with working collegiately anywhere on Wikipedia I'm afraid - whether or not you're topic-banned from the areas mentioned above. But as I say, this is a fork in the road, and even now it doesn't have to be this way. You can have a genuine and introspective look at what happened, acknowledge your mistakes, and detail how things are going to be different going forward. If I see something along those lines, then I'd be happy to amend my !vote here and give you another chance. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
• Reluctant support for siteban. Reluctant because I don't doubt that 13 has a heartfelt desire to add and preserve encyclopaedic. Support because he has shown, time and again, that he cannot accept policy and consensus that some content is is unsuitable for this encyclopaedia or has so many issues with policy and guideline compliance (in this case copyright and verifiability) that it needs to be removed or fundamentally re-written. This causes him to obstruct efforts to clean up or remove bad content and to see these efforts as part of a crusade against him. This manifests as a battleground mentality and personalisation of disputes. But Wikipedia works on consensus and policies are the rules we've all agreed to play by. If one person can't abide by consensus, or can't play by the rules we've all agreed to, it doesn't work. More topic bans won't change that. The only thing that will is for 13 to fundamentally rethink their approach to participation in this website. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, but consider this to be a support if 13 continues the hilarious self-martyring monologues. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

This is just hateful and unnecessary. He is leaving comments on his own user talk page. If you don't like it then don't go look at it. If he left it other places like here he'd already been blocked indefinitely for bludgeoning the discussion (justifiably) but we give wide latitude on user page's for all kinds of talk including running down Wikipedia itself. --ARoseWolf 14:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf: I wouldn't really see it as hateful per se. I wouldn't use the term "self-martyring monologues" myself, but the point is that 7&6 is exhibiting classic WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviour through the comments he's making at his talk page. Both myself and I believe the commenter AirshipJungleman29 here are prepared to offer him an olive branch if he understands and acknowledges why the community is having this discussion now. And we will fully monitor what he says on his user-talk page to that end, since currently that's the only place where he's permitted to comment. If he says something positive in that direction, which he hasn't done so far, then I will change my !vote to give him a chance, but I can't do so at present. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Amakuru, forcing someone to bend to your will just because you don't like that they disagree with you or won't say exactly what you want them to say is not complicit with the purposes of this encyclopedia or a collaborative community any more than the disruption caused by 7&6 to begin with. The point of sanctions is to stop disruption. The tbans will do that just as the temporary block stopped the disruption to the copyvio investigations and cleanup. 7&6 is venting. They haven't attacked any editor specifically on their talk page. He has stated multiple times on his talk page that he will not impede the cleanup further and will accept any tbans. Placing any further requirements on him once he has agreed to stop the disruption goes beyond the purpose of the sanctions and into the realm of trying to force your will on another human being in order to continue doing their productive work here. It is wholly antithetical to the mission of the encyclopedia to try and break the will of an editor in such a manner. When there are other means to protect and preserve the hard work of those working and correcting the errors made by Doug being proposed above this discussion then that seems like the logical choice. This proposal is a step too far as is the repeated requests for 7&6 to state anything further concerning what they will or won't do. You've given your answer and they have already given theirs. What I have seen from the comments and offer isn't as much an olive branch as it is the attempt at forcing a dehumanizing capitulation. Vote to support or oppose and leave it at that. I've spent enough time on this already so I'll leave you with the option for the final words. --ARoseWolf 18:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

We may well do, at admin discretion, allow a little venting from users in good standing―note the lack of synonymy of 'good standing' with 'experienced.' At the moment, they're showing an increasing lack of judgment. Also see WP:POLEMIC, which advises strongly against posting material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. SN54129 18:21, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I want to apologize to all for putting up the Tban proposal without being aware there was other background. Had I known, I might have structured the original post much more carefully, to (maybe?) avoid this (painful) sprawl. My only aim was to stop the interfence with WP:DCGAR. I agree that 7/6, while blocked, should be able to use their talk page as they wish. I remain decidedly neutral on the ARS and other issues, as I have neither the time nor desire to investigate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

• Reluctant support, per this response to an attempt to get 7&6=thirteen to state they would abide by the policy re copyright. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose community ban for now, support whatever additional topic bans there is consensus for in this thread. I understand - and to a certain extent, agree - that after multiple ibans and tbans, it's easier on the community to replace them all with a cban. However, I know of at least three other editors with as many or more ibans and tbans than this, and I'm not willing to support community banning 7&6 - who is apparently productive and helpful when not involved in drama - quite yet. It appears from their talk page that they would accept any tban(s) handed out, even if they do not agree with it/them. That's all we can ask. I would hope/assume 7&6 will recognize this as a last chance; if they cause clear disruption in another area, any admin (me, if I'm around) can block them indefinitely without the need for another AN/ANI thread first, which might help minimize the concerns about continued community time-wasting. I'm probably seriously inconsistent on this, but in general I have a knee-jerk dislike of these "burn the witch" threads at AN/ANI, even if they might be justified. For the 10,000th time, I wish there was something better. For the 10,000th time, I can't think of anything practical. But it brings out the worst in some people. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose From process standpoint I have problems with this. Structurally there was anough specific stuff for a TBan even though it has a bit of a vague angry mob structure. Above I supported the Tbans but I so far see no suitable/due process to inflict such a severe remedy with resultant impacts on both the editor and Wikipedia. 7&6 I think you need to change some things. North8000 (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose community ban. TBAN understandable. 13 may be overly passionate at times but, overall, is good for the project. ResonantDis_tortion 22:23, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. Peter James (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove me from AutoWikiBrowser checkpage

Please remove me from the AWB checkpage. I haven't actually used it at all, and don't have a real need for it either, so I think it's best for me to be removed from it. Invalid^OS_talk 19:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Done. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

User 193.207.202.54

Vandalism on Amanda Lear, Amanda Lear discography (another IP) on Amanda Lear filmography. Thanks. Eliedion (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

193.207.128.0/17 page blocked from Amanda Lear and Amanda Lear filmography x 1 month for disruptive editing. 5.252.84.91 page blocked x 1 month from the discography page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Blatant vandalism like this should be reported on WP:AIV, not here. Partofthemachine (talk) 02:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

NorthJerseyCoastLine.svg

Can an admin please restore this file? It was deleted as an orphaned non-free file after being removed from its corresponding article in this edit without any explanation given for this removal. This deletion has resulted in the NJCL article being the only NJT article that lacks its official logo in the infobox. I have restored the article to the version before the unexplained removal of the logo, so the non-free media will have have a use, and would like the image restored to match all the other like articles. Thanks. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 02:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

•  Done. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 03:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2023).

Administrator changes

Gimmetrow

• Bjelleklang
• Bob the Wikipedian
• Leithp
• WhisperToMe
• 100 inactive admins

CheckUser changes

• BDD
• Bradv
• Donald Albury
• Maxim
• MusikAnimal

Oversighter changes

• BDD
• Bradv
• Donald Albury
• Maxim

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the administrator policy now requires that prior written consent be gained from the Arbitration Committee to mark a block as only appealable to the committee.
• Following a community discussion, consensus has been found to impose the extended-confirmed restriction over the topic areas of Armenia and Azerbaijan and Kurds and Kurdistan.

Technical news

• The Vector 2022 skin has become the default for desktop users of the English Wikipedia.

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 24 February 2023.
• In December, the contentious topics procedure was adopted which replaces the former discretionary sanctions system. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial implementation period. There is a detailed summary of the changes and administrator instructions for the new procedure. The arbitration clerk team are taking suggestions, concerns, and unresolved questions about this new system at their noticeboard.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2023 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
• Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Personal attacks?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In almost 20 years on Wikipedia I have never sought admin action over personal attacks. I usually just ignore them. However, there is a content dispute shaping up at Rocket Lab and I'm hoping to discuss the issue without things becoming personalized. In an attempt to keep it content focused I responded to an edit summary that I thought started down that path, requesting the editor avoid such things. I got even worse in return. I'm not necessarily advocating for a block, they're a good editor with valid concerns on the topic, but would like to note the exchange at User talk:NickCT in case it gets worse. Dispute resolution is for content and I don't really see it spelled out where the line for admin action is, so could use some direction there. Thanks. Grey Wanderer (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey, GW. You're required to notify, I've done that for you. Valereee (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Grey Wanderer (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I find it a little ironic that in response to my accusation that this guy is trying to hound me, pester me, and have non-content related debates w/ me, he comes and posts here, which itself seems like another attempt to hound, pester, and have non-content related debates. I have had several exchanges with this editor, where I've pointed out some unhelpful behavior of his, only to find that he doubles-down on that exact behavior. I'm not sure if this is somekind of weird gamesmenship, spitefulness or what. I do know it's boring. At this point I'd propose a voluntary interaction ban and welcome an enforced one. NickCT (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not trying to hound you, I reached out to you with one comment on your talk page after a series of personal attack over several years at Talk:Rocket Lab. You've called me, a bigot, a stalker, boring, several times implied I'm dumb, among other things, and told me I wasn’t operating in good faith (I'm really trying). No other editor seems to share your view about me and I've tried responding politely. Behavior issues are best raised at personal talk pages and here, not on main space talk pages. Two interactions reaching out to you in more private space is hardly hounding imo. We've got differing opinions in a content debate, no need to stop assuming good faith. You still have mine. Grey Wanderer (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Grey Wanderer: you wrote on Nick's talk page, Personal attacks such as “Think you're being clever? I can guarantee your not” should be avoided.... Where does that quote, "Think you're being clever? I can guarantee your not", come from? Levivich (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

It is from Talk:Rocket Lab, in the closed 2019 RfC about company nationality, the exact same content dispute brewing now. There are two relevant threads. A long one entitled "Company Nationality" from 2016-the present, and the related 2019 RfC. Some of it became quite personal over the last three (four?) years. Grey Wanderer (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Grey Wanderer: If you're looking for action from admins here, you'll need to provide some diffs. I did a quick check of the situation and it looks like a content dispute. There are some admittedly prickly comments by NickCT, but a cursory look doesn't show anything rising to the level of WP:NPA. I also see that he did ask you to refrain from further posting on his talkpage, and that should be respected in a situation like this. Barring any further evidence, I don't believe disciplinary action is needed at this time but I would suggest both of you make an effort to keep the discussion on the content and not each other. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with with/to all of that, and I'm not sure if admin action is necessary. I came here because they seem uncomfortable with a discussion our interactions at their talk page. If you've read Nick's talk page and Talk:Rocket Lab, you've seen it all already. I wasn’t sure, to be honest, if things did rise to the level of personal attacks, but being called many different names made me consider it. I made one comment to Nick hoping to prevent behavioral conversations in the mainspace and was called a stalker. I think I've done a pretty good job of avoiding behavior discussions and focused on content at Talk:Rocket Lab, I'm not sure the same can be said of NickCT. Hopefully this servers as a warning shot to us both to focus on content. Grey Wanderer (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy if administrators don't see a need to act and wish to close this thread. @NickCT: As I've said at Talk:Rocket Lab, I have no more to say there unless you propose new wording and seek a new consensus, ideally through RfC. I'm happy with the old phrasing, but see your point about awkward wording. I urge you to discuss content only and to try to see my point of view at Talk:Rocket Lab. For the future, I do wish to point out that a brief (and civil) discussion at your talk page would have prevented the need to open this discussion here. I would rather not waste admin time. Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unban request for Raymondskie99

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Raymondskie99 is currently banned by community consensus (WP:3X, I believe) as well as being locked across all Wikimedia projects. They have a long history of evasion documented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Raymondskie99/Archive. They have made the following request via UTRS appeal #68877 to have their ban lifted and so I will reenable their talk page access. I present the request without taking a position on whether it should be granted. Note that there's been technical block evasion here, but I believe WP:AGF would apply to that. Checkuser data shows no recent block evasion (keeping that single edit out of consideration). --Yamla (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I created my first account with Raymondskie99 back in 2017 and was blocked several months later by User:Bbb23 when that time he still has checkuser rights. I was unaware of policies like sock puppetry and etc. I just keep reverting the majority of critically endangered species to extinct, eventually leading to my account being blocked as disruptive editing. I was still immature way back then, and my English is awful. After being blocked for months, I decided to evade by creating new accounts, which User:Loopy30 noticed and reported to the sockpuppet investigation. Then, when I saw this, I regretfully personally attacked him homophobically once as User:Yamla said, and also disruptively edited German Wikipedia, which eventually my account was later globally locked. Some of my accounts overlap with other sockmasters at video games articles like TotalTruthTeller24, PlayerSasha, Cassandra, possibly impersonating MRY (since he attacked my SPI and talk page after allegedly stalked the protecting admin, Ferret, after the vandalism spree from Fire Emblem characters) and etc. After plenty of socks had been blocked, I decided to evade further and created User:GeeJay24. After being caught, I decided to vandalize some of the articles at the end since requesting a self-block has failed, so my account wouldn't be checkuser blocked and my edits wouldn't be reverted per deny policy. I went on discord to send dm on ferret and User:Sergecross73 and promised to fulfill the Standard offer, but I doubted that I would be unblocked at that time, so I decided to evade once more and lied. After my most recent account was blocked, I decided to use a variety of IP addresses and proxies to edit other articles and then finished improving 10 species of nuthatch articles, including White-throated treerunner into GA using my dynamic IP addresses. Those articles were mostly GA reviewed by User:AryKun, User:Jens Lallensack and User:An anonymous username, not my real name. After editing with multiple ips, I decided to create another account for the last time, BloatedBun, so I could edit on semi-protected pages. 5 months later, ferret caught me again, and with no choice but to follow the rules and fulfill the Standard offer now. After it was blocked, I used my IP for the last time to expand a little bit more and fix every flaws I saw at the articles before eventually stopping editing. I am aware that I have been blocked several times due to sockpuppetry. I am remorseful for everything I did. I am currently a grown-up person with a job, unlike before when I was just a kid who had nothing to do with my life. I spend my 6 months elsewhere doing things like focusing on the job, Twitter, YouTube and playing video games often, but I admit that I still broke the rules on discord by joining my other account to the Wikipedia server despite my original account was already removed so that I can maybe avoid editing while waiting for SO. I fully understand why my prior conduct has been unacceptable, I have learned from my past mistakes and will not repeat them, as my only goal is to improve the encyclopedia further. Thank you, Wikipedia community! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymondskie99 (talk • contribs)

Presented without taking a position. Yamla (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you re-enable talk page access. A globally locked editor can't log in to their account. If you want this account to respond to you on-wiki, you would have to ask a steward for a global unlock. You can do that at m:SRG. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Will do, thanks NJP. --Yamla (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Procedural/policy question: does a global lock preclude us from lifting a local ban? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Compassionate727 - I think that has been answered above, which is that they have to ask to have the global lock lifted first. In other words, they can be almost invisible here because they are Someone else's problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reporting user JeffreyLin1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

JeffreyLin1 has been violating the spirit of Wikipedia by spewing vile lies and engaging in profoundly nefarious behavior. I call in the editors of Wikipeia to review his actions and this nuisance along with all further attempts by the IP address so that Wikipedia can become a safer and more accurate place for all. 67.218.90.4 (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Help needed at CopyPatrol

Hi everybody, particularly those with an interest in copyright cleanup. After seven years as the primary patroller assessing reports at CopyPatrol, I have reached the point where I am no longer able to work at the volume I have been doing all this time. For the last couple of weeks I have been suffering ill effects from too much computer time, and I have to protect my health. I would appreciate it if people could stop by at CopyPatrol daily and assess some reports. You don't have to be an admin to do this task; any experienced editor should be able to quickly figure it out. If you are just starting out, you might like to try assessing reports about biographies or schools – they are pretty easy as the issues are usually quite obvious. Please feel free to stop by my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• Link to copyPatrol
• Documentation page and detailed instructions

ALL the gratitude, dear Diannaa; you are one of the most admirable and valuable people I’ve worked with on this project. Alphadeltafoxtrot, the Bravo-dog, and the Mike- and Sierra-cats join me in sending you our warmest thoughts. Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

No damaging your health on behalf of Wikipedia, Diannaa. Rest! --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks everybody for your understanding, and for your kind words and thoughts! — Diannaa (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Just to mention that the backlog currently is 51 hours (it was 58 hours before I handled a couple of oldest cases), and I have never seen a backlog longer than 24h before. We do not need to do a lot like Diannaa did, but it is very important to do it on a regular basis. I am personally trying to do at least 4 cases per day.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Diannaa with respect to copy patrol (and everything else she does) was practically the number 1, and it's hard to see how the work can go on without her. Dianna, thanks for all you did with copy patrol, please forgive the endless pings, and take care of yourself!!

