Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive358

Appeal of the removal of EC permissions for User:FoodForLLMs

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 (User:FoodforLLMs) had my EC permissions revoked by User:Ingenuity. (Incident Page)

Quoting the reason:

 Yeah, that's pretty clear WP:PGAMEing. I've revoked their extended- confirmed permission, which they may re-request at WP:PERM/EC after making 500 non-trivial edits

Presumably my permissions were revoked because of a string of short description edits that I have done, mainly on articles relating to railway stations around the world.

First of all, I do not agree that these edits are trivial. They took me relatively little time because in order to be efficient, I created custom search queries (which took me time to figure out) that allow me to find articles with missing templates from specific categories. This helped me quickly process a lot of these, as I handled one category at a time. However, this is still not easy work, you need to read the lead of the article to make sure the description aligns and you need to add 5-6 new words to each article.

If they are regarded as trivial because they are considered unimportant, I'll disagree again, as these show up at the search box, one of the most used UX surfaces. And a lot of wikipedia articles currently miss a short description.

Thirdly, according to WP:NNH, "Focusing on niche topic areas" and "Focusing on particular processes" are encouraged.

Furthermore, I made different contributions that greatly improved the state of low quality articles across many different subjects. I did so before receiving EC and afterwards, I still continued adding short descriptions to missing articles as recent as today.

WP:PGAME does not mention any behavior that is close to any of my edits (it mentions sandbox editing and dummy edits).

When I look at a recent appeal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Appeal_of_the_removal_of_EC_membership_for_User:DMH43), the account was open for a much shorter time, it showed battleground behavior around ARBPIA which I did not, and a fifth of its contributions were around ARBPIA before even receiving EC status.

If you intend to reject my appeal, may I at least ask you to update WP:PGAME and create a clear policy around this? Currently it is very murky and open to interpretations, while the only thing that is clear is the 500/30 rule, which I abided by.

After I made a lot of hard work to improve wikipedia, being the target of a seemingly arbitrary decision is plainly extremely demotivating.

Because of the above, I think my EC permissions should be reinstated FoodforLLMs (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

That was a fine removal of EC permission. All this gaming and appeals makes me think we'd be better off if EC was not automated, and instead worked similar to autopatrolled, where you'd need to request it at WP:PERM or be bequeathed upon by an uninvolved admin. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 21:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Except for the fact that even in the current state a lot of PIA articles are in an abysmal state because of lack of maintenance, this is a lot of the time because contributors have less access to edit these. You can see that on talk pages with ignored requests for edits.

For example articles I worked on:

• Iran–Israel proxy conflict
• Iran–Israel conflict during the Syrian civil war
• Axis of Resistance

They are usually filled with bad formatting, old and inaccurate information and unreadable amount of text FoodforLLMs (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the removal, but I'd be concerned about essentially requiring admin approval for all editors who want to edit in a few topics. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• Obvious gaming, and entirely justified removal of EC. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
• One of the purposes of EC protection/restrictions in contentious editing areas, is that editors need to learn about Wikipedia policies and processes before diving into said areas. The idea of 500 edits is that it provides time to learn said policies, processes and also editing norms before getting involved in contentious topics. There is no way that 500-odd short description changes allows a new editor to achieve this goal, and for that reason I support the removal of EC in this situation with the requirement that they complete 500 non-trivial edits. Daniel (talk) 00:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  1. I think that whether I learned about said policies should be judged on the basis of my contributions to WP:ARBPIA and you can see by my diffs that I engaged in constructive behavior and never degrading into WP:BATTLEGROUND. This is not the case among the longtime EC editors in this subject.

  2. In order to do said short description editing, I read about Wikipedia:WikiProject Short descriptions, I made sure not to touch articles that do not have a description but have an autogenerated description from the template and I created search queries to speed up my contributions (which is my biggest crime apparently). I also added clear edit descrptions and read style guides for the rest of my edits.

  All in all I added missing descriptions to hundreds of articles that were missing these, finishing entire categories for a few different geographies, which in my opinion was impactful.

  3. I did want to reach 500/30 to edit WP:ARBPIA because these are subjects that interest me, and I think I have knowledge in. I read the related policies and made sure that my contributions would not be regarded as WP:PGAME, even currently, I cannot tell you what constitutes as a trivial edit as it seems like it's some latent tribal knowledge that changes on case by case basis FoodforLLMs (talk) 06:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  Adding short descriptions doesn't give an editor the kind of experience that prepares an editor for ARBPIA editing because, among other things, it doesn't involve having to work with sources at all. This is especially true when it's 100s of the same short description, "railway station in [location]," added to articles about railway stations. These aren't useless contributions, but they don't require thought or research, it's just plugging in a location in a stock phrase, which is why you were able to do so many so quickly. Such edits don't develop content experience in an editor, they don't involve discussing content, they don't involve or demonstrate knowledge of editing policies or guidelines. Endorse removal. Levivich (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  I agree. Endorse removal. It won't hurt the editor to make more substantial contributions before getting it restored. Doug Weller talk 17:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @FoodforLLMs that the current policy is murky and does not define engaging in "wikignoming" as an example of gaming. It is clear that a specific interpretation has evolved, but this is not clear to new users who believe they are abiding by the rules, only to discover later that there is an "oral law" not written in the policies. I call for administrators to bring order to the rules.