I don't feel able to help out at copy patrol, but am trying to work as many different angles of the huge copyright problem as I'm able (see two threads after this one).

Before the issue a few threads below this one sidetracked the rambling brainstorming at my talk page, and while I was working to set up WP:DCGAR, the discussion at my talk had begun to focus on some specific ideas for bringing to a broader discussion somewhere. Might it be time to do that? Village pump or the talk page of one of the copyright pages? Are any of the ideas generated so far viable? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrator access to mailing lists and permissions motion passed

The Arbitration Committee has passed the following amendment to its procedures:

Arbitrators-elect must sign the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information and any other non-disclosure agreements required for access to privileged communications before assuming office. All arbitrators are:

• subscribed to all Committee-managed email lists;
• assigned the CheckUser and Oversight permissions for use in office; and
• given access to the oversight and checkuser queues on the VRTS system.

At the end of their term, outgoing arbitrators will:

• be removed from all Committee-managed email lists with the following exceptions:
  • access to the clerks-l mailing list will be removed absent a request to remain, and
  • access to the functionaries-en mailing list will remain absent a request to be removed; and
• have their CheckUser and Oversight permissions removed unless the outgoing arbitrator requests to retain one or both of them.

For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitrator access to mailing lists and permissions motion passed

User adding themselves to lists of notable people, removing notability tag from own articles

I just came across this and don't have the wherewithal to figure out all the proper procedures and how to link the changes at the moment. It appears user:Amira Abdelrasoul has been adding themselves to various lists of notable people, editing their own article, and removing notability tags from it (with somewhat misleading edit summaries). Didn't know what the actual policy was in that case. Thought someone would like to look into it. I'll attempt to notify that user on their user page as the noticeboard suggests. Sorry for not linking diffs (there aren't a whole lot in the user's contributions, in any case; it looks pretty sole purpose). Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 23:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Peace and Passion this sounds like you might want to raise this at WP:COIN. It doesn't necessarily require admin intervention (although it could escalate to that). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Unblock request for CU

Hi colleagues--perhaps one of you will have a look at User talk:MaxBertín, and the associated User talk:BrookTheHumming. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't that require a CheckUser review? What could I do there that wouldn't get me hung, drawn, and quartered? Floquenbeam (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Given the section title, I think he was specifically requesting that a CU respond. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah, that's a smarter interpretation. I'll help a little: Checkuser needed. I *think* that puts this page into a helpful category, but I can't check in preview mode. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Drmies - I'm dubious. If they're two separate people, then they aren't just sharing a Wifi network - they're standing next to each other in front of the screen, passing the keyboard back and forth. One logs out, the next logs in within a minute, makes a few edits, then gives it back to the first one. While editing the same articles. I don't know why they're doing it, but I don't buy that this is a simple case of two roommates sharing an IP. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

​Adding that I've declined the unblock on MaxBertín's talk, and to be honest I'd be inclined to block BrookTheHumming as well, but I'll leave that to your discretion since you're in conversation with them. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Favonian, that was the idea, yes. I can't do all the fancy things you can. ;) Girth Summit, I called in the cavalry because on the one hand I drew the same technical conclusion that you did, but on the other they (singular they AND both of them) weren't being assholes about it... I think you understand why I'm being pulled both ways. Thanks for looking into it! Drmies (talk) 02:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Favonian? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

If the only reason to block is the use of multiple accounts, they could be advised to share an account and indicate attribution in the edit summaries. Peter James (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Username policy prohibits shared accounts. Donald Albury 03:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@Drmies and Girth Summit:If you want to cut this person/these people more slack, you could unblock both, with the provision that they can't edit the same pages as each other. Haven't we done that with other similar cases where we aren't 100% sure either way? Floquenbeam (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, I don't mind that at all, considering their latest communications--even if technically a block for both could be justified. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

We can never be 100% sure about anything, but I'm as sure as it's possible to be that this is one person. What I said above is literally true - they are using a single device, logging out of one account and directly into the other, then switching back. Every single edit that the MaxBertín account has ever made was either immediately (within one or two minutes) preceded by BrookTheHumming logging out, or followed by BrookTheHumming logging in. Every single one. The only way this can be two different people is if BrookTheHumming occasionally shouts over to his roommate and says 'Hey - wanna add something to this article?', or 'Hey, this guy is busting my balls on a talk page, wanna chime in?', and then passes over the keyboard for five minutes while his roommate logs in and edits. Why are they doing it? This looks like an attempt to improperly influence a talkpage discussion; I don't know if any of the other editing where they overlap is dodgy. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

DYK recruiting call

WP:DYK requires admins for the last couple of steps in the process, due to the main page being admin-only. At the moment, BorgQueen is doing most of the work, with me filling in most of what's left. We had a larger admin crew until recently, but other commitments (school, etc) have reduced our ranks. So, we need a few more admins to help out moving prep sets to the main page queues.

It's a job that currently needs to be done once per day. Most of the work is reviewing the hooks for DYK rule compliance. I can do it in about 20 minutes if there's no issues that need to get fixed. It'll probably take a new person more like an hour until they get the hang of it. If we got a couple new admins who could each handle 1 or 2 sets per week, that would go a long way towards reducing our bus number. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

In an off-wiki conversation, an admin that you probably all know told me, "you would have to pay me to do frontpage admin work". Well, I'm happy to report that the WP:Ad-Hoc Committee to Recruit More DYK Admins has authorized me to offer a 20% increase over your current salary (conditions apply, enquire in confidence for details) to any admin who joins the team this quarter. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

My Ad-Hoc Committee will up your offer by 50% for those who go work at CCI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

500 quatloos on the newcomers! -- RoySmith (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

User:20 upper

I am posting this here, rather than ANI, because the editor has stopped editing main space, so the matter is not urgent, but this editor really needs a mentor. Or something. I have lost patience and effectiveness, and at this point, I am probably only irritating 20 upper, and am disengaging. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Notification: [105] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

20 upper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) came to my attention with:

• 22 January: For an article that is already a Featured article, makes one non-edit to the article, creates a copy of a FAC at Draft:Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Walter Donaldson (snooker player)/archive2 and moves it to a FAC page with a misleading indication the article had been promoted as a Featured article by FACbot, and then submits that (not)promotion to WP:WIKICUP for points. [106].

  User talk discussion

Talk page before removing various recent threads

History

1. 18 November: Account created
2. 20 December: Makes over 250 edits to user page to gain user rights ("I'm trying to reach 500 edits so I can edit this protected page").
3. 22 December to 6 January: Writes Megaherbivore and Lion attacks (Lion attacks has numerous issues including OR and copyright outlined on talk; I haven't checked megaherbivore).
4. 8 January: Adds uncited text to feminism (8 January NPOV warning; 23 January Contentious topics first alert)
5. 22 January: WikiCup issue described above.
6. 23 January: A 31-hour block, after WP:IDHT
7. 24 January: I explained WP:OR, but identical repeated at Lion attacks a few days later ("15 lion attacks", original research, uncited)
8. 25 January: Does not seem to slow down and read (malformed request for unblocking)
9. 26 January: I notify of copyright and other issues at Lion attacks
10. 27 January: Reminded to provide page numbers for book and other lengthy sources
11. 27 January: Does not follow instructions given at Talk:Lion attacks, and informed by an IP that rewrite was in main space

    Insults the IP: [107] [108] but agrees to be more careful

12. 29 January: Rewrite still contains copyvio and all of the other issues outlined on talk, as if nothing written was taken on board. And still no page numbers for WP:V and checking for further copyright problems.

    Appears to take text from one source (with close paraphrasing), but then later swap in another source

    When asked to stop, slow down read, say they "need the opinion of the whole community"

13. 31 January Blanks text from a talk page and labels it "disruptive editing"
14. 3 February Still removing talk page comments

So here we are. 20 upper has been focused throughout all of this on edit count: [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] while seemingly unable to grasp important policies like WP:OR, WP:V and WP:COPYVIO. At times they appear to read and attempt to communicate, and at other times, appear not to have digested or taken seriously anything written, and won't acknowledge or answer queries.

I'm disengaging, but we have multiple ongoing policy issues from an editor who was editing too fast and racking up a lot of edits across many articles (including FAs), demonstrating both difficulty understanding policy and aborbing feedback, and someone else needs to engage before the cleanup needs (including paraphrasing, OR, dated sources and incomplete citations) become larger. I started with the patience to mentor, but that has been exhausted.

I guess I should get a cot (sigh). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

PS, I asked for help long ago, but I seem to be alone in this while I've been, ummmmm ... kinda busy elsewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Still going; maybe it is an ANI after all. Unwatched. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

• I just declined a whole bunch of CSD#G7 requests from him. I mean, I don't care if the pages he wrote are deleted or not, but they don't qualify for G7. Katie^talk 16:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

• Yeah the nomination to speedy delete bc "main author something something doesn't want it anymore" is both an interesting attempt to game SOP and also borderline unhinged "I'm taking my toys and going home!" behavior that does not inspire confidence. jengod (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  Well, in the editor's defense, they are probably sick of hearing from me only, and might think I'm a random quack on the internet. I needed help here earlier on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

• I too attempted early on to assist and guide 20 upper but their pace is something I was unable to keep up with. I'm the blocking admin of the 31 hour block mentioned above. I do not know what to do with this user. I do not think they will change their ways. We could implement iteratively restrictive blocks, but I don't see that accomplishing anything more than increasing everyone's frustration level, leading eventually to a permanent ban. As for the articles they've created, The G7's have all been denied. They prod'd one other article (lion attacks), which I've endorsed for deletion. I don't see any need to keep any of the articles they created, though I'm unsure what policy would let us delete them. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Hunting success, the only article of theirs I was aware of before this, is actually not half bad (if in parts sailing a little close to the wind paraphrasing-wise), and I don't see a cause for summary deletion with that one. Not sure why they went and tried to first dismember, then G7 it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Because probably tired of hearing from me. My concern about Hunting success is that, having seen other work (eg Lion attacks) where they put in text taken from one source, and then later alter the wording a bit and put the source on it that the orginal source cites (breaching WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT yet they never answered my queries as to whether they really read all those new sources that fast), and all of this combined could indicate content copied from a book and then filling in the sources the book used after the fact. The other problem is that the sources are often so old, and source-to-text integrity fails, that I wonder how useful or accurate any of the content is. It's hard to reconcile the level of some of the writing with the level of difficulties editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

• That all said, I agree this can be elevated to WP:AN/I. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  I could summarize my overacrching concern here but won't per WP:BEANS. I'll just say it may be worth trying to turn them around now so we don't have to deal with more of same later. I cannot ever recall having encountered such a persistent editor, making so many mistakes of every kind in such rapid fire succession. Probably admins here have, as my life in FA-world is perhaps too sheltered. I'm at a loss for what's next. In my younger days, I enjoyed mentoring editors like this, and turned around more than one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps someone other than me can go to their talk page and explain why they are expected to respond here on this thread ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  I would do so, however given their behavior I would much rather not waste my time with someone who most likely won't listen. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

• It seems like two experienced editors have made all reasonable attempts to give this user sound advice. He appears to be unwilling or unable to listen, and is not following the instructions given. He doesn't seem interested in learning either, given the edit summaries on his talk page. As much as I don't like it, this seems like a WP:CIR issue. The best option is probably to just issue a block rather than continuing to exhaust other editors with trying to get through to him. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  I've blocked them for a year. Lion attacks has been deleted. The other articles can either be cleaned up or sent to draft space. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks all ... I hope animal editors will keep their eye on this ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Post archival note added; BEANS realized, blocked for sockpuppetry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis

Above mentioned user keeps pushing disruptive and biased edits. See diff1, diff2 and diff3. As you can see in the RM discussion here Talk:Russian-occupied_territories_in_Georgia#Requested_move_23_January_2023 article about russian-occupied territories in Georgia previously had misleading name, so 100% of participating users agreed to rename it. After that change it was necessary to fix the naming in other articles as well, that is what I did diff1 and diff2, and this change is per Wiki Rule as well because it's better when link and article title coincide. Please help to settle this issue, I am not willing to start "word-wars" with the user, considering that similar attempts in the past had close to zero effect. Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 08:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Not 100%. I opposed, and I am disappointed that the closer completely ignored my argument, though it was policy based, and the supporters did not base their arguments on policy. Ymblanter (talk) 11:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I was counting support and oppose tags. There was 4 'agrees' and 0 'disagrees', anyway it isn't main point here. Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 11:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Just to make it even clear how nonsense user's argument was: the user said "[your edit] implies other territories are occupied", but at the moment the user keeps article link linked to the redirect title with the link name impling other territories are occupied:

• This is what the user pushes ► [[occupied territories of Georgia|occupied territories]] 
• This is what I edited ► [[Russian-occupied territories in Georgia]]

Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 09:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Is there a reason why the infobox has to include the longer phrase? The piped link seems like a good way tighten up the language. We don't need the "...in Georgia" part of that sentence, it's just extra verbiage. Chipmunkdavis seems to be doing nothing more than removing that excess verbiage. Why is that disruptive or against consensus? --Jayron32 15:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Jayron32 it's not about "longer phrase" vs "shorter phrase", user's argument was "[your edit] implies other territories are occupied" which is false claim. My change made a direct link to the article's title to make it obvious that when we talk about "occupied territories," we're talking about the territories of Georgia, which are actually occupied by Russia and not by Somalia, Kiribati or any other state. Pushing previous edit vs my change is disruptive because it keeps misleading wording. Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 22:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

And according to what you said, if We don't need the "...in Georgia" part of that sentence, then the sentence must look like "Including/Not including Russian-occupied territories" not just "occupied territories" somewhere over the rainbow. Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 22:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not a false claim. It's reasonable to oppose saying "Not including Russian-occupied territories" on the basis that it can make it seem like the data does include territories occupied by someone other than Russia. It's reasonable to think that opposition is wrong. It's not a good idea to bring that content dispute here. The worst part of CMD's edit is insisting that the part of the link before the pipe should stay the redirect, but it's something that barely matters at all. While we're here, the worst part of your edits, Giorgi Balakhadze, is reverting without explanation. Please use edit summaries, especially when reverting good-faith edits. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers ok, so the term "occupied territories" makes it super clear? "occupied territories" of whom?, "occupied territories" where? "occupied territories" by who? Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 09:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

All four of those excellent questions would fit in great at Talk:Georgia (country). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:38, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Procedurally, I wouldn't consider a RM with 4 total !votes 'counted' by the closer as establishing a clear precedent for what to do in other articles, especially when the other article are not simply linking to the other article title and the RM was not advertised in these other articles it's claimed to affect. In other words, if you tried to make a change based on the RM in other articles and have resistance, then you need to discuss the proposed changes and rather than just claiming there's already clear consensus. And if you aren't willing to discuss because of "zero effect" than you'll just have to accept your argument has failed to achieve consensus and move on. Nil Einne (talk) 02:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Nil Einne there are linkage wiki rules MOS:LINKCLARITY MOS:EASTEREGG and it not just my "tried to make a change based on the RM". And "hav[ing] resistance" from Chipmunkdavis regarding anything about Georgia is a tradition, feel free to check user's reverts in the article of Georgia.Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 09:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

All of which is irrelevant unless you can provide sufficient evidence for a topic ban of Chipmunkdavis which you clearly haven't done yet. Again, unless you're willing to discuss and establish consensus for your interpretation of policy, then you will have to stop editing the article. Discussion and collaboration are not optional on Wikipedia Nil Einne (talk) 13:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Unban or modify a CIDR range ban

A friend informed me that you have banned the entire IP range of 109.178.128.0/17. That's 32,768 IP addresses from the most popular ISP of Greece (Cosmote). As a result, new users from Cosmote's network cannot register an account or edit articles. I believe that this is too severe a measure as it pretty much hinders an extremely large portion of Greek users from contributing to Wikipedia. TritonXVIII (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Note that the block is anon-only. Anyone with an account can contribute without problems, anyone without can get an account via WP:ACC. The blocking admin in this case is Widr. TritonXVIII, you are required to notify them. --Yamla (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Without actually looking at the edits from this range, I can say that the real question is the damage caused by anonymous users on this range vs. the damage from innocent anonymous users not being able to edit. A few considerations here:

1. This is not the first block. This is the fourth. Any innocent users would have had some time between blocks to create an account. And the block expiry is public information.
2. Each block was done by judgement on the edits since the previous. Each block was done because the disruption started up again after the previous block expired. Note also that while the first two were done by the same administrator, the last two were done by 2 different administrators - that's 3 seperate administrators who each decided that a block was necessary, based on a seperate set of edits.
3. Any user who has access to a different ISP - even if it's for a limited amount of time - can create an account there and use this account on the blocked range. Anyone who doesn't even have that option can request an account, as stated above. Asking a friend to create an account is also an option (did you create one for this friend?).

Animal lover |666| 13:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@TritonXVIII: I have two comments to make about this.

1. The vandalism was so extensive that there was no reasonable option other than blocking the IP range. The only alternative would have been to allow massive amounts of vandalism to continue indefinitely. Several times shorter blocks had been tried, and each time the problem returned when the block expired. Under the circumstances blocking for a year was minimal.
2. Obviously IP blocks which may affect innocent users are highly undesirable, and I don’t suppose any administrator does so happily. I am well aware of how it feels to find one can't edit because of a block made necessary by vandalism from other people, because many years ago it happened to me. It was annoying, to put it mildly, but I accepted that it was, unfortunately, necessary, and got myself an account. That meant that there was a delay, until I got an account, but a delay of a few days was fairly short in proportion to the 16 years since then when having an account has meant that I have always been able to edit, never again being affected by IP blocks. JBW (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Requesting snow close of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 February 4#Template:Distinguish

I am requesting an early snow close of this deletion discussion because it will almost certainly end in a "keep" result and it is very irritating to see the message "see TFD" on approximately 90k pages. Partofthemachine (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The notice can be amended. There's no reason to remove the discussion so early. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

There absolutely is a reason to close the discussion early if the outcome is almost certain (see Wikipedia:Snowball clause). Partofthemachine (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Closed by Hog Farm here at 21:16 UTC. — Trey Maturin™ 21:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

AIV backlog

8 user reports and 1 bot report as of writing. Need some eyes over there. Thanks. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 02:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Simon Ekpa

Could someone take a look at Talk:Simon Ekpa? I've protected the article to prevent disruption, but now the talk page is getting bombarded with comments every few hours. I considered protecting that page too, but this could just be a massive sockfarm/canvassing exercise (blocked one account already). Perhaps someone here is more familiar with the topic? Anarchyte (talk) 09:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Incited on Twitter by Ekpa: The Nigeria & British agents, They’ve created fake Simon Ekpa Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Ekpa with lies & slanders about me but I am not moved. 29days to Biafra Exit — Schazjmd (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Joussymean

I'm mentioning this user here having observed a curious pattern to their editing. This newly-registered editor made a large number of edits in the space of 2 1/2 hours last night. Some were constructive small edits such as converting multiple spaces to a single space, many were harmless such as adding an "Oxford comma", some were changing the case of words in section headings to go against WP:MOS, some were adding punctuation after list items, many, perhaps the majority, were adding a space before the first reference in an article. Not all the references, just the one.

It seems a pattern of editing which might be used by someone wanting to clock up a high edit count for some reason, without doing anything very controversial. Most of the edits might not be noticed, and editors with the articles on their watchlists might not bother to revert, or to follow them up. The first I noticed was this because I created the Wieler surname page so it is on my watchlist.

I bring this here in case any admins recognise this pattern of editing and want to take it further. I put a couple of notes on their talk page, but the addition of spaces before refs continued thereafter, suggesting that they weren't reading their talk page, and stretching my AGF. I've gone through and undone all the positively-wrong edits I could spot on a quick scan of their contributions list. PamD 10:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain behaviorally and timing-wise that Joussymean is a sock of UniqqMool, and have blocked them both. Although it's arguably moot now, you should have notified Joussymean of this complaint, PamD.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

If it were EC gaming, they wouldn't be doing a good job, but I checked to make sure there isn't a stable full of aged accounts. They're actually on different continents. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Do you think I should undo any of my actions? Regardless of the socking issue, their conduct was sufficiently disruptive to merit blocks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Yes, sorry : I forgot I hadn't got here with Twinkle to do the notifying for me! PamD 18:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they're on proxy. CUs can find some notes at [117], [118] may also be of interest. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

It's possible they're spammers. UniqqMool is on the same IP range as someone who was eventually blocked for spamming after doing a bunch of semi-incompetent copy edits. I prefer stronger evidence of disruption before blocking, but I can be quite harsh when I've seen enough evidence. As far as residential proxies go, it's always possible, but lots of people randomly wander into IP ranges that have been tagged as having residential proxies. VPNs are becoming increasingly popular. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Please remove page mover from me

Please remove my page mover userright. Like the massmessage userright I used to have, this was only for publishing Signpost and I haven't been needed for that, so page mover isn't a flag I'd be using anymore. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

• Done. Bishonen | tålk 20:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC).

fraud

(Llywelynll) is literally altering history , his only providable claim is his alteration. he can change 500 year old truths in a day , please provide proof. 174.247.209.198 (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

You have already been instructed to discuss your objections to their changes on the relevant talk page, Talk:Treaty of Tordesillas. Blindly reverting their changes, falsely calling them vandalism or otherwise failing to WP:AGF will result in escalating blocks for you. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Please see the discussion here: where the IP was already sanctioned. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Their response following the block, combined with this post here, leads me to believe that we're cruising towards a NOTHERE/CIR block if disruption continues. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Periodic 2FA reminder

I just saw a thread go by on IRC, the gist of which was "How do I recover my wiki account if I lost my 2FA device and don't have backup codes?" I'll avoid the whole "should I use 2FA?" minefield, but I will remind people that if you are using 2FA, make sure you've got backup codes set up, you remember where you've stored them, and know how to use them.

It might be a good idea to burn one code practicing the procedure, so you're sure you know how it works. I just did exactly that. When your phone with your 2FA generator gets run over by a bus is not the time to discover you don't have a backup strategy. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I tried that but the entire house caught fire, and it was only thanks to Hurricane Tufa that the conflagration was doused before my entire Tufanese doll collection was destroyed. Thank you HT! --Bbb23 (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd quite like 2FA on my Wikipedia account, mainly because I've got it on everything else important (and being an established editor at Wikipedia is important). But last time I read the policy, 2FA was something administrators (I'm not one and will never be one, it looks like hell on earth) could apply for, giving reasons for wanting it (my reason: I want it). Wikipedia would seem to be an outlier here for the modern web. Can anyone point me at any discussions in the Wikimedia universe about implementing 2FA here? — Trey Maturin™ 17:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@Trey Maturin: You can ask to be added to a global group that enables 2FA. No prerequisites besides reading and understanding the implications of turning it on. Head over to m:SRGP#Requests for 2 Factor Auth tester permissions.

I do think it should be on by default... WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

IP submission of my WP:AFC draft

At, Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 January 20#21:21:37, 20 January 2023 review of draft by TonyTheTiger, I noted that my WP:AFC draft article had been submitted by an uninvolved IP, while I still had a {{underconstruction}} on the article. No one responded before it was archived. I was requesting the submission be undone since it is highly unusual for an uninvolved IP to nominate an article underconstruction at AFC.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

What sort of violation is alledged? Near as I can tell that's perfectly legitimate if unusual. WP:DRAFT states that Editors may also optionally submit drafts for review via the articles for creation process by adding the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft page. An article created in draftspace does not belong to the editor who created it, and any other user may edit, publish, redirect, merge or seek deletion of any draft. WP:OWN applies to drafts just as much as they apply to articles. (loopback) ping/whereis 13:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I heartily disagree, especially as the rogue IP user had not contributed to the draft previously. It is a bit of a dick move to just randomly pop in and submit an in-progress draft with nothing but a flip "seems ready") edit summary. ValarianB (talk) 14:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree it's not a nice thing to do, but is there policy somewhere that doesn't allow it? Otherwise I'm not sure exactly what you're disagreeing with. If its the section highlighted in DRAFT that's a community consensus discussion and not just us saying we disagree. --(loopback) ping/whereis 14:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The first sentence at WP:AFC says "The Articles for creation (AfC) process is designed to assist any editor in creating a new page as a draft article, which they can work on and submit for review and feedback when ready." It seems that it is a space where an editor can create a new page and get review and feedback when ready. It seems to be a substitute for a private sandbox. It does not seem to be a space intended for community editing. The first sentence seems to suggest that the creating editor is suppose to work on the draft and the creating editor is suppose to submit it. The they in that sentence grammatically seems to refer to the editor creating the page. That person is suppose to work on the page and that person is suppose to submit it for review. The 2nd paragraph also suggests that those not "required to use the AfC process" should not submit articles for review. The IP was not required to use the process and should not have submitted the article. Furthermore, the sentence at WP:DRAFT that says "any other user may edit, publish, redirect, merge or seek deletion" does not say any other editor may submit the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

IP's are actually required to use AfC, because they typically can't create new pages. Footnoote 4 on WP:DRAFT states Wikipedia's editing policy applies to all pages, including drafts. The editing policy is, as the name suggests, policy. WP:AfC, and especially inferences made and not stated can't really override it. That said, why is the decline a big deal? You can keep working on it and resubmit. --(loopback) ping/whereis 14:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

First, in terms of those not "required to use the AfC process" as it applies here, an IP is not required to use draft space to edit my sister's new article, but I am. If it were in article space, they could drop in and edit without any policy implications. Since I created the page, whether an IP would need to use AfC to create the page is irrelevant. By policy, since an IP is not required to use AfC to edit my sister's article, they should not submit articles for review, per WP:AFC. WP:DRAFT which enumerates a variety of permissible actions (edit, publish, redirect, merge or seek) clearly omits permission for anyone to submit. So per both WP:AFC and WP:DRAFT the uninvolved IP should not submit. You ask why is the decline a big deal?. It sort of changes the burden of my editorial involvement.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you're disagreeing with, I'm disagreeing with the entirety of your response. Whether there's a policy or not is not pertinent, in a collaborative editing environment it is just extremely disrespectful to muck about with a draft others are working on, when they contributed nothing beforehand. ValarianB (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

We make decisions and evaluate editor behavior based on our policies and the community consensus behind those policies. Arguing that policy is not pertinent is rather nonsensical and it leaves us without a common touchstone to guide our decisions as editors. When I returned after 10 years away from the project I had to do an enormous amount of reading to try and comprehend what's changed policywise since I last was active. I'm a little bit aghast to think none of that mattered and I could have just started plunking away based on what feels right. --(loopback) ping/whereis 15:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I can't say I agree. If editors aren't interested in collobrating then Wikipedia is not the place for them. So yes, this means if they expect that draft space is somewhere they get to place content and then only they get to decide what happens to it, they're wrong and should learn so, quickly. Note in this particular case, I don't think the IP's actions were helpful. Even assuming they made a careful assessment of the article and were sufficiently experienced to make such an assessment, the rejection means they were wrong. But just as importantly, the article was edited recently, tagged as under construction and was not of a timely subject. However if we imagine a different case, where an editor comes across a draft which hasn't been edited in months, finds the editor disappeared too and based on their experience is certain it's ready and submits it, and it's accepted and we now have an article we didn't have before, well that's for the benefit of Wikipedia so is a good thing. Even if it annoys the editor who hasn't edited Wikipedia or the article in months, sorry not sorry. Some editors may feel it better to ask the editor who hasn't edited in months anyway, that's fine; but it's also fine if they don't do so. Again if the original editor wanted to developed stuff without collaboration, they needed to do so somewhere else e.g. on their on computer of the plenty of cloud services that would allow it. I mentioned timely earlier which highlights another important point. If it's something timely, even where it has not been months it's IMO still fine for another editor to submit it for review, especially when they have the competence to properly assess it and feel it's ready for main space themselves. I see no reason why the editor needs to do any work if it's already good enough for main space. If they come across an article which is sufficient and is the sort of thing they would have written if the article didn't already exist as a draft then most would agree it's actually harmful if they ignore the draft and completely independently write a similar article just because the draft writer may want to 'own it' and get to decide when to submit. Nor should they need to get the article into a better state then is needed or they feel is worth the effort just because someone else already made the effort to get it into a level they feel is needed. That said in a case like that where it hasn't been months, while I still don't think asking first is necessary albeit may be polite, I do think they definitely should inform the original editor of what they did and why. Nil Einne (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Nil Einne you have me pretty lost with your counterfactual if thens and such. Are you saying that I interpretted WP:AFC and WP:DRAFT wrong or are you saying you disagree with the current policies at WP:AFC and WP:DRAFT?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Point in fact neither WP:DRAFT nor WP:AFC is a policy one is an explanatory essay, the other a process description. Personally I don't consider that to be the be all end all, however it's probably best to avoid confusing the discussion (see both WP:PGE and WP:DCE). The more salient issue is that the consensus behind WP:DRAFT in particular is highly questionable review some of the recent noticeboard archives regarding WP:DRAFTOBJECT for just a snapshot, and so citing it is unlikely to add much weight to your arguments.

Now, and please don't take this personally because I'm confident your acting in good-faith and understandably frustrated with the situation, but even excepting that on the merits your interpretation would be flawed. We've never run on everything not expressly permitted is forbidden, rather the opposite actually, so trying to apply that framework to win an (and don't take this the wrong way) ultimately trivial dispute does not come across well. Further asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express is rarely going to persuade others. It's likely for that reason you've seen people discussing the principles underpinning draftspace.

Finally, it's unclear what sysop action you are requesting (if any). Why is this thread here and not at the village pump or other more appropriate venue? Removing (or adding) declines is not a sysop action and neither page protection nor a block would be appropriate at this time, what exactly is it you want a sysop to do?

So I'm happy to keep discussing this with you and trying to understand your perspective if that's what you want so long as I have your patience, but that should probably happen elsewhere, could even be on user talk if that's what you prefer, but I don't see any sysop action coming out of this. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 01:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I think I have stated a couple of times, that I don't think the uninvolved IP submission was a valid action and that I wanted it reversed. I.e., return the article to the status it was prior to the invalid submission.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

That's not a sysop action.

Moreover it's not an action that makes sense for anyone to do at all. Contrary to your assumption that It sort of changes the burden of my editorial involvement, it in fact changes nothing. Every draft is evaluated on it's merits at the time of review and a previous decline is of no consequence following non-trivial improvement. Repeated resubmission without improvement is an issue, but presumably you don't plan to do that. Just continue working on the draft as though nothing had happened and try to calmly work through any issues that are noticed with your reviewers. If you want further input I suggest you inquire at WT:AFC, but I expect you'll receive the same answer.

Otherwise I'm a bit busy this week but if you drop a note on my talk I'll try to follow up in a few days or whenever I get chance. I know this was probably a frustrating experience for you so forgive me if I've been overly blunt. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

As the IP has said, I don't know why you TTT keep saying it changes anything. It doesn't except your ability to submit it for review without making substantial changes. If you had intended to submit it without making any changes then I don't get why you care who submitted it. If you intended to make minor changes then submit it this might be an issue although frankly I'm doubtful you'd get in trouble for resubmitting it with minor changes in these circumstances although it is likely to be a foolish decision since I strongly suspect it will be decline as it would have if the IP had never gotten involved. I'd also go back to my earlier point. You keep saying the IP's submission was inappropriate because they were uninvolved but that's simply nonsense. If you want to keep it in draft space then you need to accept it belongs to the community including uninvolved editors. The primary reason the IP's actions might be considered inappropriate has nothing to do with them being uninvolved, it has to do with them very likely making a submission when they lacked the competence to actualy evaluate the article and probably didn't really do a significant review we should expect from someone who is making such submissions. (Since if the IP is going to do be doing something like this they need to be doing something sufficiently productive. Reviewing an article and submitting it based on your extensive experience is productive. Randomly submitting an article after a cursory glance, especially in circumstances like this, not so much.) Ultimately as I mentioned in my first reply if you don't accept that anything you write on Wikipedia belongs to the community then don't post it on draft space. Even user space isn't ideal although we generally accept despite all content even in user space also belonging to the community, other editors should only edit them in minimal ways. Also the suggestion is just plain flawed anyway. Let's say the IP had been right and it had been ready for main space. Would we be returning it to draft space because the original creator isn't happy about it being moved to main space? The answer is almost definitely no, since it belongs to the community. Again, if you don't accept this then all I can say is don't post stuff publicly on wiki. Nil Einne (talk) 07:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I should clarify my user space comment. While we generally accept editors should not fool around with userspace drafts directly unless they have permission, remember that by posting it here you've already released it under the appropriate licences. An editor is free to recreate the draft somewhere else using your text with appropriate attribution. And if the editor talks to you first and you say it's not ready but the editor disagrees we don't have any clear policy or guideline nor do I think we should, that the editor is forbidden from simply creating a copy somewhere else either directly on main space or as a draft. (I'm fairly something related happened before and after a long discussion there was no consensus that this sort of thing should be automatically forbidden.) Again if you don't want this to happen your only choice is to work on something privately since once you've posted it here you've given up on the right to decide what happens with it. Nil Einne (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

As it stands now the OP can just resubmit after they have completed work on the draft, it has been declined not rejected. So is there anything that actually needs to be done? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I am here because by both WP:AFC and WP:DRAFT (as I stated above at 15:48, 28 January 2023 following my 14:47, 27 January 2023 post) an uninvolved IP should not submit AFC works. Having an article declined shifts the editorial burden. In terms of whether there is anything that actually needs to be done, all I ask is that you undo that which should not have been done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

That's more or less my view as well. Drafts are declined and subsequently accepted after being improved quite routinely. Submitting a draft you haven't made significant contributions is usually rude; however, I don't believe we would want to prohibit it absolutely since there are cases where it's appropriate. If I saw an eligible for G13 soon draft that looked mainspace worthy where the creator had apparently forgotten about it I would have no problems submitting it for them.