Regarding the appellant, I would like to recommend that administrators define a specific, clear condition where the editor can regain their EC (for example: an additional X mainspace edits to prove they are a constructive editor), as it seems like a frustrating place to be, and we are likely to lose him/her as a valuable editor, that would be unfortunate. Marokwitz (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a very fair criticism. WP:PGAME does not describe these kinds of edits -- they are not "unconstructive edits" or "dummy edits" or edits to a sandbox. Also, WP:ARBECR doesn't link to PGAME, so a new editor being pointed to ARBECR may not even be aware of PGAME. We are, in fact, holding editors to a standard that is not documented. I join the call for arbs/admins to update the documentation. Levivich (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I'll join that call too. Not sure how it can be worded to be unambious, I think there may always be some judgement involved. Doug Weller talk 20:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• WP:ARBECR does link to WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED, though, which links to PGAME and which states that Extended confirmed is revoked if a user is in another group with which it is redundant, and in rare cases may be revoked for other reasons, such as if a user games the system by making many trivial edits. That is the core policy defining the extended confirmed permission and is quite clear. It could be made more clear elsewhere, and PGAME should reflect EXTENDEDCONFIRMED and say "trivial" rather than "unconstructive" (since making many unconstructive edits is already against policy), but I don't accept the argument that any editor who has gamed the system was unaware of what they were doing; maybe they thought it wouldn't be noticed or that nobody would care, but rushing to get to 500 through minor edits is extremely obvious when it happens. I'm also concerned that setting too clear of a definition could just encourage editors to game the system - the problem with gaming the system isn't that the edits fall below some hypothetical standard; the problem is with the editor's intent. If an editor is reading EXTENDEDCONFIRMED and PGAME with an eye towards figuring out how they can become extended-confirmed as quickly as possible, they should stop doing that, and the guidelines should be written in a way that makes that clear rather than encouraging it by effectively providing a map to the fastest way to get the desired permission. --Aquillion (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  These aren't "trivial" edits, though, either. Gnoming isn't "trivial." "Trivial" means "of little value or importance." Adding a short description, fixing typos, adding wikilinks, fixing citation formatting... these gnoming edits are not trivial because they are not "of little value or importance." Levivich (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  The fact that "trivial edits" are linked to WP:PGAME suggests that the content in WP:PGAME is the intended interpretation of "trivial." Based on the way WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED looks, I doubt that the policy's author regarded technical edits such as adding 5-6 word descriptions as trivial.

  This same issue recurs on this noticeboard, indicating a significant problem. It is counterproductive to our goals of attracting good new editors to enhance content, rather than alienating them, and we should address it.

  If the consensus has shifted, we should indeed update the terms "trivial" and "unconstructive" to better align with the current understanding, perhaps using a term like "unsubstantial." Marokwitz (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  This war is maybe the most significant event in the conflict since ECR was instituted at WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 almost 10 years ago. I don't have the stats but I wouldn't be surprised if these past few months have seen an all-time high for new editors in this topic area. I think that's why there is so much activity around ARBPIA ECR lately?

  PGAME was written with WP:XC in mind, not WP:ECR, and "gaming XC" isn't quite the same thing as (what we call) "gaming ECR". To take FoodforLLMs edits as an example, had FFLLM continued to add short descriptions after reaching XC, I don't think anyone would ever suggest they were "gaming XC."

  PGAME is written with an intent requirement ("to raise your user access level"), and that kind of makes sense in relation to XC, but it doesn't necessarily make as much as sense for ARBPIA ECR. The difference is that PGAME is about preventing bad faith acquisition of XC--"gaming XC"--whereas ARBPIA ECR is intended to prevent bad faith and good faith but inexperienced editing in ARBPIA. So, in my view, for ECR, it doesn't matter if the editor's intent is to raise their user access level to edit ARBPIA. As I said in another XC revocation appeal thread, we want editors to make edits to raise their user access level, but even good faith editors may not make the "right" kind of edits for ARBPIA ECR (even if they are the right kind of edits for XC). That is what I think the documentation is lacking.

  I am not in favor of a system, as SFR mentioned above, where admins gatekeep new editors in a topic area. I'm also not in favor of writing rules for admins to follow when it comes to XC revocation in ECR'd CTOPs--I think that's too restrictive and we're not going to do a good job of it. But I do think we should have an explanation about XC revocation in ECR'd CTOPs that does not suggest that XC is only revoked when there is "unproductive" or "trivial" or bad faith "to raise your user access level." I'm not sure exactly what the answer is, but it should be the answer to the question: if I registered an account today and I want to edit an ECR'd CTOP, what kind of edits should I make for the first month? And then an explanation that admins may revoke EC if the editors' edits aren't those kinds of edits. (I'm not sure if "those kinds" means "substantial" or "non-trivial" or what.) Levivich (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not quite buying your argument that WP:PGAME is about WP:XC and not WP:ECR. WP:ECR is a restriction that means only editors who are WP:XC can edit in that area, so PGAME'ing XC implicitly involves ECR. ArbCom wouldn't make decisions to apply ECR to a topic area if XC wasn't a thing. So saying that someone is PGAME'ing ECR is equivalent to saying that they PGAME'd XC with the intent of editing in an WP:ARBPIA or other WP:CTOP area. TarnishedPath^talk 02:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  Concerning this quote:

  had FFLLM continued to add short descriptions after reaching XC, I don't think anyone would ever suggest they were "gaming XC."
  — User:Levivich

  I continued adding short descriptions after receiving EC: see here, here, here, here and here among others. FoodforLLMs (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

• It's chickenshit for us to say that editing certain articles is restricted to users who have 30 days of editing and 500 edits... then when they do that (at a significant investment of time and effort) we say "Nuh uh uh that doesn't count" and become upset and offended and throw a hissy fit and accuse them of some vague malfeasance. How are they supposed to know that the criteria we gave were a lie and there was a secret other set of requirements that we actually have and just don't tell them about for some reason? If we told them to do something stupid, that is our fault, and we should stop telling them that, and we should instead make a rule that says you have to apply for XC and then an administrator grants it. jp×g🗯️ 09:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  It's not a secret requirement, it's included in Wikipedia:User access levels. EC is also not meant to be a goal, but a rough benchmark to estimate experience. Perhaps a tweak at WP:30/500 could better reflect these points. CMD (talk) 10:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  It'sn't. That page says (emphasis mine):

  A registered editor becomes extendedconfirmed automatically when the account has existed for at least 30 days and has made at least 500 edits. This user access right allows editors to edit and create pages that are under extended confirmed protection. The English Wikipedia also enables editors to use the Content Translation tool to create articles and the INDEX template on user pages. This access is included and bundled in the bot and sysop (administrator) user groups. This group was primarily created to deal with specific arbitration remedies and community issues; the Arbitration Committee has since left community-use decisions up to the community.

  Extended confirmed is revoked if a user is in another group with which it is redundant, and in rare cases may be revoked for other reasons, such as if a user games the system by making many trivial edits. If extended confirmed is revoked, it may be re-granted at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Extended confirmed. That page may also be used to request early grants of the group, but requests are almost never accepted except for legitimate alternate accounts of users who are extended confirmed on other accounts.

  What is "trivial edits" supposed to mean, in a way that is clear to a newly registered user? For example, adding and removing a period to your user page 500 times adds no content to the encyclopedia. But why would adding short descriptions to articles (a maintenance task which requires you to understand how templates work, as well as reading each article to summarize it accurately) be "trivial"? If we mean "hang out on the dramaboards", then we should say "hang out on the dramaboards". If we mean "write a GA", then we should say "write a GA". But what we shouldn't do is waffle around saying "well I dunno they have to be, like, uh, important and whatever" and then decide after the fact whether we think someone's contributions show adequate devotion to the Project.