In point of fact, the premise behind draftspace is that, in contrast to userspace drafts, everyone is encouraged to edit there to promote collaboration the evidence suggest that premise is flawed but that's a discussion for another time so any restrictions on who can edit them are going to be suspect.

Bottom line, this is a rare phenomena so any additions to policy addressing it specifically are questionable WP:BLOAT. If someone, registered or unregistered, makes a single drive-by submission ignore it. The draft will be declined; it takes a bit of editor time, but far less then discussions like this one. If someone repeatedly makes drive-by submissions then revert their edits and p-block them from draftspace for disruption. Quite straightforward really. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 01:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Wow! we have an opinion from an IP.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

There's actually still quite a few of us that are active in projectspace Though my own activity level has long been too low for me to truly count. But it is to your credit that you avoid the noticeboards enough to find this surprising. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I missed the IP's comments earlier. The one nitpick I'd have with the IPs suggestion goes back to my other comments. I don't think we should or even would automatically p-block or topic ban an UP for making "drive-by submission"s. The proof is in the pudding as they say so we'd look at several things. Number one, does the editor involved discuss and explain their actions satisfactorily? This is a cornerstone of all editing here and while it can be difficult for IPs, ultimately if they're repeatedly doing something they need to find a way. And if they did discuss, this significantly lessens concerns. Two is and this is where the "proof" comes, what was the result of their actions? The important thing is whether the IP is doing anything productive. If the IP is going through draftspace, and with a high degree of competence picking out those which are ready for main space and submitting them then they're doing something productive. It doesn't matter that they're "uninvolved" or that these are "drive-by submissions". I think for good cause we'd tend to evaluate such actions harshly so maybe even demand a 80% success rate, perhaps even 85-90%. But I find it unlikely the community would support partial blocking or topic banning an editor who is clearly being useful e.g. with 95% success submitting articles for AFC no matter that it may annoy certain creators or whatever. I do think the success demands would probably go down the less their actions are "drive-by". Since such actions require some degree as review, probably not a full AFC review since it's fair for them to just stop once they see the article isn't ready, still it would generally be useful for them to explain somewhere why they feel the article isn't ready for main space rather than just submit articles which are ready and ignore those which aren't and discuss when queried. (Especially in cases where the article isn't so terrible that virtually in editor with experience will instantly dismiss it.) In such a case, I could imagine even 50% would be acceptable especially if the editor also engages a lot with creators where it's asked and generally avoids drafts with recent edits. (Although even there, I also feel the community will largely embrace the proof is in the pudding principle and if e.g. the IP has 95% success rates and this is based on the original article when they submitted not based on a later version the creator may have made which they rushed through because an IP submitted it before it was ready, the community is going to be reluctant to sanction them if as I said at the beginning they also discussed and explained their actions where needed.) Ideally the editor would just become a reviewer themselves but there are various reasons why an editor may not with to register an account or otherwise become a reviewer but may be interested in sorting through unsubmitted drafts. Nil Einne (talk) 08:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this, I wrote in haste earlier lacking nuance. In fact we could actually use more people patrolling G13 soon eligible drafts and submitting those that appear mainspace worthy, and it doesn't matter if you make dozens of submissions in a day so long as the submissions are meritorious; even for edge cases we should first try to educate before moving on to sanctions. What we don't want is people blindly submitting drafts in a bot-like fashion or attempting to harass a specific user by repeatedly resubmitting a draft that user started, both of these are already prohibited under existing policy.

P.S. you can just refer to me as 74 since there's no other IP with similar numbers related to this thread. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 13:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion and the actions which started it have convinced me to write all my drafts in my sandbox from now on. Last time I used draft space, some rando (non-IP) user came along and accused me of vandalising a draft article to which I was the sole contributor.  Tewdar  17:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I always advise people to use sandboxes and user subpages for their articles instead of drafts. There are all upsides and no downsides. Especially since user subpages aren't automatically subject to the 6 month no edits speedy deletion criteria. Best just to avoid that nonsense entirely. Silverseren^C 18:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:DUD is also good-reading. Granted I've used draftspace to create articles before, even going back to when they were all in project talkspace, but there are a lot of downsides to familiarize yourself with before making the decision to use it. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

That's quite a good essay. Userspace drafts are my default when I'm working through something. Once it's ready for more eyes I can link the userspace draft on wikiproject talkpages asking for input and making it clear that others are welcome to edit it, and once I'm satisfied I can push it to mainspace. Thats beat for beat the exact workflow I used to write Del Riley (clerk). --(loopback) ping/whereis 07:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

You can also tag your userspace drafts with {{editable user page}} to further remove ambiguity so other people are more comfortable editing them. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 12:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oddly, it seems that instead of reverting the inappropriate uninvolved IP submission, I am being offered a course of moving the page to a userspace sandbox draft. It seems to me that this is a subversive action. I am asking you as administrators to endorse the claim that the IP submission was inappropriate and to revert the article status to that prior to the submission. By moving the page to a userspace draft, it undermines the reasoned review which categorized the article with a declined status requiring certain procedural actions to pursue mainspace. The move never "undoes" the review by making it the result of an inappropriate procedure. It just circumvents it. Furthermore, as a WP:COI editor, I don't even understand what would follow moving to userspace sandbox draft. What is the procedure for a COI editor to move a page from userspace draft to article space?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • P.S. I do want to be clear that User:Scope creep, certainly gave a respectful and procedurally correct review. I do respect his opinion in that regard. I don't necessarily believe that 10 out of 10 AFC reviewers would decline my sister's bio in its current state, but his review is reasoned. I believe that in its current state my sister's article would have a better than 50% chance to survive at WP:AFD, and that WP:AFC may have a higher bar for source evaluation than AFD. I am here to assert that the review should never have happened because a submission by an uninvolved IP of a draft with a {{underconstruction}} tag should be regarded as inappropriate.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

    If you truly believe there should be additional restrictions on who can submit drafts and when, and I can't see why we would want to add anything to the PAGs covering this kind of rare specific and trivial case (again WP:CREEP), or otherwise seek broader reforms of AFC due to perceived issues. Then the place to propose that or seek clarity on the community's current interpretation on existing PAGs would be at the village pump. Hopefully this succinctly clears things up.

    I'm not trying to be overly bureaucratic here, but AN in general is a poor forum for altering or reforming long-standing community processes. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

    I am not trying to propose the any reforms. I just think that based on the current set of PAGs, an uninvolved IP would be considered an ineligible/inappropriate AFC nominator.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

    And several people have told you that interpretation is incorrect, and in fact directly at odds with long-standing policy. If you don't want other people to edit your drafts than make them in userspace. If you think the procedure in a community process may not have been properly adhered to, the best place to initiate an inquiry is usually on the discussion page for that process. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 13:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

    I've heard a lot of people say that AFC is harsher than AFD and often rejects stuff which will easily pass AFD. I don't have enough experience to personally comment, but I suspect it's probably correct. I'd also note that I'm doubtful the community wants any AFC reviewer passing something that only has 50% of surviving AFD. But in addition to this, for good reason we tend to evaluate content written by editors with a COI even a disclosed COI more harshly even at AFD. Also, while this is more aspirational than something I can say plays out in practice, for good reason articles on living persons should really should be evaluated at both AFD and AFC much more harshly than articles on companies and the like. While we don't want spammy articles on companies, articles on living persons can easily go very very wrong when the person does or is otherwise involved in anything which receives any real degree of controversy. So such article are far more of a problem for Wikipedia and for the people involved. It's very common on BLPN to see such disasters, often by the history written by someone who almost definitely had an undisclosed COI probably a paid one, which I suspect the subject was happy with until something like that happened enough that I think most BLPN regulars are very happy with harsh notability standards for articles on living persons. Maybe most importantly though is any editor with a COI needs to recognise no matter how much experience they have and no matter how much they may try to avoid this, any assessment they make of a situation where they have a COI is highly suspect. They should welcome any feedback from editors without a COI and consider it very likely holds far more weight than their own attempt to evaluate. (Or in other words, if an editor with a COI makes an evalution X and an experience editor makes an evaluation and comes to conclusion Y, it's very likely Y is far close to how the community as a while will see situation and so the editor with the COI should say okay I'm very likely wrong it's actually Y.) Nil Einne (talk) 07:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• I had the feeling it was women herself that submitted it for review,or more likely somebody from the company. Who ever did it, seemed to be overly optimistic in their assumption it would pass review, perhaps feeling it was finished when it clearly wasn't. It wasn't ready in any manner I think. But the Afc process has own state machine. It was submitted and I reviewed it. Not much else you can say about it. If it went to mainspace I would have to try and delete it. It has six month minus 2 weeks to be updated with some real secondary sourcing, to improve it. Plenty of time. I'm sure it will be in mainspace eventually. scope_creep^Talk 21:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  If you help updating it, or help finding relevant references, WP:WIR is a good place to request help. scope_creep^Talk 21:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  User:scope_creep, I imagine that an IP confers some sort of geolocation information. I doubt my sister or her family did the nomination, but felt that the type of IP that would nominate such an article would be one of two types. I too assumed one of those types was an associate from her company. The other type of IP was someone associated with a reviewer with one of them having an axe to grind. However, the more I thought about the review and the role of AFC, I started to feel that AFC has a vastly different perspective than I am familiar with. Where as my content contributions have been through dozens if not a hundred plus AFDs, I have no familiarity with AFC. I feel AFD has a more binary RS evaluation, where as this experience with AFC makes me feel that AFC has a RS classification evaluation. AFC looks at RSes and says this is a high-class, medium-class or low-class RSes and without any really high-class RSes we can't support this. I feel that many of the things classified by AFC as WP:PRIMARY and/or WP:SPS are things that AFD would probably allow as RS. Of course, I have never had the type of WP:COI role that I have and it is impossible for me to assess how much my own vision is clouded. My belief is that AFD just looks at whether there are RS and then evaluates whether notability is permanent or temporary (1 event) and that many of these sources would be viewed as RS at AFD. That being said, I do hope to get this page to a point where it can enter mainspace and be considered for and by an AFD.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• I am also now understanding that the talk by User:Tewdar, User:Silver seren, Special:Contributions/74.73.224.126, and Del Riley (clerk) about the alternative course of User sandbox space is no longer an option here. At first, I thought they were telling me to move the article to that space.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  I think you (or someone else) can just move the draft page to your userspace, no? If not, just make a new page in your userspace and copy n' paste your draft there. I'm sure it's very irritating having some rando submit your draft when it's not ready, even if it doesn't violate policy... yet another reason to avoid draft space.  Tewdar  08:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  User:Tewdar suppose I move this to a sandbox in my user space. How do I later approach moving it to Main/Article space as a COI editor?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  Not that I'm really the right person to be answering your questions, but I'd say, when you're done in user space, move it back to draft space then submit it immediately through AfC? I'd wait for someone who knows what they're talking about, though. 😁  Tewdar  20:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  I don't know how Kosher that is.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

• Anyone who is following this discussion about my trials and tribulations about creating a page for my sister which has been reviewed at WP:AFC by User:scope_creep, may be interested seeing her launch Black History Month @Honest social medias such as Instagram, LinkedIn or Facebook today. I know none of this makes her any more notable, but you can get to know her this month on their socials starting about 2 hours ago.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Break

TonyTheTiger is trying write his sister's BLP article according to Wikipedia rules. I'm uncertain how he should proceed. I am not suggesting a change in the rules! I'm requesting clarity on procedure under existing rules. I am familiar with AfC but not with AfD.

1. Put aside the drive-by IP article submission. An editor loves and is proud of a relative, and wants to create a valid BLP article for that relative. This is challenging because of WP:COI. It was suggested that Tony move the article content (not the page itself) of the declined but not rejected draft to his user space sandbox. Let's say that Tony does this and improves the article until he feels it's ready for mainspace. What should he do next? I.e. what is the procedure for a COI editor to move a page from user space draft to article space? Resubmit to AfC? Create a new page in main space and COI template the talk page? I know process for COI editors requesting changes to existing articles. I don't recall what a COI editor should do to create a new article especially a BLP.

2. Tony chose AfC because of his COI, to ensure review by uninvolved editors. Put aside Tony's COI. The draft space BLP was marked with {{underconstruction}} and had been edited within the prior few hours or days by Tony. Is the following correct? It is acceptable for a drive by editor to make ZERO contributions to a recently edited and tagged draft space article yet submit it to AfC.--FeralOink (talk) 12:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Non-essay length version

1. Userspace drafts can be submitted and reviewed in the same manner as draftspace drafts; if it is accepted use the {{request edit}} for all subsequent desired changes when in mainspace. Since that draft has non-trivial edits by others the procedure for WP:CWW must be followed. Subsequently if accepted they may be histmerged if feasible, or the draft may just be redirected to the page to preserve history. While allowed, such copying can be controversial since it's sometimes done to evade scrutiny so I would probably drop a note at WT:AFC to see if there were any concerns first.
2. Yes. This is core to how Wikipedia works (see WP:OWN). The whole someone else edited a page I was working on while it had {{in use}} or {{under construction}} on it has come up on the noticeboards a few times and the only discernible consensus that has emerged from those discussions is that it is rude, but not sanctionable unless done in an effort to harass.

These kind of questions are probably better suited to the appropriate discussion pages for AFC, or the general help desk if for some reason you feel the former are too insider run.

The simplest and most straightforward thing to do is just keep working on the draft as though nothing had happened. Either there are now trivial improvements to be made with available sources, in which case the previous decline is irrelevant, or no non-trivial improvement is feasible while adhering to policy in which case who submitted the draft in its culminating state is immaterial. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 14:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the non-essay length reply, IP user 74. You said we could call you that earlier. I apologize for clogging things up here at AN. I have offered to assist TTT on his talk page in revising his sister's BLP as I am an uninvolved editor. I will cease and desist from further clogging about this matter.-- FeralOink (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I generally agree with IP 74. I suggest it might be time to put this to bed, and this be closed with:

• The IP (not 74) who submitted TTT's article in draft space was kind of a jerk, but it's not really sanctionable unless done to harass. I don't think it qualifies as "against policy".
• The AFC review has been done, and we aren't going to try to send that down the memory hole. We aren't going to "undo" Scope Creep's AFC review.
• TTT, as pretty much the only content editor, is free to move the draft article to his user space. This is not a subversive action. I'm not sure it's necessary, though, as this seems like kind of a fluke occurrence. I would certainly view someone besides TTT resubmitting this article to AFC as harassment.
• If TTT does move it to his user space, TTT can either move it back to draft space and submit to AFC, or (I think, not 110% sure) submit to AFC while it's in his user space. However, it isn't kosher for TTT to remove Scope Creep's review before resubmitting.
• In general, this is probably not 100% to TTT's liking, but sometimes imperfect solutions happen.
• In the future, TTT might want to start his articles in his user space.