  I'll say for the record that I have made 109862 edits, and if I was told that an article was "30/110362 protected", you bet your patootie I would be queuing up a few AWB runs. jp×g🗯️ 20:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  In the above green text, the words games the system by making many trivial edits link to a policy defining gaming as making "unconstructive edits." Any other interpretation is twisting our policy. And your writing style is very funny; we need more of that on Wikipedia. Marokwitz (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  I suppose it may be a cultural difference then, as I would not be queuing AWB runs to hit something, especially when being asked not to treat something as a game. The issue is not "devotion", but as I mentioned a rough benchmark of experience. CMD (talk) 07:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  Creating a search function to locate 500 articles without short descriptions and then editing those article's short descriptions only is not my idea of significant time and effort in order to reach WP:XC. TarnishedPath^talk 10:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, do you want to open an RfC to change WP:30/500 to WP:30/500/TarnishedPath's idea of significant time and effort? jp×g🗯️ 20:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  I tend to disagree as this wasn't an easy work, if you'd like to benchmark whether this is significant time and effort, I think you should try adding 100 such descriptions. In my opinion you will find this a non-trivial effort FoodforLLMs (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  Which of our colleagues became upset and offended and threw a hissy fit and accused someone of some vague malfeasance? If the answer is "no one," seems like your argument is a straw man, and straw man arguments are bullshit, which is worse than chickenshit. Saying it's chickenshit to accuse others of vague malfeasance while simultaneously accusing others of vague malfeasance is not only chickenshit bullshit, but also hypocritical, and hippo shit is worse than chickenshit or bullshit: hippos spray their shit around indiscriminately, and indiscriminate shit spraying does make people upset and offended and throw a hissy fit, which is not as bad as a hippo shit. Levivich (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  Well, here we have a big AN thread about someone's user permissions being sua sponte removed by administrators for "gaming the system". I realize that Wikipedia uses its own strange patois in which insults are officially supposed to not be insulting (i.e. calling someone "unimportant" is a PA but calling them "non-notable" isn't; "incompetent" is but "lacks COMPETENCE", with the hyperlink, isn't). However, to normal human beings, calling their work "trivial" and accusing them of "gaming the system" is generally seen as a rather direct insult. jp×g🗯️ 19:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  Which of our colleagues became upset and offended and threw a hissy fit and accused someone of some vague malfeasance? Because "direct insult" doesn't mean the same as any of the words you used, although "direct insult" does describe the words you used. Levivich (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  We, the English Wikipedia, the collaborative project on whose behalf administrators speak when they take actions against users, acted, as a collective entity, in a manner commensurate with the manner that an individual person who was assmad could be expected to act. If a person acted the way that our policies acted, regardless of the fact that indeed it may have been the case that no individual person in the course of enacting such policies was assmad, we would say that this person was having a conniption, or pissing and moaning, et cetera. As the old image macro goes: "none of us is as dumb as all of us". jp×g🗯️ 20:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  There's an argument somewhere in here that XC is granted when someone has demonstrated they're a genuine value-add, which 500 gnomings would indicate in a way that 500 whitespace twiddles would indicate in the opposite direction.

  The problem is that when people rush to meet the technical minima, sure they've developed competencies in some templates or style guidelines or something, but there's no actual experience with the core content policies editors working in CTOPS need to be familiar with in order not to edit disruptively, like due weight, balance, what constitutes a reliable source, and in this case, what WP:OR means.

  I'm definitely on team "update PGAME", although after the last thread I'm significantly less certain where consensus is on what constitutes gaming permission levels, so I'd prefer a discussion to a bold edit. Folly Mox (talk) 13:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  Somewhere in this long thread someone should mention Goodhart's law and the ultimate futility of any explicit restriction on editing in WP:PIA while Israel is waging war on Gaza. (No I don't have anything constructive to add, why do you ask?) --JBL (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• This was not an appropriate removal and the permission should be restored. This was a long way off from permission gaming: FoodforLLMs' account was old enough and made enough clearly constructive edits to be granted the permission. The invented qualification that these edits were "trivial" is irrelevant: the guideline uses the word "unconstructive" deliberately, meaning edits which do not improve the project in any way. Adding a short description may be trivial but it is not unconstructive: the relevant guideline advises three times in plain language that all articles should include them: "All mainspace articles should have a short description", "Ideally, each page should have its own purpose-written short description", and "All articles should have a short description", all direct quotes from the guideline. If FoodforLLMs added close to 500 of them, that's more than most of us ever will. And people seem to keep needing reminding that assume good faith is a policy. EC is granted automatically because it is not intended for gatekeeping; the founding principle is "anyone can edit", not "anyone can edit upon successful passing of a secret examination of their competence by a self-appointed preemptive review committee". Permissions should only ever be removed for clear misconduct, not because a handful of editors don't like the kinds of edits that were made. If FoodforLLMs' editing in an ARBECR-covered topic are problematic, file an enforcement request. If you have evidence that they're a sock, file an investigation. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• This is getting, frankly, a little ridiculous. Short descriptions are pretty useful, in my view at least, and people should not have to rewrite an entire article in every edit for fear of being accused of violating WP:GAMING. I don't think the permission removal was correct, at all, and really now, has something happened to assuming good faith? This is not an editor adding and then removing a period from an article 500 times. This is not an editor adding nowiki comments to articles 500 times. Etcetera and so forth, but the edits made were legitimate, constructive, and helped the encyclopedia, no matter how small or large they might have been. If they cannot contribute constructively to CTOPS areas, then block them, but the revocation of extended confirmed seems to be happening for broader and broader cases lately, and it sets a dangerous precedent. On a different note, though, it might be best to update PGAME with a better, and much clearer definition of what is actually gaming, and what isn't. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 16:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• I have to agree with JPxG, EggRoll97 and others here. It would be one thing if FoodforLLMs was adding and then deleting short descriptions and then reverting and re-reverting those edits until reaching 500 edits. But it seems like FoodforLLMs added genuine short descriptions, which we presumably want added to our articles. If we want short descriptions included in our articles, then adding them is not gaming the system. If we want the 500 article threshold to exclude additions of short descriptions then we should amend the requirements to say so. Rlendog (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if the above three editors have actually looked at the short descriptions that were added? When I reviewed them they all looked the same, hundreds of "rail station in [location]" that were added very quickly. These could have been added by a bot. Did my review miss hundreds of edits that did not fit this cookie cutter pattern? I agree they're not "trivial" or "unconstructive," but what is the functional difference between an editor with 0 edits and an editor with 500 of basically-the-same, bot-like edits? Levivich (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure, it maybe could've been done by a bot (in a narrow way? Bots don't identify context or parse text, so it wouldn't work in all cases), but just because something could have been done by a bot, does not mean the edit itself wasn't helpful, and you even agree with this. The difference, though, is that the user with 500 edits, even if the edits could have been done by a bot, is still interacting with the encyclopedia, improving it, and gaining experience. Revoke extended confirmed from an editor who adds and removes a bunch of periods, or commas, or whatever else, to get to 500 edits, and I don't think anyone is really objecting. But this editor is not doing that, which is why myself and others are objecting to this removal, because the removal did not prevent harm to the encyclopedia, and because the editor made 500 edits in good faith, and should therefore be given the benefit of the doubt as to the intent of their contributions, not accused of gaming for extended confirmed. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 18:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with everything you've written here, but what is the point of WP:ARBECR if a new editor can make 500 edits like these (adding "rail station in [location]"), and then edit ARBPIA articles? Like what is the functional difference--for purposes of ARBECR--between an editor who has 0 edits and an editor who has 500 edits like these? (I'm not sure how to characterize "like these": not necessarily trivial or unconstructive, but rapid, repeated, "cookie-cutter", "bot-like", etc.). Edits "like these" don't build experience, and they would be trivially-easy for an actual sock to make. It seems like if we're going to "count" edits "like these," then we should just repeal ARBECR. Levivich (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe the ARBECR remedy should be a TBAN instead of XC revocation, though that idea that strikes me as even more hostile than "good faith" XC revocation. Levivich (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The difference is that they did a thing that improved Wikipedia, and then improved it again 499 times. The guidelines do refer to "trivial" (Wiktionary: of little significance or value) or "unconstructive" (Wiktionary: not serving a useful purpose); they do not refer to edits of some arbitrary thresholds of substance or diversity, nor to "plainly constructive edits that Levivich does not personally approve of". There is a very narrow range of possible short descriptions for most topics - if they had written much different from "rail station in [location]" in those descriptions they likely would have been reverted, and 500 times would easily see them appealing a vandalism block instead. There are thousands of mundane but desired tasks like this that need a human to take the time to do, and I applaud the effort. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