OK? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• User:Floquenbeam, I recently got involved in another article that was stuck in draft space. I have since had Jett Howard moved directly to article space from draft space (by request at WP:RM since I wanted to move it over a redirect). By doing this I think the venue for challenging the notability of that subject became WP:AFD if a challenger is interested. If I do move my sister's article to user space, is it possible to move the article directly to article space so that the venue for a challenge would be WP:AFD, which would be my preferred venue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  @TonyTheTiger: If you chose AFC because of your COI (as recommended at WP:COIEDIT), how would that change if you move it to user space? I would say you should not move your article from user space to article space when you're ready, but instead go thru the AFC process because of your COI. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  more: The reason this worked for Jett Howard is because you didn't have a COI (right?), so there was nothing requiring it go thru AFC. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) You should not move a page to mainspace or create one there directly when you have a COI. You can submit userspace drafts for AFC review just as you would with draftspace drafts, there's even a specific category to track them, in theory if it is properly formatted and has at least a 50% chance of surviving AFD it should be accepted.

  While the category page recommends moving pages to draftspace if declined, this is because the typical occurrence is a user who registers an account and makes a handful of edits in their userspace to create and submit a draft before disappearing forever. When such submissions are declined months later the only (extremely slim) chance of future mainspacing is movement to draftspace for potential rescue by someone else since G13 applies to userspace drafts as well once tagged for AFC. Since this case is far from typical that general advice does not apply.

  Aside from that Floq's suggestion sounds good to me. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  Okay, Floq. Thank you!--FeralOink (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Digression resulting from a good-faith misunderstanding 74.73.224.126 (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

<inappropriate rant self-redacted, TLDR is that COI editors are not forbidden from moving their pages to article space, which is not what Floq or the IP were saying. Original at Special:Diff/1138054955> Primefac (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC) struck 20:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC) That's why I said should and not must (the specifics are at WP:COIEDIT). There are many things that while allowed are not advisable. If the article were mainspaced as is the chances of surviving AFD are pretty slim, and there's a non-zero chance of sanctions being implemented if this is pushed to hard. Your best odds in situation like this are to get the AFC stamp of approval; given some of the comments on the draft talk page there's decent odds it gets sent to AFD anyway, but the community view will be kinder in that case than if directly moved. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC) (e/c) WP:COIEDIT does say "should" instead of "must", but it's still recommended, and certainly not nonsense. BTW, just saying "</rant>" doesn't let you off the hook for being a jerk. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC) My apologies, this was not necessarily directed at you or the IP (as I do recognise that neither of you said "must"), it's an argument that gets raised at AFC a lot and here a lot and AFD a lot and this apparently was the metaphorical straw on the matter for me. It was a dick move of me and I will strike my reply. Primefac (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Two things. First, no experienced editor should use draftspace. Its only real function these days is a trap for spam. Second, for years I had an IP that would go around to drafts in my userspace and submit obviously incomplete pages to AfC with snarky edit summaries (or silliness like this). Given when it started, I figured it had something to do with my defending userspace drafts in a few RfCs back then. Anyway, it was obnoxious and I wouldn't be surprised if it started up again. Here are the places where I brought it up at that point: RfC talk page, ANI, and I'm pretty sure there was something a little more recent but meh. My takeaway from those, and other discussions is that you shouldn't be submitting active editors' drafts to AfC without their permission, and should only do so with inactive editors' drafts if you believe they're ready for mainspace. And, of course, if someone does this to you, regardless of whether or not a review was completed, just remove it. I'm not sure the extent to which what I'm saying only applies to userspace rather than draftspace, but again, there's no reason to use draftspace. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

In theory draftspace exists to promote collaboration, while the evidence does not bear this out in general, there are some experienced editors who've managed to make it work and in fact prefer it.

For userspace drafts that is correct, unless specifically invited don't edit in someone's userspace except to enforce PAGs. Also note: Reverting edits in your own userspace is a listed exception to 3RR as long as you comply with WP:UP and rollback may be freely used.

As always with LTAs RBI applies and the default should be to restore to the state prior to disruption absent a good reason otherwise. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Vandal/LTA rangeblock requested

Please block the IPv6 range beginning with the string "2600:1008:B075:EF5" for vandalism / long-term abuse. Partofthemachine (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2600:1008:B075:EF5:0:0:0:0/64 blocked 31 hours for vandalism. I'm not seeing long-term abuse or anything other than silly vandalism from today but I've only looked at that /64. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

It definitely is an LTA, because I remember a different IPv6 range adding that exact string to a different article a while back. Partofthemachine (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

That's an WP:EDITFILTER problem. File a request to have that looked at. Regex-type disruption is an easy thing for the editfilter to deal with. --Jayron32 16:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Looking for mentors

Howdy hello folks! Would you like to help out with editor retention? Like working at places like the Teahouse? You should become a mentor! Just go to Special:EnrollAsMentor. Its pretty easy: you get auto-assigned editors who can ask questions on your talk page. I'm a mentor, and I get a few questions a month from my mentees. Its nice because the newbie editors get a more personalized touch and have help built into their interface. More details about the program can be found at Wikipedia:Growth Team features. Editor retention is one of the best things we can do to improve Wikipedia; your help makes a difference! CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I got defeated at the Introduction message section. Introduction message introduces you as a mentor. Please keep this shorter than 240 characters. No wikitext is allowed. Is this an introduction to possible mentees? Is it cataloged someplace? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish Yes, its what your mentees will see. It is cataloged at Special:ManageMentors. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

"I get a few questions a month from my mentees" is there something I"m doing wrong as a mentor? Because I almost never get any questions from my mentees. And I have the number of mentees assigned to me set to "about twice the average" and I have 42 pages of mentees (set to show 10 so if each has 10 mentees on it, that's 4,200 mentees assigned to me) and I rarely ever get any questions asked from them. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf To be fair, you've already had four questions this month and we're only a week in, so I think you're more than on par for questions :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Fair, it probably feels like less because I don't answer all of them either due to poor phrasing meaning I can't understand what they're asking or it's something that should be taken care of elsewhere (I tend to exclude questions from KingAviationKid at this point since they've established themselves as a relatively decent editor). However I don't usually receive many more questions, and most of the time the editors who ask me the question never return, so they often don't see the answer or acknowledge it. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

You probably get fewer questions because you're bad at math. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm relatively ok at math! I just... struggle sometimes... ok maybe a lot. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I have exactly $\int _{-4}^{4}\sin {x}\,dx$ mentees, as of right now. :) – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 20:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Blaze.exe has stopped working ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

The integral evaluates to zero. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 20:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

DC GAR/CCI

I will send the mass messages for the Doug Coldwell Good article/CCI assessment later today. Please speak up (on the talk page there) if anything in that writeup, or any of the other linked messages at WP:DCGAR (to go to 95 user talk pages and 223 article talk pages), needs attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Page Redirection with same name

i believe that there is no difference between:

1. Violence against transgendered people
2. violence against transgender people

the 1st one redirects me to Violence against LGBT people and the 2nd one has its own article. can we redirect first one to 2nd one? —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Sakura emad, this isn't really the place to start a discussion about redirects. You're further encouraged to boldly make your suggested change, as it doesn't seem that there's been any prior discussions or edits suggesting a consensus to the contrary. If there's any further disagreements that need to be hashed out following the edit, either the talk pages of the relevant articles or an WP:RFD would be appropriate next steps. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

It's been fixed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Article moved to the talk namespace

Would an administrator or perhaps someone more familiar with page moves please take a look at New Right (Denmark). Someone probably believing the title of the article was incorrect boldly moved the article to Talk:Nye Borgerlige. My guess is that they wanted to move the page to Nye Borgerlige, but just made a mistake. I've moved the page back to it's original title, but there are probably some redirects that now need to be deleted. FWIW, I only came across this because the non-free logo being used in the main infobox of the article was flagged as a WP:NFCC#9 violation after the page was moved to the talk namespace. I've got no opinion on the accuracy of the article's title. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I changed the redirect. So it looks OK now. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Graeme Bartlett. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Таллархо

Makes unconstructive edits and vandalises here: here here. Note that there's a pattern in his edits, he removes Ingush from the articles and the cited sources.

Таллархо looks like he has grievances and hate against Ingush people because how can this be explained?: here here here

It also looks like he's using different accounts (Sockpuppetry) to vandalise Battle of the Valerik River: here.

I hope that the admins will resolve this situation. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 10:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• • I am patrolling the Wikipedia section in Russian 1, who is well aware of the history of wars in the Caucasus. My opponent is from the small republic of Ingushetia, whose inhabitants never fought against Russia, but voluntarily joined Russia and helped Russia occupy the Caucasus. However, in our time, false writers from this republic, referring to unauthoritative sources, write that they fought the most and took part in all the battles. In the Russian Wikipedia, their false data is immediately deleted by the administrators, so they switched to the English-language Wikipedia and vandalize articles about the wars in the Caucasus. For this reason, I removed the false information he added. Таллархо (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

• • Please block WikiEditor1234567123 for adding false data about the battles of Chechens in Chechnya against Russians and Cossacks. Таллархо (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

(non-admin) Something seemed strange about this, so I looked into it. It seems that there are some WP:SPAs engaging in WP:NATIONALIST editing related to Chechnya and related ethnic groups at Talk:Nazran conflict and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazran conflict (2nd nomination), among other places. It looks like there might be a spillover from a dispute on Wikipedias of other languages, and I suspect that this situation is only going to spread to other articles unless some form of intervention takes place. Personally, I would say that this comment about an ethnic group as pointed out above warrants an indef. In the meantime, I've alerted participating users with a contentious topics alert where applicable (Callanecc seems to have notified most of them last month). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

• I've blocked Таллархо indef for tendentious editing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:52, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

WikiEditor1234567123 You are doing hoax in a project. Ingush participants often bypass the blocking.94.198.131.186 — Preceding undated comment added 12:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dzurdzuketi/Archive

It’s immediately clear how you work here.WikiEditor1234567123 Dear participants, I would check his articles, he clearly writes against the Chechens Товболатов (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• Товболатов I would appreciate if you would refrain from making such accusations as you usually do. You are proven to hate Ingush people as can be seen here in Russian Wikipedia:[119][120][121], yet you accuse me of hating Chechen people. I don't hate Chechens, I love Chechens and they are my brothers. I suggest that you and your colleagues stop distorting and vandalising Ingush articles. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Now tell everyone why you were blocked in the Russian Wikipedia. WikiEditor1234567123 Please stop vandalizing by deleting authoritative sources.--Товболатов (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

You, with several accounts, staged wars in satyas of Ossetians, Kabardians and Chechens. You were given requests by other participants, so you were blocked why you do not tell. After the blocking, you came here and wrote this against the Chechens, Ossetians and Kabardians Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazran conflict (2nd nomination)--Товболатов (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

You are used to writing what you like, you need to tell the truth and not violate the rules of the project. Why were you blocked in Russian, and not other participants. You broke the rules, that's why.--Товболатов (talk) 17:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

When I began to introduce authoritative sources refuting yours, you staged a war of edits, they said this is my satya, I do what I want. Here is the administrator here Callanecc who warned you not to do this. But you continued the wars in another Ingushi article. Here, Here, Vyappiy Here, Here, Here, Here, Here In this article, the same thing you staged a war. Why do you fight constantly despite the warning?? Do not write articles that offend the feelings of other participants or write neutrally, because this is written in the rules of the project --Товболатов (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• • I'm sorry but I can't help but tell the truth why both weren't banned. In violation of the edit war, both are usually blocked. I noticed here he participates the most in the edit wars, but they do not touch him, only other participants are blocked. I don't think this is fair. Now block me too, but I had to say this.--Товболатов (talk) 15:34, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
• N.b. a related discussion titled Reiner Gavriel has been opened below. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

User:CaptainObjective

[122] Wqxjgp (talk) 10:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes? Could you explain in more detail? Also, you did not notify the user as it clearly says at the top when you edit. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Looks like this editor is following CaptainObjective around and reverting them. Before this edit they made only 11 edits. Doug Weller talk 15:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

And not a single warning to CO for any of the reverts, which, I believe, were disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Suggest boomerang. wqxjgp is harassing CaptainObjective. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 19:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

By reverting edits like this? You'd be in favour of that type of change, Rockstone? — Trey Maturin™ 19:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• There are evident language issues, but the OP has emailed me to accuse CaptainObjective of being a banned user from the Persian WP, saying they first wanted to contact "Media Wiki" directly. They have also asked for my direct email address, which I will not be providing. It seems there is a deeper issue here, but understanding and communicating in English, for both editors, is a problem. — Trey Maturin™ 20:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  I received an email from them earlier as well, saying pretty much the same thing and mentioning that their were having issues with communicating in English. The last part in particular is concerning, as communicating in English is certainly required here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Lauriswift911: a self-proclaimed nationalist and sockpuppeteer?

Lauriswift911 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): This user's contributions are questionable and alarming. On his user page, he's written that his ideology is "nationalism". In light of this, it's no surprise that he has been pushing nationalistic views on English Wikipedia. Here he added unverified information without any sources. It's clearly original research. This edit is potentially vandalism - he replaced the current mayor of a town in Kyrgyzstan with a previous one. Here he removed an Uzbek name of the same town where half of the population is Uzbek without any explanation whatsoever. And by the way, the user has been indefinitely blocked on Russian Wikipedia. Probably for similar shenanigans. بلاد ما وراء النهر (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Apparently Dylnuge raised concern about this user edit-warring on the article about the Kyrgyz-Tajik clashes back in November 2022, but at the time it was determined that he hadn't violated WP:3RR. بلاد ما وراء النهر (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

And then as recently as last month Kazman322 pointed out that the user had admitted to violating Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry, to which Lemonaka replied by saying that his account had been compromised and that it had to be reported. It seems no action was taken. بلاد ما وراء النهر (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah, the list goes on an on! Here Bogomolov.PL wrote the following:

User:Lauriswift911 is a sock-puppet of the User:Cianzera (checkuser test in Russian Wikipedia): blocked indefinitely in Russian Wikipedia (2 September 2022) with reason Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry [29] The English Wikipedia on the personal page of this account User:Lauriswift911 says that his nickname in social networks is @cianzera and his ideology is Nationalism. 23 January 2023 account Lauriswift911 attempted to create a duplicate account called Cianzera911 [30]. This account created the article Kyrgyz Confederation 20 January 2023. بلاد ما وراء النهر (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

And finally, as recently as last week there was a discussion on this very page entitled Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1118#WP:NATIONALIST bickering on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyrgyz Confederation about this very user! As DIYeditor has rightly pointed out, some of the articles created by Lauriswift911 are potentially hoaxes. After Bogomolov.PL commented by writing I guess we are dealing with a cross-wiki vandal who has created a whole "team" of sockpuppets. He works on the subject of Kyrgyzstan, primarily the history of Kyrgyzstan, the discussion was simply archived and no action was taken. How come? I strongly believe that it's about time some action was taken against this user. بلاد ما وراء النهر (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

It was already directed by Salvio_giuliano and Bbb23 that this be taken to WP:SPI if there is evidence of WP:SOCKPUPPETry. It would pay to prepare this kind of report beforehand and keep it as terse and to the point as possible, focusing on links to behavioral issues that would be grounds for administrative action per relevant policies. As always, beware of WP:BOOMERANG as I often find these nationalist disputes have elements of the same behavior on both sides. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, well noted. Next time I'll put together everything first before posting. I'm not too worried about his socks. I'll let you guys look into it. What worries me are his contributions. Someone needs to closely review his nationalistic, unfounded, and deceptive contributions. بلاد ما وراء النهر (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

It is worth noting that in response to your invitation to participate in the discussion, the user wrote "uzbek = slave" in the Kyrgyz language. Kazman322 (talk) 12:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Wow. Yes, 'kul/qul' indeed means a slave in Turkic languages. It's a clear violation of WP:NPA. This user is just crying out for a block. The sooner, the better. And when he reverted one of my edits earlier today, his edit summary was ''uzbek language ≠ not language'. He's now edit-warring. I'd say action needs to be taken against this character asap and his contributions should be mass deleted. بلاد ما وراء النهر (talk) 12:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Indef blocked for the insults against Uzbeks. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! It seems Th3Shoudy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is one of his socks -- it's been confirmed on Russian Wikipedia and therefore indef blocked there. I wonder if a sock is automatically blocked when another account of the same user is blocked. If not, I'll just keep an eye out on what he does with his other accounts (Cianzera (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Foggy kub (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Kozaryl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also seem to be associated with this person). بلاد ما وراء النهر (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