"plainly constructive edits that Levivich does not personally approve of" is unfair; there is absolutely no basis in anything I've written here for suggesting I personally don't approve of FFLLM's or anyone else's edits. In fact, to the contrary, I have, multiple times in this very discussion, defended these edits as not unconstructive (which means I think they're constructive), and not trivial (which means I think they're substantial). So a fairer characterization would be "edits that Levivich approves of." Levivich (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Well then apologies for mischaracterizing, but I'm struggling to make sense of your argument. If you agree that the edits were neither trivial nor unconstructive, which you also seem to agree are the definitions in the guidelines for gaming the system and revocation of the userright, then how is the revocation justified? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Not for nuthin' but in this thread, here is where I explained why I endorsed the removal, here is where I suggested a solution to the problem of PGAME-v-ARBECR, here is a mini-essay expanding on it, here is where I asked a clarifying question to editors who didn't address the ARBECR angle of it, and here is where I (just now) expanded on that. I think I've really thoroughly explained why I think revocation in these situations is justified, what I think the fundamental problem is, and how I think it can be solved. Now I feel like aside from one shitty joke I'm just bludgeoning. Levivich (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The purposes of extended-confirmation and EC-protection are twofold: primarily abuse mitigation (significantly increasing the effort required to create sockpuppet accounts in areas plagued by frequent sockpuppetry), and secondarily editor retention (to avoid the problem of interested new editors jumping into highly contentious topics and being driven away from the project). These have never been intended as a probationary period, nor to force editors to build any specific experience nor demonstrate any particular competence before we grant them access, and I think you will find that suggesting to create such a process would be soundly rejected by the community. At any rate that is a separate discussion: we're discussing whether Ingenuity's removal of FoodforLLMs' extendedconfirmed userright was appropriate given the processes and guidelines which currently exist, not ones we would like to invent. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

IMO if you already agree they're not trivial or unconstructive edits, that completely undermines your argument. The intent of WP:PGAME is to prevent people from adding and removing a period to get XC permission. WikiGnoming is a perfectly valid way to get XC permission, which is not supposed to be a high bar. Loki (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't undermine my argument because my argument is about nontrivial and constructive edits, specifically. My argument is that this editor did not violate PGAME. (Christ does nobody read anything I write? I wrote a frickin' essay about the inconsistency between PGAME v. ARBECR above. Why are multiple editors ascribing to me that I think PGAME was violated by FFLLM when I've said the opposite a bunch of times??) Levivich (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

If this editor didn't violate PGAME, then they have achieved the criteria for XC and therefore can edit ARBECR. There's no inconsistency in the text of any of these policies.

It's very possible that ARBECR doesn't accomplish the goal it's supposed to, but that's not this editor's fault. That's ArbCom's fault. What it actually is is very clear, aligns perfectly well with the other related policies, and unambiguously this editor was not gaming that restriction and should qualify for it. Loki (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if the above three editors have actually looked at the short descriptions that were added? When I reviewed them they all looked the same, hundreds of "rail station in [location]" that were added very quickly. These could have been added by a bot.
— User:Levivich

I went over infobox station templates, which also included stations which are not railway stations such as bus stations, metro stations, monorail stations and former stations.

This meant there was enough variance that reading the article was required.