If the account has been confirmed as a sockpuppet on ru.wiki I think it would be appropriate to block them here as well, but looking at the block log over there, while Th3Shoudy was blocked for evading a block, there is no mention of which account it was tied to in the log. Do you have a link that shows where the ru.wiki admins/community concluded that the accounts are connected? As for the other accounts, Cianzera and Kozaryl, I would suggest filing an SPI here if you have evidence that these accounts are colluding together. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I see. Kazman322 wrote here that Th3Shoudy was confirmed to be a sock of Cianzera on Russian Wikipedia with someone who has checkuser rights. I think it's indeed true: on his user page, Lauriswift911 has listed his social media handles and all of them are spelled @cianzera. Unfortunately, when blocking Th3Shoudy as a sock Q-bit array didn't provide any links, instead opting to simply indicate sock puppetry as the reason. But the fact fact that Th3Shoudy has been editing exclusively the articles that Lauriswift911 has been editing is a dead give-away. I'll file an SPI once I dig ug more on all these accounts. Some help from the Russian community would be greatly appreciated. بلاد ما وراء النهر (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I think SPI is the best place to have these concerns addressed. Once a case page is up, I would recommend letting the ru.wiki admins involved with this case to consider making a statement there. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@بلاد ما وراء النهر: yes, the account Th3Shoudy belongs to Lauriswift911. He's our local LTA. -- Q-bit array (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Couldn't you prove that I'm the same person as Lauriswift911? Needless to say, on the Russian Wikipedia you didn't have the right to block me at all, because you didn't have the proper evidence, you didn't even bother to check my IP) I know the owner of the account Lauriswift911 in the face, I can'tI can be his account, but "But the fact that Th3Shoudy only edited the articles that Lauriswift911 edited is a complete giveaway" does not prove anything, I work exclusively in the field of History of Kyrgyzstan as well as Lauriswift911. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Th3Shoudy (talk • contribs)

Thank you for confirming! What is an LTA? I wonder if this is sufficient for blocking Th3Shoudy or whether I should still file an STI. بلاد ما وراء النهر (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

"LTA" stands for "long term abuser". P.S.: The accounts Cianzera, Kozaryl and Foggy kub are also his. -- Q-bit array (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I think you should still file at WP:SPI because a) I need to step away from my computer for the next few hours and do not have time to act on this at the moment (SPI will likely get a faster response) and b) it will create documentation on en.wiki about these accounts' history, expediting any future issues from this LTA. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Got it, will try to work on. I've never filed an FTI, so it'll take a while as I fumble my way through. بلاد ما وراء النهر (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@بلاد ما وراء النهر: Don't forget to list all the accounts that were suspected as sock puppets in that prior ANI report, if you feel they are all related. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Done. I think I got them all. Took a good hour, damn! بلاد ما وراء النهر (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

IP keeps making malformed AFD of page, in order to replace page with 'rejected' draft

There's too many diffs to show, but User:122.53.47.47 keeps nominating List of longest-reigning monarchs with (what appears to be) a malformed nomination, in the hopes of replacing it with a rejected draft. This might be a WP:CIR issue. GoodDay (talk) 06:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

don's it a 'rejected' draft 122.53.47.47 (talk) 07:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

The IP has been temporarily blocked for disruptive edits. Looks like they're now trying to create another draft list article on their user talk page. WaggersTALK 14:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Undoubtedly BFDIFan707 whose latest socks have thing for largest X. @HJ Mitchell FYI. Not sure 31 hours will be enough unfortunately. Star Mississippi 18:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, the IPs latest edits have made things seem less about their competency & more about their possible deliberate disruption. I too, now suspect socking via editing signed out -- GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

They appear to have a friend at 122.2.121.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Mayhaps a checkuser or someone better at ranges will wander by Star Mississippi 23:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Also IP 112.206.195.194. GoodDay (talk) 03:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Definitely need someone better with range block than I to sort this out. Star Mississippi 14:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

These IPs can't meaningfully be range blocked. Whack a mole is called for. IznoPublic (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Izno Star Mississippi 17:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Meta-Battle for Dream Island

Several of the deletion discussions currently in progress at Miscellany for Deletion are attempts to create Battle for Dream Island via various forms of gaming the system. Battle for Dream Island has been repeatedly created and deleted in article space and draft space and salted:

• Battle for Dream Island (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Battle for Dream Island (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

An entry has been made at DEEPER, Deletion Review Perennial Requests. See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Perennial_requests#Battle_for_Dream_Island. So the ultras who are fans of BFDI are now trying various ways to sneak in their articles.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle for Dream Island
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Battle For Dream Island (BFDI)

The current deletion discussions include:

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Object show
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Cary and Michael Huang
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ericallums2007/sandbox
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Battle for BFB (2nd nomination)

The nominated pages include:

• Draft:Object show (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Cary and Michael Huang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Ericallums2007/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Battle for BFB (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a conduct issue as well as a content issue, and MFD is a content forum. However, I have reviewed the histories of the pages that are currently nominated for deletion, and they are largely the work of unregistered editors and sockpuppets, so there is no obvious conduct remedy. Perhaps the only administrative action that is in order is vigilance. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

• Closed and SALTed all but the sandbox as that one didn't seem to need seasoning. One day they'll get bored. Maybe.

Star Mississippi 17:48, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Also noting Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Battle for Dream Island, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?prefix=Draft%3ABattle+for+dream+island&title=Special%3AUndelete&fuzzy=1. I added a couple of title blacklist entries. MER-C 18:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Bradford blocked for sockpuppetry

Hi all - notifying the community that I have just indefinitely blocked User:Bradford for sockpuppetry. Details are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bradford. Posting here as a courtesy, since they have been around for over ten years and have racked up nearly 60,000 edits. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

It is always sad to see a long-time editor who succumbs to sockpuppetry when they feel under pressure after years of valued contributions. I hope they will consider the standard offer later this year and pledge to sock no more. Thank you for your work on this, Girth Summit....since last fall, we've been running into a lot of sockpuppetry in AFD-land but it is typically from newer editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I need to do more work on this to be confident Liz, but my suspicion is that this is a case of someone who put a lot of effort into uncontroversial editing in order to camouflage their UPE activity. Or maybe it's someone who started out with good intentions, and then succumbed to temptation once their Autopatrolled flag was granted. I'm not sure yet, but I don't think this was a simple case of a good faith editor getting frustrated with their creations being nominated for deletion. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

He seems to have been subsequently locked as compromised. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:02, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

disruptive user

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/50.47.169.71 88.5.75.2 (talk) 09:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. They have been warned and if they continue vandalising, they will be blocked. Anarchyte (talk) 09:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Anonymous user making low-quality unexplained edits to corporate pages over the course of years

(Continued from the previous discussion due to regular IP changes making previous blocks ineffective)

Known IP addresses:

• 50.249.237.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 69.47.203.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1008:B104:EC55:1D60:13E4:E629:8798 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1008:B123:D955:59E0:2640:A7DE:CA6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1008:B129:C046:B898:1E20:B119:C4F5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1008:B149:CD82:5135:A28F:F7BD:5E08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1008:B159:FD70:913A:4C00:61A5:1CB6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1008:B163:88D3:11D6:729D:682:CDF4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1008:B189:E825:7CC8:7E15:A35F:64FA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1008:B1A2:D5C:ECE1:493B:FDE5:8068 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2601:246:5401:9DCC:39F6:94E7:D5C:F1E9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2601:246:5401:9DCC:55C8:1B5F:ACD1:DA31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2601:246:5401:9DCC:5894:B507:BE4B:982C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ‎2601:246:5401:9DCC:71EE:A1A8:9351:822 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2601:246:5401:9DCC:C053:3797:FE65:606 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2601:246:5401:9DCC:C59B:E2A8:B59D:23E2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Possible IP addresses:

• 2600:1008:B004:D250:249D:2FA9:2957:3D1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1008:B145:C36B:1D22:BA52:774A:197D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1008:B145:C36B:ED5A:F7A5:F980:EA2B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1008:B158:28AC:7523:62D7:5E2F:D8A4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ranges to watch:

• 2600:1008:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2601:246:5401:9DCC:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Targeted pages:

• McGraw Hill Education (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Scholastic Corporation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Best Buy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• READ 180 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• MobyMax (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Broadcast of Jeopardy! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Quizlet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Huntington Learning Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sports Jeopardy! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Hancock Fabrics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Hobby Lobby (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jo-Ann Stores (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• A.C. Moore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• The Michaels Companies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Utrecht Art Supplies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• CompUSA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Circuit City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Blick Art Materials (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jeopardy! The Greatest of All Time (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• S&P Global (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• BrainPop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Random House Studio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Best Buy Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Abt Electronics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sun Television and Appliances (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• TigerDirect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• MobyMax (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Fry's Electronics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Mathnasium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• KinderCare Learning Centers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Bloomingdale's (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Discussion:

This anonymous user (whose IP address often changes) has been making strange formatting edits to a variety of corporate pages for nearly a year. The edits aren't *quite* vandalism, but they're very bizarre, often turning reasonably spaced paragraphs into large text walls, removing tags, or needlessly changing the wording of headings. They've been reverted a number of times by other users and now myself, but they continue to make the edits while refusing to use edit summaries, the article talk pages, or their own talk page.

I'd like to request a block of their known IP addresses (possibly a range block) and semi-protection of their most frequently targeted pages, especially Scholastic Corporation and Best Buy. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 09:31, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Chapmansh

Chapmansh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Shira Klein is Chapmansh. Chapmansh published this yesterday promoting the narrative of a sitebanned harasser. Chapmansh smears several Wikipedians, in their item that is part of a wider mud smearing campaign. The item was at the very least ghost written by an indef banned manipulator and harasser, who tried outing people, harassing their families, etc. Chapmansh needs to be banned per NPA, Wikipedia:Casting aspersions, etc. Jamarast (talk) 06:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I wonder what the enforceability of NPA and ASPERSIONS - both internal guidelines - is on this kind of offwiki activity. Probably between zero and nil. (Also, FWIW, the editor is a WikiEd instructor, and I don't think they have ever interacted onwiki with any of the editors they named in the journal essay.) W. Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_c) 11:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

This isn't an issue of NPA and ASPERSIONS. It's an issue of WP:OUTTING: attempted outing is sufficient grounds for an immediate block. Volunteer Marek 12:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I would note that if this does indeed fall under ASPERSIONS, so does the claim that The item was at the very least ghost written by you-know-who. W. Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_c) 11:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Fascinating. It's essentially a really long talk page rant with outing, published as a peer-reviewed research article in a reputable journal. I think the next edition of the Signpost just got booked solid. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Elmidae Precisely 🙂, that’s what it is. A really long talk page rant with outing, published as a peer-reviewed research article in a reputable journal. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not necessarily saying their narrative is wrong - frankly I have no idea what y'all are doing in that area - but I have never seen that combination of scholarship and individually-targeted message board excavation before. Not sure this blurring of the boundaries of "research article" and "someone on the internet is wrong" is a good idea. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Elmidae: Don't think of it as an "insider" of Wikipedia, but as an outsider: to outsiders, the inner workings of Wikipedia are almost completely opaque, but their results are highly visible, and not always agreeable. If you're an older academic in this field - and of those there are many - then you're more used to archives than emails, and this "excavation" into the bowels of Wikipedia is as a good a guide as you'll ever get into a completely novel way of creating and disseminating knowledge. It may be boring for you or me, but for an "outsider" it's essential reading. François Robere (talk) 18:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Leaving aside the specifics of that content area, I will say that from my experience in other content areas the general narrative over how our consensus mechanisms can and are manipulated by editors who wish to push a certain point of view through distorted selection and quoting of sources, and that our systems for handling this sort of behaviour (ANI, AE, ArbCom) are broadly not capable of responding to it, is true.

The problem is that untangling this mess of selective source selection aligned to a specific point of view requires some pretty in-depth knowledge of the content area. However by the time that an editor or admin has that knowledge, and is trying to take action against one or more of the disruptive editors, they are seen as being involved at best and making attempts to remove opponents at worst.

While I don't want to diminish the concerns Marek is expressing over potentially being outed, I feel like this broader problem of subtle manipulations of consensus needs to be discussed and addressed somewhere. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Maybe at WP:NPOVN? Levivich (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

NPOVN might be able to handle specific cases and could lead to an article or set of articles fixed, but that sort of noticeboard isn't a venue to deal with either editorial behavioural issues, or how our policies and guidelines are being subverted in a manner that they by design cannot handle. Is there much point in fixing articles while not addressing the circumstances that allowed them to become broken in the first place? Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Judging by Talk:Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust/Archive 4#Concerns have been raised about this article, I fear you're right. Levivich (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, while I'm not familiar enough with the source materials to determine who is selectively using sources to further a specific point of view, I can say I've seen that exact type of discussion in content areas. Unfortunately by the time any editor, much less an admin or arbitrator has became informed enough in that content to make that determination accurately and take action against it, they will be seen and cast by those misusing the sources as biased and involved against them.

Given that this is an issue of subversion of our policies and guidelines, I wonder if Village Pump (policy) would be the right venue to at least get the ball rolling? Specifics for fixing the problem would probably have to be discussed on the relevant policy or guideline talk pages, but the generalities of identifying which PAGs are being subverted and how could be done there. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen it, too, and I agree with your analysis. VPP seems as good a place as any; I think the generalities include "is there a problem?" and "what is the problem, exactly?" I know what I think about it, I know what I read in the paper, but I don't know what the community consensus is at this point. Levivich (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll try to draft up something general for VPP then to get that conversation started. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Now live at VPP. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Just how many places is this discussion being repeated on Wikipedia? If the article in question does involve outing editors then we shouldn't really be discussing it at all in public but passing it on to Arbcom and to T&S.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@Nigel Ish Voice of reason award. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

So, I will be blunt: if this really is about defamation/privacy issues and not about keeping the shitstorm going, then why not, immediately after the OP posted on AN about the matter, just tell others something to the effect of: "This article may involve defamation and/or outing of some editors (do not specify) and is being resolved according to procedures laid out for harassment, defamation and linking to it. Administrators are asked to enforce sanctions against any users discussing my IRL identity that have not been posted anytime on Wikipedia with all tools at their disposal as they see appropriate"? This gag order is appropriate until these issues are resolved, is in accordance with the policies and guidelines for such alleged behaviour, and can help resolve any differences with the authors of the paper.

For now, what I see is that the person who appears to be in most need of assistance doesn't look like wanting any and instead publicly airs their grievances which, in this case, should not be done in public for reasons that person himself became aware of, the hard way. (Yes, asking to suppress 13-year-old information that bothered no one before this publication is ridiculous, and even I believe it is too late, as in "people outside WP took notice" and we can't help it, it is never late to do the thing I proposed and limit the discussion for so long as is needed for competent people to either suppress that information or decide that there was no violation). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Admittedly I was the among the first to ask ArbCom to ban users (in particular, one of the users implicated in the cited paper) who were circumventing NPA by posting accusations of proxying/meatpuppetry on Wikipediocracy under the same nick they use on WP instead of actually saying that on WP, and this during an active ArbCom case. But the proposed ban will do more harm than good.

1. NPA refers to attacks made on Wikipedia - even if we can qualify them as personal attacks, these were off-wiki. To be fair, enforcement should be equal, so if that didn't provoke a ban, this shouldn't either.
2. ASPERSIONS concerns claims that are unsubstantiated and cast people in negative light (defamation). At the very least the authors substantiate their position. There are problems with this paper (like downplaying the problems Icewhiz caused or Grabowski not being a totally impartial observer of the situation, given his prior Disputes with Piotrus) but ASPERSIONS is not that.
3. The item was at the very least ghost written by [Icewhiz] this is an aspersion against Chapmansh, please substantiate. "It's obvious" arguments are not good enough. Nobody really has even got evidence of them contacting Icewhiz to begin with.
4. Chapmansh did not edit in the area of concern (or really engage with any of the editors on-wiki), so the ban is pointless. The way to prevent these concerns are either addressing the authors, or publishing rebuttals in the press, or suing for libel.
5. As for OUTING, I would advise all these who think they were outed to not post about this publicly (it only makes the outers confirm they were right). For the same reason, I will refrain from telling in public if the information posted in the article was public knowledge or not to consider this an OUTING violation. This must be addressed privately with admins and/or T&S.