Also, for the location itself, there were variations as in some articles it was more logical to mention a major city, other times a state, and at times only the country. FoodforLLMs (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• Agreed with JPxG. It's only gaming to make unconstructive edits. These were not unconstructive edits, just small ones. WikiGnoming is a perfectly valid way to get XC permission. Loki (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• FWIW I find the removal of permissions to be a little concerning and possibly unjustified A good portion of this user's edits are tagged with "Newcomer Tasks. They literally performed edits that are suggested by our Mediawiki software to new users. How are we justifying punishing someone for doing what the system asks them to do? Zaathras (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  What portion? Levivich (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  Well, shot in the dark here, but probably the portion of User contributions for FoodforLLMs where one does a find-in-page for the words "Newcomer task". Zaathras (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  I was thinking the admin probably didn't pull XC for the ~80 newcomer tasks edits, but probably because of the 400-500 other edits. Levivich (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  There's a misconception here that FoodforLLMs' entire contribution history up to their 500th edit is nothing but running their script to fill in short descriptions, but that's stretching the truth. Of their first 500 edits, 432 added short descriptions (going by edit summaries), and I'd say there are about a dozen that were manual and/or included other edits (like this one) before they started finding them by script. And there is one deleted edit which was also a short description. So there are about 420 that were script-assisted but manually edited, and several of those also included other improvements (e.g. [1], [2]). Before starting with the short descriptions they made other minor improvements, improved the tone and NPOV of several articles on a variety of topics, and de-spammed a few (e.g. [3], [4], [5]). In that time they also ventured into ARBPIA particularly at the current events portal, but besides technically breaking ARBECR their edits were not problematic. Of their subsequent 156 (as of now) edits, 13 are short descriptions and many more are the same variety of gnomish edits. They started the Wikipedia Adventure on their 509th edit and at an age of 48 days, if my math is correct. The first EC-protected page they edited was Axis of Resistance, their 519th edit and with an age of 62 days. If this were intentional permission gaming I would expect to see editing a protected page much closer to 500 edits and 30 days, but FoodforLLMs continued gnoming for a whole month after passing the threshold. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  FoodforLLMs is a productive and valuable editor. There are plenty of editors in ARBPIA with thousands of edits who exhibit poor understanding of policy and collaborative work. Ironically a lot of the toxic behaviours in ARBPIA end up cementing their status as "prolific" editors if solely measuring by edit count. I would suggest updating 500/30 rule to strongly encourage a diverse range of activities when reaching 500 edits. And similarly to encourage stronger source reading/consensus building in ARBPIA as a precondition. How to enforce/measure this is a challenge and may end up backfiring too. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• I say that we have spent a significant amount of time on a single user here that it has stopped making sense. Why can't we just regrant EC and do stuff when actual disruption has occurred? (and the meta discussion about PGAME and ARBECR stuff can continue elsewhere) 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 13:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• @Ingenuity: pinging since it's been a few days and you might not be checking here, and also since it seems that FoodforLLMs didn't notify you. Whatever way you read the discussion above there is either rough consensus that your removal of FoodforLLMs' extendedconfirmed permission was not appropriate, or no consensus that it was. Will you restore the permission? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  I've restored the permission now. Thanks for the notice. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 14:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, and sorry for failing to notify you FoodforLLMs (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2024 (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.

non-admin edit filter manager application

Hello, a request for interface administratoredit filter manager(corrected by GZWDer (talk)) access for a non-admin is open at the edit filter noticeboard; input is welcome at the discussion there. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 10:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Corrected title since it does not mean WP:INTADMIN.--GZWDer (talk) 11:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Cut and paste swap

can someone repair the weird swap of Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority and Amaravati Metropolitan Region Development Authority please? 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:58DC:928B:3346:7CC (talk) 13:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I can take a look. Note that these sorts of requests should normally be posted at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Primefac (talk) 14:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I have undone the copy/paste, but I do think the page should probably be moved to Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority since that appears to be the actual name of the org. Not sure why it was moved in 2020, but I am not familiar with the content so will leave that for someone else. Primefac (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I was bold and did the full move. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Only Negative content highlighted by deleting positive content in article by a 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.

---

Dear admins, Please have a look at Gaud Saraswat Brahmin page.One user has created monopoly and not allowing any users to edit.Many contents of the page is from British Raj authors.User have purposefully cherry picked negative contents and deleted all the positive contents of that community.User have tried his/her level best to show them as traders but many source mention them as priest and administrators(Many users have discussed this in chat).The page looks like a perspective factory more than content which is missing context.So I request you to check that article once.Discuss the page with @MRRaja001 and @Jonathansammy.If these two(Most contributors towards Marathi Brahmins) agree with the content in the page then let it be if not let the charge be given to the neutral editor like @MRRaja001.I have seen the instance in the talk where many authors came to consensus for deletion of content but only one author is just showing “My way or highway” attitude. Deshastha please have a look at this page.How excellently it has been written but Gaud Saraswat Brahmin page is full of perceptions of authors particularly which are negative omitting context and positive content.can any admin will show a least interest here or redirect me towards the solution. JosephDcunha (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello! The best place to get someone to check this from an outside perspective is WP:3O, as this also allows experienced non-administrators to weigh in. Also, please name the user you are talking about and inform them on their talk page when reporting them here. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 14:56, 9 January 2024 (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.

Can an uninvolved admin please step in over toxicity and BATTLEGROUND at darts-related pages?

Affected pages span at least 2024 PDC World Darts Championship, 2023 Grand Slam of Darts, Wikipedia:WikiProject Darts, and their associated talk pages, as well as user talk pages.

Edit summaries should be checked too: (Redacted) (diff) and (Redacted) (diff) and (Redacted) (diff) JoelleJay (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm still checking the issue, but I've blocked Penepi for a week for now for their personal attacks. Any uninvolved admin may lengthen the block if they see fit. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 19:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I've extended Penepi's block to indefinite due to the sheer extent and cruelty in all the shown diffs. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 19:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the very quick response! I think that editor was the main antagonizer in these articles. The atmosphere there is still pretty BATTLEGROUNDy and OWNy, but that can hopefully be remedied with more editors looking into it and isn't so urgent. JoelleJay (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll note that ItsKesha appears to have been edit warring on some of those articles. Since it's stale now, I don't think a block is needed, but they should consider themselves formally warned not to do so again.

In the future, they should consider seeking administrative assistance when they see another user personally attacking them, instead of allowing it to go on. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 19:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

IMO there's been some "goading" from ItsKesha, as a minimum. Does "Nobody cares about the opinion of you logged out losers" [6] get over the civility bar? or "Sad act"? (I've been editing there but trying not to be "involved") Nigej (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll remove those comments and I profusely apologise to all involved for such embarrassing, insulting and time-wasting behaviour. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@Nigej: I'm still reading all the linked pages, but yes, I agree with you that ItsKesha didn't facilitate things. I'll also note that their behavior at Talk:2024 PDC World Darts Championship has been poor. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 20:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

In my experience, ItsKesha is disruptive and repeatedly engages in personal attacks. In addition to the edits at the darts talk page mentioned above which they have now removed (calling other editors 'sad act', 'losers' etc.), there are also edits elsewhere such as this ("lol @ u") and this (calling another editor an "oddball") which are indicative of a wider attitude problem. Indeed, a quick look at their contribs in general show a clear pattern - multiple reverts to the same article(s) over & over again. They seem to obsess over an article and try and bully other editors into keeping their preferred version through reverts and insults, and once achieved they move onto another article... GiantSnowman 20:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Other edits by ItsKesha at the talk page which remain up - "You don't half talk some shite" and "you talked a load of shite". I cannot see Penepi's edits that have been revdeled, but how do they compare to ItsKesha's comments/conduct? GiantSnowman 20:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Penepi's were about 2000x worse... JoelleJay (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

OK, then what's 1/2000th of an indef block... GiantSnowman 21:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman Here's a much milder example of the PAs (this one was at least removed by Penepi). Can you please revdel that span of history? The rest of the comments in that chain are pretty typical for interactions here. JoelleJay (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

E.g. their response prior to deleting that comment. JoelleJay (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you please confirm exactly what edits to revdel? GiantSnowman 10:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman Have you looked at those diffs? It should be clear from the content which span of the history should be revdeled. JoelleJay (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

You've asked to revdel a span, but provided one diff.... GiantSnowman 11:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@Isabelle Belato JoelleJay (talk) 20:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@JoelleJay: I've revdel'ed the more egregious one from the ones you posted here. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 17:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Should this diff also have its edit summary revdeleted? ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 19:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. That should be all. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 19:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why there is so much animosity over darts, but there is. While Penepi has shown the worst behavior, ItsKesha's behavior has been subpar, usually adding more heat than light to the discussions they participate in. I wonder if a formal warning to be more WP:CIVIL and avoid commenting on other editors would suffice for now. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 20:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

You mean like the previous warnings for disruption/conduct/civility that litter their talk page going back 3 years? See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1054#User:ItsKesha and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive344#ItsKesha's removal of major WP:RS contents claiming then not notable based on personal views and accusing me of lack of sourcing tag when very line of the aricle was complient with WP:PW/RS and this edit warring warning from October 2021. They were also blocked in July 2022 for personal attacks. Clearly all of this has had zero effect on ItsKesha given they continue the behaviour. GiantSnowman 20:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes it had zero effect on me when I was accused of violating copyright and plagiarism and nothing was done about it by administrators when I reported it. Remind me why should I have any faith in the process of reporting somebody to the administrators? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

TBF, ItsKesha has been trying to bring darts articles in line with policy for a while and has been met with quite hostile resistance from what seems like a LOCALCON walled-garden, including from another now-blocked-and-TBANNED editor. Their approach has often been antagonistic, passive-aggressive, and POINTY, but IMO the responses to them by some of the darts editors have been way out of proportion and non-policy-based to boot, so I can at least understand a bit of their frustration. JoelleJay (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Thing is, being frustrated isn't a reason to not be civil. I'm equally as frustrated by some of the responses on that page, but you can't make such aggressive comments here. I wouldn't consider myself uninvolved at this stage, so maybe one who is could have a word with all parties. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I've had run-ins with ItsKesha in the past, so will leave it to others, but suggest a final warning for civility/personal attacks/edit warring for ItsKesha, with an indef block if it happens again. GiantSnowman 10:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I will note that since this discussion started, they continue to repeatedly revert/edit war with other editors, see 1, 2, 3. GiantSnowman 12:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

And those reverts show yet another example of them not understanding a policy they’re trying to enforce. In this case the difference between the concepts of primary&secondary sources on one hand, and first-, second- and third-party sources on the other hand. Tvx1 12:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

How are the Professional Darts Corporation are not a primary source for the Professional Darts Corporation World Darts Championship? ~~~~ All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Because primary≠first party. How can you not understand that??Tvx1 13:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I suppose this is the exact tone we should be taking when trying to have a discussion. Right admins? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but that’s on oversimplification of the issue. The reality is that they try to force these articles to match their view of what the policies should be. The multiple talk page discussions going on right now on the 2024 PDC World championship article’s talk page show that they have little actual understanding of the policies they quote. And when multiple editors point out the incorrectness of their arguments, they show no intent to accept that.

Therefore, seeing as they already received a topic ban elswhere but changed nothing of their behavior but rather moved to another topic to do just the same, I strongly suggest an indefinite block until such time they can prove they are here to build an encyclopedia. At the very least they should be subjected to a topic ban from darts. Tvx1 12:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, given the ongoing reverts this morning (after this discussion started) which I have just noted and linked to above, it is becoming increasingly clear that only an indef or topic ban will stop ongoing issues. I'd obviously prefer a topic ban to an indef, but I'm not convinced that with a topic ban they won't just direct their attention elsewhere. GiantSnowman 12:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

However we can't put all the blame with ItsKesha. Comments like your's just now "I still don’t understand why something that was used for years without anyone having a problem with it, has now become all but unacceptable." (and other similar comments by other editors) show a reluctance to listen to comments from "outsiders". Nigej (talk) 12:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Nigej I have posted my thoughts at the bottom of the thread, but in line with my view posted there, this has been an ongoing issue for about 12 months, and part of the consequence has been a massive drop in darts articles this year. I think frankly, that people are fed up with ItsKesha and their presence is enough for people to feel backed into a corner and come out fighting. That is not okay of course, and I am guilty of that myself to a degree, but this is something thats been building for twelve months, comes to a head during the worlds when more editors are active, and will no doubt happen again next year if left as is. Dimspace (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

How much of the dropoff in darts editing this past year could be attributed to JRRobinson being TBANned from darts and then indeffed? JoelleJay (talk) 00:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

That has probably had some impact. But there have also been ongoing arguments over notabilty. The Darts project sadly has not established a structured notability scale for events, so in the absence of one there have been disputes over what is notable, and predictably, from what I saw earlier in the year, ItsKesha was at the centre of that with their "interpretion" of notability criteria. But you are correct, JRRobinsons absence would have had an impact. Equally, people who have watched from the sidelines like myself who could contribute more don't have the inclination to throw their hat in that particular warzone :D Dimspace (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Should add, a lot of have fallen foul of issues of sourcing, and the primary sources issue, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Darts#Better_sources_for_darts_articles which I know is something Itskesha has been hot about (I'm not getting into a right or wrong on that one, but thats been part of the reduction as well). But again as noted elsewhere, the approach from people like ItsKesha has very much been "not sourced properly DELETE IT" "doesnt fill a certain criteria DELETE IT" as opposed to how can we work together to remedy those things Dimspace (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a notability guideline for darts: WP:NSPORT, which requires the subject to meet GNG and on top of that requires all athlete articles actively cite at least one IRS SIGCOV source. ItsKesha's interpretation of notability criteria is correct. JoelleJay (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Working with others to establish a notability list for Darts and listing the guidelines, being specific, explaining reasoning, however, would be far more productive, than just stamping feet and fighting. People can see a wall in their path and just knock it down, or they can work together to cross it. Dimspace (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