In short, this request is pointless and is on shaky ground policy-wise. I think no one should opine on the OUTING allegation in public. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

"all these who think they were outed to not post about this publicly (it only makes the outers confirm they were right)" - I am not clear on what your logic is here - are you saying that by publicly pointing out the WP:OUTTING the outers can feel successful in their harassment? That's a judgement call best left to the target of the outing, no? Volunteer Marek 14:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the instructions for posting on AN say this: Oversight and revision-deletion:

If the issue or concern involves a privacy-related matter, or involves any potential libel or defamation, do not post it here (emphasis on original). At least the OP did not say "OUTING" (he only said as much as that the piece is defamatory), but you shouldn't have publicly confirmed or alleged that. READ THE WARNING POPUPS BEFORE POSTING (too late at this stage, though). Just tell these guys what you believe had not been public knowledge but was disclosed. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I was interviewed for this piece even though I'm not credited (some are here). I provided links to the Jan Żaryn discussion but I was not consulted on the final version of that part of the text. My opinions did not become part of the final version of the text. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:OUTING is a shield against harassment, not against scrutiny (see WP:HA#NOT). Shira Klein and Jan Grabowski aren't some Wikipedians taking their on-Wiki grievances off-Wiki, but serious scholars engaged in a serious, peer-reviewed study (for which I was also interviewed). The paper is now out; accepting the suggestion by Jamarast (talk · contribs) would be seen not as protecting anyone's identity, but as vindictive muzzling of scholarship. François Robere (talk) 13:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, a caveat to WP:OUTING is if "[the] person has voluntarily posted their own information... on Wikipedia". Since the editor supposedly "outed" by the paper has used their real name on Wikipedia in the past, this doesn't seem like a violation. François Robere (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Chapmansh: is indeed "some Wikipedian" which means that our policy apply to them as much as to anyone else. This includes outing, especially when it's done in what appears to be a gratuitous and vindictive manner. And this is a clear cut violation which at the end of the day is no different than when User:Icewhiz began posting private information of Wikipedia users on twitter, including info on how to harass their children and employers. Indeed, the wording in the article is verbatim taken from Icewhiz's doxxing. Oh and recall that this is an area under Discretionary Sanctions, which Chapmansh (who has been on Wikipedia for more than ten years so cannot plead ignorance in this respect) is well aware of since their article references these very same Discretionary Sanctions. Volunteer Marek 14:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

One cannot be outed after editing here for years under their real name, voluntarily disclosing their identity on their own userpage, and then (publicly) renaming their account after being sanctioned by arbcom. Out of respect I won't drop diffs but it's all on-wiki and public and has been for over 10 years. After being sanctioned in a topic area, one cannot use a rename to hide the history while continuing to be disruptive in that same topic area. Levivich (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

First, this is not true. WP:OUTTING says:

Personal information includes real-life name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, other contact information, or photograph, whether such information is accurate or not.

Posting personal information EVEN IF someone has edited under their real name is still WP:OUTTING.

Second, unless you're referring to Piotrus nobody mentioned in that article "edited Wikipedia for years under their real name" nor did they "disclose their identity on their own userpage" as far as I'm aware. The only thing that has happened is that some people were doxxed previously, also with the intent of harassment and this has been used to identify them and, well, doxx them again.

On a related note, since both you and Francois Robere took part in the process of creating this article I would appreciate it if you didn't comment on this issue since you were, however indirectly, involved in this WP:OUTTING. This particularly applicable due to the fact that your comments appear to be written in "I know something I know something but I won't tell" insinuations and possibly interpreted as prodding others to search further. Also, please remind me, have you been asked to refrain from such activity previously?

Finally, trying to excuse doxxing and outing by claiming that someone is "continuing to be disruptive" not only violates WP:ASPERSIONS (if you wish to file a report about any disruptive activity in the topic area, you know where to do it) but is also, well, quite disturbing since it's basically saying "they were doxxed but they deserved it!". Other users have tried similar excuses in the past and as we all know, ended up being site banned. Volunteer Marek 15:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I just checked the paper and the three times they mention an editor's real name, the footnote at the end of the sentence links to a diff in which the editor self-disclosed on-wiki. (Are you seriously denying editing under your real name for years, until your first arbcom TBAN? If you want, I can post those diffs on-wiki?) Being interviewed by a researcher doesn't constitute taking part in writing the paper and certainly not outing. Levivich (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes I am denying it since it's not true. I've never edited under my real name. I would ask you to prove otherwise (you can't) but then I will be falling prey to your little game where I inadvertently give you permission to doxx me (even if partially). It is likewise still false that I "voluntarily disclosed my real name on my user page". You really need to quit it with these half-insinuations wink wink bread crumbs you're dropping for people when you know very well that your claims are simply false. Like quit it yesterday.

And you weren't just interviewed for the article, you were quoted, glowingly in it. And then there's the mutual history here which we all know too well.

For the purposes of THIS violation here by Klein, WP:OUTTING also applies to the doxxing of a person's employer, job occupation, address, title, etc. She clearly did that. And there's absolutely no way you can try and stretch the truth, despite your heroic efforts, and pretend that I ever disclosed any of that on Wiki or anywhere else.

Seriously, strike your comment and go elsewhere before you get yourself in trouble. Volunteer Marek 16:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to strike my comment, I'm going to substantiate it. As far as I know, you started editing in 2006 as User:Radeksz, until 2009 when you were TBANed as part of WP:EEML. This is the diff from EEML cited in the paper. Here is where you disclosed your occupation. After EEML, in 2010, you changed your username to Volunteer Marek. This is all public, on-wiki, by your choice. The only item is not on-wiki is "employer", but given that you've disclosed (1) real name and (2) occupation, and only went pseudonymous after being sanctioned in this topic area (but returned to this topic area, where you were sanctioned again by Arbcom 10 years later), I don't think that constitutes "outing" or "doxing", and none of it is on-wiki anyway. Levivich (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

And that old username is NOT "my real name" which is why, surprise surprise, it's different than the name that Chapmansh doxxed in her article. And if you're going to be doxxing me now too - you are very clearly aware that I was subjected to extreme harassment from Icewhiz yet you happily do it here anyway - then please at least acknowledge that I never posted it on my user page, that I never posted my occupation or job title or address anywhere on Wiki, that I've made repeated requests for others (including you) not to link to sensitive information in this wink-wink-here-is-some-bread-crumbs-guys kind of way you're doing right now and that the diff in question was made after my personal information was posted on an external hate/harassment site. Oh, and guess what, the link in the paper? It doesn't work. You yourself had to manually change the http address to make it work here. It extremely disturbing how blasé and coy you are being about doxxing other users although I'll let others draw any conclusions from that.

It is also messed up how you set up this little WP:GAME where you put me in a position where I have to discuss my personal info and how it got doxxed which then gives you an opportunity to engage in doxxing myself. Didn't I just say "I would ask you to prove otherwise (you can't) but then I will be falling prey to your little game where I inadvertently give you permission to doxx me (even if partially).". I. Just. Asked. You. Not. To. Do. This. And then you cheerily went ahead and did it anyway. Volunteer Marek 17:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I told you like three hours ago to stop discussing potential libel and harassment in public communications and manage it behind the scenes. What part of the bolded/underlined text was unclear to you?

If you now have to explain now how a character string in the article is different that that from the diff, it's because you didn't (want to) contact oversight and other organs. I can't help you at this stage, you could have stopped. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

(ec) (Levivich changed their comment) No, it's again, completely false that "The only item is not on-wiki is "employer"" - even though just that would violate WP:OUTTING. I've never disclosed my title or occupation. "None of it is on wiki anyway" is also a completely spurious excuse as you are very well aware. You remember Icewhiz? That guy? I'm sure you do. I think you and him maybe participated in some same discussions or something. Anyway, he also posted private info on various editors and "None of it was on wiki anyway" and guess what? Got indef banned.

(and no I went pseudonymous after severe harassment started, which you also know very well). Volunteer Marek 17:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't know anything about severe harassment pre-2010, that was years before I started editing. I know about the Icewhiz Twitter account from 2019 or whenever it was, although I never actually read any of that harassment, I heard about it on-wiki when Icewhiz was banned. You're the one who posted your real name on-wiki, you can't now just claim that didn't happen. Levivich (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Ha, selective quotation is truly an art form, isn't it. The article accuses me of dismissing a complaint at ANI (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1070) because it "require[d] way too much digging"--conveniently leaving out that I said "too much digging for an incident" (yes, italics mine) and that thus ANI was not the right place for the very complicated complaint. In a later comment in the same thread, also referenced in the article, I suggested arbitration, AN, and SPI. User:Chapmansh, really? Drmies (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Hm, I am surprised to find myself cited in this Journal of Holocaust Research article, from an AE request I acted on years ago. Prima vista, I don't see anything actionable with respect to Chapmansh in this article. It is offwiki conduct, and it appears at first glance to be bona fide historiographical research (even if with a very peculiar focus and expressing a point of view about whose merits I have no opinion). And Jamarast does not cite any specific passages from the article and does not explain how specifically they violate Wikipedia conduct policies. If any action is required, in my view, it would be against Jamarast, for casting aspersions against a fellow editor in good standing by associating them, without evidence, with a ban-evading sockpuppeteer. (By way of a disclaimer, I was contacted by e-mail by Chapmansh in 2022 and asked to be interviewed for what I assume would become this article. I declined.) Sandstein 16:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Sandstein, I agree with you. I think we need to set aside the Icewhiz business here because that's not what it's about. It's distasteful that he gets so much airtime in that article but that's not relevant for us as admins/editors; "ghost-written" is just really beyond the pale, and all of us who have published in academic journals should take offense here. Jamarast, are you now rethinking the charges you made, and how serious they are? I hope so. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

How about "co-written"?[123] François Robere (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The article has two authors listed. Is either of them Icewhiz? If neither of them are Icewhiz than it cannot reasonably be considered "co-written". Nil Einne (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Drmies the issue with Chapmansh article is not "personal attacks" or "aspersions" - she can do that all she wants in her own publication - rather it is her doxxing personal information (not just real names either). That is a clear breach of WP:OUTTING. She basically had a choice - write the article which doxxed private info and give up her Wikipedia account, or write an article which did not doxx private info and keep her Wikipedia account. She very clearly made a choice. Note she's been here for more than ten years, she's aware of discretionary sanctions in the area, she has no excuse for not knowing the policy, and WP:OUTTING very clearly says that this kind of behavior is "is sufficient grounds for an immediate block". Volunteer Marek 16:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, the diff in the article is correct, unfortunately. Linking that, or continuing with the eternal looping back to the Arb case from 2009, I consider that to be a form of harassment when it happens on-wiki, and as you know I have acted against it on a number of occasions. But this is not on-wiki and while I find many aspects of the article deplorable (and I believe you are also selectively quoted, and misquoted, on at least one occasion--the RSN discussion), that is really not something that I can easily categorize as doxxing. Perhaps ArbCom should have a chat about that. Whether other editors in that article are doxxed, I don't know that, not having read the whole thing. I agree that the reliance on Icewhiz is--well I struggle to find a word for it, "deplorable" doesn't come close, I'm going to bite my tongue here, but again, that's not something we can do much about. After reading parts of the article I find it difficult to consider the co-author to be a colleague here on this project, but that's another matter. I do find it interesting that Sandstein and others were asked for their opinion, but I wasn't; it really hurts my feelings, since I thought I was a player. Sorry, I do not want to make light of how you and others are portrayed here. I think you are portrayed at least partially incorrectly and I'm sorry for that. Drmies (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Drmies: The diff in the article (and btw, yes I have tried to get it oversighted but apparently it's "too old" and oversighting it would screw up too much history) is irrelevant. The problem is with Chapmansh ALSO posting my place of employment, my occupation and my job title. None of these things were EVER disclosed on Wiki. And ALL of these things are EXPLICITLY mentioned in WP:OUTTING as a form of doxxing and/or harassment. Volunteer Marek 18:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Fairly sure you're mistaken. It would likely be serious academic misconduct to publish as you own work something which was mostly written by an undisclosed party. Nil Einne (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Nil Einne, I'm sorry, how does this respond to my comment? My comment is about WP:OUTTING not "something which was mostly written by an undisclosed party". Volunteer Marek 17:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm saying you cannot gloss over the ghost-written accusation by claiming she can do what she wants. While she can, accusing her of doing so and publishing something "ghost-written" is a very serious claim and if this accusation lacks evidence then it is way more serious than anything else in this thread or in that article. So so far, the only person who has come close to earning a site ban is Jamarast. And maybe you if Icewhiz is not one of either named authors since you also said "co-written". Nil Einne (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The authors interviewed Icewhiz for the article and quote him a bunch. I did not say he was a co-author or that he "ghost wrote" it or that it was "something which was mostly written by an undisclosed party" (those are your own words there guy). If you, or FR, misunderstood my comment, I'm sorry but, well, you misunderstood my comment. Regardless, it is extremely disappointing that you think that WP:OUTTING Wikipedia editors info is not a serious offense. What ever happened to protecting Wikipedians from harassment? Or is that "so three years ago"? Volunteer Marek 17:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I did not say he was a co-author? "It's very obvious from that text that it was co-written by Icewhiz", "The impression that this article was co-written by him or under his direction is unavoidable.". Levivich (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You clearly said that it was co-written by them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• "Chapmansh smears several Wikipedians, in their item that is part of a wider mud smearing campaign." is this statement about a living person's offwiki academic publishing supported by reliable sources? NPA, Wikipedia:Casting aspersions, etc indeed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
• Close this - This forum is unsuited to deal with an academic journal article where Wiki-users wish to raise alleged behavior claims against the author -- if anywhere, it's either an Arbcom issue or a trust and safety issue, given matters of alleged defamation, and alleged private information. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Give Jamarast time to respond, depending on what they have to say a boomerang may be in order. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

No, there is no reason, either to desire more claims about whatever off-wiki stuff, or lay a trap, here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Lay a trap? ASW, AGF. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Trap. There are two things to do, here, if the user has already done enough to be blocked, block them, and, we should close the present public forum. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Jamarast has been blocked by Moneytrees: Obvious Burner account-- "new" account getting into controversial area, following around an "enemy" in the area. If they would like to respond, probably should do so with their real account (if they are a sock puppet). – robertsky (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

While I'm not going to say we should never sanction someone for their oversite behaviour including offsite outing e.g. in cases where an editor is outing editors to intimidate them or at least it's having that effect, or saying stuff which calls their editing into question (as has happened quite a few times before); for good reason we should rarely do so. I consider it ridiculous as it completely goes against the spirit of our outing policy the suggestion that the same standards should apply to off-wiki activity as on-wiki activity. Or that someone chosing to edit under their real name or in a way that can be linked to an identity off-site means anything they do off-wiki that affects us is somehow treated the same as on-wiki activity.

To give an example, if someone with a blatant COI edits under their real name or even a pseudonym, for good reason we cannot talk about stuff easily found via a simple Google search here on wikipedia e.g. if an editor is the marketing manager at company X, we cannot generally mention it here if they haven't linked to the info. But we should not be sanctioning editors if they chose to challenge such people on Twitter or a blog or whatever (e.g. tweets 'The marketing manager of company X keeps removing criticial info from X's wikipedia article) just because they happened to have linked their identities here at some point. At most, we may forbid them from linking to their blog or Twitter or whatever, even general links. And of course they shouldn't be even hinting about something they published offsite which violates outing here.

Let's also consider how this even arises. It looks like in this particular case the editor was interviewing editors here so basically had to disclose their identity. But for the vast majority of cases, there's nothing stopping the same thing from happening without such a linkage which is the only thing which allows us to consider action. (Unless someone is going to seriously consider we should start banning everyone for outing even if we have no idea if they have ever edited and what their account name is if they have.) While many editors chose to have separate identities for various reasons, effectively what this is encouraging is for all editors to ensure a complete wall between their identities which IMO is not helpful to wikipedia.

Thinking further, taken at face value, the suggestion we should treat such things the same would mean if a journalist/whatever talks to an editor and they mention some detail about another editor which they found from a Google search e.g. that editor A is the marketing manager for company X and and the journalist researches themselves and writes about it and happens to mention this named editor's role, this editor should be site banned? Yet if the journalist doesn't mention this editor's role or at least doesn't give the account name (perhaps because the editor was aware of this ridiculous interpretation of outing and so asked the journalist not to name them) this is better?