What I would add, is WP:NSPORT is largely aimed at notablity of individual sports men, women and teams. When it comes to events, it is very vague, generalised, and extremely open to interpretation, but, any discussions on darts events notability have just been "its not notable" "yes it is" "no it isnt" as opposed to objective. WP:EVENT is possibly more relevant. but. getting sidetracked a bit here. But I think formalising event notability over the course of 2024 could solve some issues. Dimspace (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, any notability criteria created for darts events will have to be a very strong predictor of GNG and SUSTAINED independent secondary significant coverage (per NEVENT). Project-level notability criteria are treated as essays and hold zero weight at AfD, so it really wouldn't be productive to pursue this if the hope is to protect certain classes of articles from deletion. Pinging @Nigej who also has experience at NSPORT discussions and might have more background on non-biography stuff. JoelleJay (talk) 00:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Personally I would not view it as protecting certain classes from deletion, but, having an established, discussed, agreed, list of notable events, is a lot better than having editors fighting with each other over their perception of notability. (as long as those establishing, discussing and agreeing are objective and able to look at more than one point of view lol) 01:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

What is "ItsKesha was at the centre of that with their "interpretion" of notability criteria" even in reference to? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 01:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but what is that supposed to mean? I listen very much, I just say that I don’t understand why there is such a big drama about this. I have even offered you a simple solution to your biggest concern with the content. I find this a really low blow from you. Meanwhile the user that this discussion centers on, who doesn’t show any less reluctance to listen to outsiders, has even broken WP:3RR. Tvx1 13:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

It seems from comments below that ItsKesha finds some of your comments "low blows" too. Nigej (talk) 14:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I don’t see any comment that references me below at all. Your snide remarks are totally uneccesary here. They do nothing but detract from the issue at hand here. Tvx1 15:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I mean you've just made a comment here advising @Lee Vilenski to "learn to read". I'd say that's definitely a low blow. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

No, that’s a comment on the point in reaction to someone who clearly misread a comment I made in that discussion. But that doesn’t even matter. It’s my behavior that was reported, it was yours and that is what you should discuss.Tvx1 19:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

It is a bizarre comment over six months after the last comment in that thread. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• I see that the arguments from the talk page are starting to leak into here. Have any of the involved parties asked for assistance from uninvolved editors at WP:RSN about whether those PDC reports should be considered a primary source? Moving on from that, can someone point me to which topic ItsKesha has been banned from? I see nothing on their talk page or at WP:AEDR. I think a final civility warning to ItsKesha should help reduce the heat in these discussions, and I wouldn't oppose a WP:1RR sanction to prevent slow edit wars. Concerning the overall darts topic, I think a reminder to all participants to remain civil, respect WP:BRD, and seek assistance from third parties when a discussion appears to be going nowhere wouldn't go amiss. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 13:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  In future I won't even try and collaborate to improve these articles, I'll just work independently because this is so unbelievably boring. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  I do not think this is the answer you want to give. Saying you will not collaborate is a big no-no and the alarm bells are ringing louder for me. GiantSnowman 14:10, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  See, this is another indication that this user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Tvx1 15:33, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  I'll edit to improve articles, I just won't bother asking questions to the community. Why should I even try when I am made out to be the villain and targeted simply for asking a question? Look here and read the first four responses I received. Three of them are absolutely pathetic and I won't subject myself to this going forward, and you can't sway my opinion. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

ItsKesha"read the first four responses I received." the first few responses, my response included are not ok. However, bear in mind two things. a) Nobody had a foggiest idea what stats you were claiming were against WP:SYTH, and even after discussion, and head scratching b) it was established very quickly that they were not against WP:SYNTH. And here's the thing, throughout that thread you refuse to actually explain why you felt they were against WP:SYNTH (Or even which stats you thought were against WP:SYNTH. All you did was repeatedly quote "do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source". You wouldn't actually elaborate on what your issue actually was. So a month long argument (Where nobody actually understood what your issue was in relation to WP:SYNTH ends with "ItsKesha was quoting wiki policies that didnt even apply" again. And so the cycle starts again. Dimspace (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• Again, saying you are going to continue editing (without dealing with the attitude and behaviour concerns that have been raised here and elsewhere) AND that you are not going to collaborate indicates you will continue disruption. Comments like "you can't sway my opinion" means there is little point in the community working with you as nothing we do will have a positive effect. In short, the more you post, the more supportive I become of an indef block as the only way to prevent ongoing issues. GiantSnowman 15:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  So not raising issues is disruption, but raising issues is disruption. Brilliant. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  There is a whole lot of background to why these were the first four reactions you got from these people. These are the many interactions you had with them during the last year or so, including on the article on the previous edition of the sports’ world championship. "you can't sway my opinion" is the core attitude issue you have been displaying throughout that period and is the reason why were here, yet you show no understanding at all. Tvx1 16:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  I think ItsKesha needs an indefinite block for their behavior discussed above. The battlegrounding is just too much. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  Can you explain the "whole lot of background" then, so I can learn from it? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  The battleground behavior is detailed above, and I believe you have responded earlier. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  I would say some of the darts "regulars" have displayed quite a bit more battlegrounding on the darts pages than ItsKesha. Those pages need a serious overhaul by uninvolved editors. JoelleJay (talk) 20:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  See that’s the core issue here. People like the reported user and you unfairly treat the regular editors of these articles like a nuisance. Like an annoying band of rebels that need to be squashed. I’m not even part of that community and I’m still appaled by the treatment they have been given. Maybe what it needs is not for outsiders to barge in with a lecturing attituted trying to enforce their personal views. Tvx1 14:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  P&Gs are not really "personal views"... JoelleJay (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  Interpretations of them are. Multiple editors on those talk pages have carefully read those guidelines and properly adressed many of the incorrect claims regarding these guidelines and policies in the talk page discussions. Yet instead of reading and accepting these replies and collaborating, you and the reported user keep treating these people, who actually have invested a considerable amount of time in reading and adressing your concerns, as a pest that needs to be eradicated.Tvx1 19:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Tvx1: please tone down your rhetoric. No one here is treating the regular darts editors as "a pest that needs to be eradicated." An uninvolved user saw an issue occurring on a certain topic of the Wikipedia and we are discussing to reach a consensus on whether this is a chronic issue and how to best deal with it. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 20:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Isabelle Belato, this comment shows clearly what I meant. A call for outside editors to come in an and overhaul the project. Treating the current regulars as if they have no good intentions or at the very least wouldn’t be willing to colleborate constructively. If find that very respectless and I can sympathise in a way with how this people have reacted to such treatment. Tvx1 00:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  I said some of the darts regulars, which includes two editors indeffed for NPAs and battleground behavior... And content can need to be overhauled without it impugning the motivations or collegiality of other editors. There are still synth issues1 and misunderstandings of notability, PRIMARY, and independence that need to be addressed. JoelleJay (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  I tried to offer my opinion -- that the tournament draws and schedules formulated and released by the tournament itself are primary (and non-independent) as they are original materials ... close to an event ... written by people who are directly involved -- but was told by Tvx1 that my comment didn't make sense and that I was incorrectly conflating secondary sources and independence... JoelleJay (talk) 21:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  JoelleJay What I would say, is when the battle is already raging, any opinions are probably going to be shot down because peoples backs are already up. Now probably isn't the time to be saying whats wrong with this years article, emotions are running too high. I think there needs to be a period of calm, and a built towards next year to be honest. Dimspace (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  Can we please leave the content discussion out of this? This is not the venue for this.Tvx1 04:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I feel like I summarised it in the 2023 Worlds talk page. Basically Kesha seemed to come in from out of the blue, and unilaterally decided that about half the article failed some policy and just slapped a ton of "fix this" templates all over the place; as opposed to... well, fixing it. That same attitude seems to have continued over the year, and is coming to a point again now during the 2024 Worlds. There was little collaboration until I had to call out the 3RR that was ongoing, and even then I don't think any of the discussions really amounted to much. Hence why there's still such an impasse over the whole thing.