In cases where the editor has not linked to the published material even indirectly, as others have pointed out, there's an obvious contradiction too. How can we say we should always sanction an editor for something they published off-wiki in a way that can be linked to them via information they have published on-wiki but where they themselves have not linked even indirectly to the offending material; yet claim to protect this editor from outing via editors inappropriately linking stuff they have not linked themselves? To give a simple example, if someone edits under their real name and has a Twitter account also under their real name but has not linked the two on-wiki (no matter if they have off-wiki), for good reasons it's generally outing to link stuff that Twitter has said to the Wikipedia account here. Yet editors are suggesting if such a person tweets about a COI editor's activities and mentions stuff not disclosed on-wiki we should automatically siteban them over something we can't even link to to protect the editor tweeting? Yeah, nah.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked Jamarast as an obvious burner account. I have no comments on anything else here. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

" I consider it ridiculous as it completely goes against the spirit of our outing policy the suggestion that the same standards should apply to off-wiki activity as on-wiki activity." You know, for a second there I thought you were an admin and the first thought that popped into my head after reading that comment was "oh my god, are we really trusting someone who thinks that doxxing is no big deal with admin tools". But then I checked. Ok. Anyway, no that's not how it works. Icewhiz, was banned for posting personal information off-wiki. Numerous other editors were banned for posting personal information off wiki. What you are basically saying is that I could, if I wanted to, go to, I dunno, Wikipediocracy and post all the personal information I have about you, or Levivich, or whoever there, including their place of employment, title, occupation, real name, etc etc, and even do it in the context where the subject is already being extensively harassed, and...... apparently, according to you, that would be just fine. It wouldn't and I sincerely hope and pray 100% that we NEVER end up interpreting our WP:OUTTING policy in such a ridiculous, callous and yes, cruel, way.

Look. It's actually very straight forward. Do we have a WP:OUTTING policy? Yes. Does this policy have an exemption for "people with PhD"? No. Does it require that the doxxing must happen on Wikipedia itself? No. There's a list of editors a mile long who got indef'd because they posted private info off wiki. Does it apply to all Wikipedians? Yes. If there is some exemption *in the policy* I'm missing, please enlighten me. Otherwise there's nothing to discuss here and these continued attempts at derailing the issue are tiresome. Policy was violated. Policy says "outing is sufficient grounds for an immediate block". That's it. Right there. I have no idea what the relevance of your convoluted hypothetical imaginary scenarios is to any of this.

(ec - response to alteration in comment) No, the editor was not interviewing any editors whom they doxxed, nor did they "had to" disclose anyone's identity, "basically" or otherwise. In fact, the article mentions a good number of other editors, including those who were interviewed, without mentioning a single bit of their personal info. It just doxxes others. Volunteer Marek 18:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

You outed yourself. All of this anger seems misplaced. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh my god. Why do I have to keep explaining this. No. No I didn't. Even if I did post my real name ONCE... FIFTEEN years ago, AFTER getting doxxed by someone else(and using that is a huge stretch), I never posted my employer nor my job nor my title nor my occupation. ALL of this is "personal information", explicitly listed in WP:OUTTING which, as a Wikipedia user, you are NOT ALLOWED to post. On wiki or off. Because that does constitute WP:HARASSMENT. Personal info. Posting it? Outing. Never posted it myself. Very simple. Volunteer Marek 18:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Which part of the following are you having trouble reading? Personal information includes real-life name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, other contact information, or photograph, whether such information is accurate or not. Please stop pretending that this wasn't doxxing. Volunteer Marek 18:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Not so sure WP:OWH agrees with that. Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Off-wiki attacks also doesn't appear to agree with you. This wasn't an attack it was a peer reviewed academic paper. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, yes OWH does. You just have to click... your own link [124]. And of course As is the case with on-wiki harassment, off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning. [125]. I don't know why you're linking to "no personal attack". One. More. Time. The issue isn't "personal attacks". The issue is WP:OUTTING. This was outting.

Honestly... I'm having a real difficult time with this conversation with you for the basic reason that I will say "XYZ" and then you pop up and say "you said ABC" and I say "no, I said XYZ, here's my exact words" and you pop up and say "you said ABC" and I say "no, I said XYZ, here is a direct quote" and you pop up and say "ABC ABC ABC" and... it's just extremely weird how you do that. And on top of that you like post a link and say "this say LMNOP" and I look at it and notice it actually says "QRS" and point it out and then you're like "this says LMNOP" and I'm like "listen, I can read, it says QRS" and you're like "LMNOP LMNOP LMNOP" and... it's extremely weird how you do that. Volunteer Marek 19:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

"off-wiki harassment" in that section is pretty clearly linked to Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Off-wiki attacks. It doesn't link to Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment, are you saying that everyone linking the article is linking to external harassment? Because that is a very serious charge to lay. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're really exhausting my energy with this ABC LMNOP stuff again. Yes, technically linking to that article off wiki, if done gratuitously can be a form of harassment. Basically, after this little bout of drama subsidies, yes, if someone does it that will be an issue to be raised. Volunteer Marek 19:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

You're the one who walked away from a conversation after it was pointed out to you that you did say ABC and the diffs were presented by Levivich [126]. You can't argue with the diffs. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this discussion appears to be deliberately enervating. Volunteer Marek 20:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Nobody forced you to cast aspersion or make claims about living people without a WP:RS. Nobody forced you to edit Holocaust related articles either, take a little bit of personal responsibility for the situation we're all in now. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Deliberately Stochastically. Enervating. Volunteer Marek 20:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Ahem... WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:AGF. It may be enervating for you but "Deliberately" is too far, that's a personal attack. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with VM on this, although on different grounds. Yes, WP:OUTING says unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia, but WP:COMMONSENSE also applies. That diff shared by Levivich dates back to 2009. Things are forgotten over time. As a reader, I was surprised to read that paragraph on VM because it is completely gratuitous and non-academic. Why did they even think that VM's uncivility (which is truly astounding) is relevant to the reader? They are clearly speaking as Wikipedians to Wikipedians: they are not addressing Holocaust scholars. The same goes for the way they talk about User:Xx236. If the right-wing Polish nationalists who are hijacking Wikipedia were all well mannered intellectuals, what difference would it make to the topic of the article? All this really seems personal to me and closely related to intra-wiki dynamics between the authors and their sources, on the one hand, and the group of editors involved, on the other. This off-wiki behaviour might be some kind of harassment and it should fall within the scope of administrative action. IMHO at least a formal warning should be considered. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

The only thing is Gitz that there are no right-wing Polish nationalists who hijacked Wikipedia.🙂 That nonsense narrative was invented by now globally banned Icewhiz (back in the spotlight yet again 🤦🏻‍♀️) - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and yes, something needs to be done regarding the WP:OUTTING by an active user Chapmansh, absolutely. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indeed. Icewhiz made that claim during the ArbCom two years ago, and tatkk was one of the reasons for his ArbCom topic ban (see FoF 5, 9...). But you can't kill a good conspiracy theory, they sell well. And, let's face it, there is a grain of truth under every such myth. The essay names close to 10 editors as part of the "nationalist clique falsyfing history" or whatever. I doubt there is any evidence of anyone falsyfing history (or to use the term from the essay, "Intentional Distortion") in all this mess. The usual confusion of unintentional error vs purposeful hoax applies, and proving intention, beyond reasonable doubt, is next to imposssible, (see also the Warsaw concentraction camp discussions from ~2 years ago about whether the word hoax is appopriate or not). However, I'd not be surprised if someone named in the essay might be proud to declare themself a "right-wing Polish nationalist". Shrug. We have people on Wikipedia representing all manners of POV. Some folks may find certain POVs distateseful, but that does not give them an excuse to engage in personal attacks or slander. Folks would well remember that Icewhiz's global ban wasn't for POV pushing (that was covered by the topic ban he got), it was for his declared attempt to "win" this content dispute by "destroying the reputation of his opponents", and harassing them so they'd retire. He succeeded driving some editors away (User:Poeticbent - see essays on his page, and User:MyMoloboaccount - see this diff and just look at his final edit summaries). This is the most scary mindset out there, IMHO, and I wrote about it years ago. What we should be discussing is how to prevent editors in good standing from having to suffer from such harassment, on and off wiki. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

This conversation is pretty astounding to me. For one, why do we care its the same narrative as a user we banned? Are we really so full of ourselves that we've decided we're the arbiters of academic topics? That we are the ones who get to say what's appropriate to research? Or that we want a mulligan on our license, designed specifically so that others can reuse the content for any purpose so long as they comply with that license? WP:OUTTING and 'doxxing' isn't a crime and is an expected and normal part of scholarship in many fields. Knowing who someone is puts things in proper context for her audience. This wasn't an attempt to move an on-wiki fight to another venue ala wikipediaocracy. Near as I can tell this involves zero on wiki disruption that would bring our policies in to play. An academic is doing their job and publishing on something they saw and experienced. We don't like it. So what? Maybe its a bad paper. Maybe its a good paper. We can all decide how we feel about that personally but the only thing that really matters is how other academics in that field feel about it. But I'm not at all comfortable even warning a user because we feel the things they do off wikipedia in their day job as an academic isn't appropriate. --(loopback) ping/whereis 09:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

"WP:OUTTING and 'doxxing' isn't a crime" this is an extremely disturbing comment. Regardless of whether this is a crime or not, it's 100% against Wikipedia policy and grounds for an indefinite block. In fact, this whole particular drama started with one user (Icewhiz) deciding to doxx and out multiple Wikipedia users for revenge after they got topic banned which HAS indeed led to harassment, death threats and such. "is an expected and normal part of scholarship in many field" This too is absolutely false and ignorant. Rather than doxxing people (to do them harm? Wth are you talking about?) being an "expected part of scholarship" (I'm sorry this claim is just absurd) there are institutional rules, IRB boards and codes of conduct that scholars are expected to follow, particularly in anything that involves human subjects and can result in real world harm. Whether these were observed in this particular instance or not is not up to Wikipedia to decide (however, applying our WP:OUTTING policy is) but the idea that "doxxing is expected part of scholarship" is absolutely, completely, totally wrong. Volunteer Marek 14:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

If you think it's disturbing, I'd respectfully submit to you that I'm a guy who had his face and location splashed all over Daniel Brandt's little hitlist of editors back in the day, so I'm well aware of what is and isn't ok. I'm far more concerned that we think its appropriate to enact retribution because we don't like the content someone published in an academic journal. Complain to the journal if you want, but I'm not at all comfortable saying because of published academic work we're going to take revenge here. That's completely incompatible with the ethos we have here. Or at least the ethos I have here. --(loopback) ping/whereis 14:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

This isn't "retribution". Do we have a policy on WP:OUTTING? Yes. Did this Wikipedia user, Chapmansh, violate this policy? Yes. Now if you want to talk "retribution" and "revenge" then consider the role of Icewhiz in this sorry saga and the harassment he's inflicted upon multiple editors over the years. I would like to believe that part of our ethos is "protecting our users from harassment". Volunteer Marek 19:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

It certainly appears to be retribution for things published in this paper. Is there anything besides this paper that Chapmansh has done to merit contemplation of some sort of sanction? You're again referring to Icewhiz. Is Icewhiz an author of this paper? Because if not then I'm again reiterating that this wasn't someone moving an on-wiki dispute off wiki, it was an academic publishing an article in a seemingly well respected journal about a topic they felt of academic interest. My opinion isn't worth much, but for what it is, I wouldn't be able to countenance any sort of punishment. But I'm just one person. --(loopback) ping/whereis 21:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Just to briefly clarify my position in case of any misunderstanding: IMO the paper is entirely appropriate, is interesting and useful, and we should take on board most of its criticism; we should definitely be allowed to use it as an RS. But that page on VM mentioning his name and profession is an attack on the serenity and independence of editing here, which is the purpose of WP:HERASS, WP:CIV and WP:NPA to proect. It's an ugly misstep, which should not go unnoticed. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, the papers discussion including "strong" language seems to have everything to do with problems related to both internet civility and particular problems of CIV on Wikipedia. Its point does not seem that unusual or mysterious, nor irrelevant to a reader reading about Wikipedia, ie. that such use of language might drive others away from a content area, at least according to some, and that the driving away of others might affect Wikipedia content. An academic discussing online interactions and using Wikipedia diffs, might well think it relevant to detail what was said by whom, as would a reader about Wikipedia, to investigate the language's purported effects, including what may be effects on content. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:21, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, potentially, but that is not the problem with the paper that we are discussing here. Volunteer Marek 19:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

But it is the "problem" Gitz alluded to above. Gitz question was "Why did they even think that VM's uncivility (which is truly astounding) is relevant to the reader?" Gitz could not, it seems, understand, "why". Given the context in the article, I responded why it is likely, the 'who' and 'what was diffed', is relevant to the reader of this study on the workings of Wikipedia. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I think that the real villain of this story has not been named yet. The Journal of Holocaust Research published an article that looks nothing like an academic article and very much like an extended rant. Shame on them. Zero^talk 01:27, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

In fairness, if we're going to shame The Journal of Holocaust Research, who called this paper a "must read", we should probably also shame University of Ottawa [127], Chapman University [128], Ynet [129], Haaretz [130], and Gazeta Wyborcza [131], none of whom saw what you see. Levivich (talk) 02:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Newspapers covering flawed but inteestingly framed research is nothing new, and yes, they do deserve to share the shame if they fail at their own fact checking. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:50, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Universities advertising their own faculty's publications and newspapers reporting on controversies are both entirely irrelevant to the question. I have read hundreds of journal articles on Holocaust-related subjects and none of them were remotely like this. This is not "research" as the word is commonly understood. Zero^talk 03:56, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

How many of those hundreds of journal articles on Holocaust-related subjects were about disinformation on Wikipedia? Do you know of another study that analyzes disinformation on Wikipedia like this? The only thing I've ever read that is like this--an analysis of the methods of disinformation on Wikipedia (not just the result)--is File:Croatian WP Disinformation Assessment - Final Report EN.pdf. Levivich (talk) 04:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I have seen several similar articles on a variety of fought-over topics. They were on activist blogs, which is where this one would feel right at home. Zero^talk 05:13, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you have your scratch codes?

If you've enabled two-factor authentication on your account, you've hopefully got a copy of your scratch codes somewhere safe — now would be a great time to double-check you know where they are (and that they are securely stored). If you've lost them, you can generate a new batch. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 01:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

If anyone is worried about losing their scratch codes, I'd be happy to hold on to them for you, and I offer very reasonable retrieval fees. Levivich (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

hmmmmm

Should we be expecting that we will need to use them soon? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, let's hope not...! It was just on my mind while looking over Help:Two-factor authentication — if the unexpected reminder stops one person from getting locked out of their account, it'll be worth it — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 01:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Don't worry, I got mine tattooed so I never lose track. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:04, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I find that it's easier to avoid two-factor authentication and use my username as my password so I can't forget it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

🤔 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Don't worry, I put a 1 and a @ at the end, so it's secure. Capital letter, lower case letter, number, and special character. That's the rule, right? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I just use the same combination as my luggage. 12345. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I use something I'm never going to forget. Jenny, I got your number... --(loopback) ping/whereis 08:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime Does that mean you no longer need valid scratch codes to disable 2FA? Guettarda (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I suppose I would just RTFM and learn that. Guettarda (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Useful information. I'd misplaced my scratchcode list and just regenerated and stored in my password management solution. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, last time I changed my cell phone (last year), whereas I had all the scratch codes, I was still logged in, and the easiest solution I found was to disable 2FA and immediately enable it back with a new device (scratch codes not needed). This of course only worked because I was logged in.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Depending on what app you're using for TOTP generation, transferring to a new phone can be trivial or almost impossible. Google Authenticator is really horrible for both transferring to a new phone, and exporting the secrets should you wish to transfer to another app solution entirely. Other solutions like Authy or 1Password have really good device transfer mechanisms. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

My choice of authentication app is FreeOTP, but also use LastPass Authenticator and Microsoft Authenticator. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

User:بلاد ما وراء النهر

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

بلاد ما وراء النهر (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) A user who hasn't been active in about a year suddenly started talking about "puppets". In addition, the user continues to cancel my edits ([132]), I asked him the reason, he only called me a "puppet" and oppressed the history of Kyrgyzstan (saying that there were no Kyrgyz in the 1920s [133]). It also massively removes information from articles dedicated to Kyrgyzstan ([134]). Foggy kub (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Just popped in to say that this user is under an SPI. I'm reverting his edits because they're unsubstantiated and potentially outright fabrications. All of his edits will have to carefully scrutinized sooner or later. Cheers! بلاد ما وراء النهر (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

• • By undoing edits, you are also removing verified and authoritative information. For example, why did you remove the flag of the 1916 uprising? Until the result is issued, you are not allowed to undo my edits (the user canceled my edit and added a fake flag of the Kazakh Khanate [135]). Foggy kub (talk) 17:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

    As I explained in my edit summary, I simply restored the version before you started editing as the article. I'll take the time to closely review all of your contributions. What do you mean "you're not allowed to undo"? Are you an arbcom member or a sysop or something? بلاد ما وراء النهر (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.