The sticking point over notability is going to remain though. Darts is still a relatively niche sport, it doesn't have the same amount of eyeballs on it as other events that Sky and ITV broadcast; and because of that the resulting neutral coverage is also lacking. Snooker — another of matchroom's portfolio — gets a lot from the BBC because they actually broadcast it; but unfortunately they don't offer that same level of effort to darts or pool. 🇮🇪 TheChrisD {💬|✏️} 02:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

You accused me of being "biased against most darts articles on the Wiki" for nominating an article for deletion. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 03:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I can’t believe we’re letting us be mocked like this. It’s New Year’s Eve for crying out loud, we should be celebrating with our families and friends, not be dealing with this. Granted, maybe for some of you it’s maybe already the morning of New Year’s Day, but still. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvx1 (talk • contribs)

Ok, throwing my two-pennorth in as I have been watching the talk of all darts pages since late last year after things blew up on the 2023 World Championship talk. Darts articles are not perfect, and there are areas as have been brought up by people like NigelJ etc where things can be improved, but there is a way to work with existing editors, discussion, compromise, and explaining decisions. Itskesha since late in 2022 (as far as I am aware, it could even be earlier) has behaved as a bull in a china shop on darts articles. Filling articles with various banners, sourcing need, 1st party sources, etc etc, kicking up a storm over notability, and in many instances citing Wikipedia policies that when actually looked at have zero relevance to what he is flagging. His general passive-aggressive approach (for example, his constant even when baiting people, well wishes) has got a lot of peoples backs up. The net effect has been in 2023 the number of darts articles has dropped massively, many events no longer have articles for them, and a lot of editors have simply backed off the darts community completely. For much of the year I have just been watching, and yes, over December I have decided to butt heads with him, which I probably shouldn't, but honestly, my impression is very much that while he maybe intends well, his forcible opinions (which very often are based on poor interpretations of policy), and his general passive aggressive, non-compromising approach, is a disruption to the Darts community as a whole. As I say that as someone who does not edit on Darts, but read the articles, and have been paying very close attention to talk. (But yes, I will admit I've been like a dog with a bone over the last month). As I say, Darts pages are not perfect, but there are ways of working with the existing editors to improve and develop the pages, and going in, sticking banners everywhere, misinterpreting wiki policies, and being at the centre of every single argument, are not the way to improve things. His aspproach alsi is very much "This doesn't fit the (poorly interpreted) rules so delete it", as opposed to "how can we rework it to make it fit the policy guidelines better"Dimspace (talk) 23:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Just to add, this all started last year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2023_PDC_World_Darts_Championship and has gradually built over the course of 2023. So whats going on on the talk page for this years World Championship is not the full reflection, this has been a 12 month brewing battle. Dimspace (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, it appears at least two regular editors of darts articles have already ended up indefblocked because of this ongoing situation.Tvx1 19:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Not sure who posted this last comment ^^ but yes, this is a side effect, that Darts is losing its most "passionate" editors because of this ongoing conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimspace (talk • contribs)

• Related, would an admin please look at Draft:Alex Spellman and this change an IP tried to make to sports notability? I blocked the first IP as they were being generally disruptive but there's not enough with the new one desipite my spidey sense that it's blocked editors logging out. I know that JRR is far from the only problematic one in this area, but it's who it reads to me. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JRRobinson/Archive exists, but nothing we can do with IPs so I've not bothered filing Star Mississippi 16:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Without sidetracking completely, " Have won an event hosted by either the Professional Darts Corporation or British Darts Organisation." yes, support. " Have participated in the PDC World Darts Championship." as someone who loves the sport of darts, no, not even close. Participating in the worlds is not notable. For me notablity would not start until they reached the last 16, or had multiple appearances in the world championships. A single appearance is not even close to notable. I would say 90% of big darts fans would have to google who Alex Spellman even is :D Dimspace (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

This is again a discussion we should not hold here. This is not the venue. So, please focus on the ANI report at hand. This section is already lengthy enough as it is. Tvx1 19:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Section break

Okay, I hope this is appreciated but I decided to please a section break here because the above discussion was suffering from a lot of sidetracking and became difficult to follow. So I hope we can refocus on the issue at hand. The reported user has shown no insight into their behavior, has no demonstrated to have headed lessons from a previous topic ban and has not shown any willingness to change their attitude in the right way. Therefore I think it would be best to try to find a consensus on some action. Personally I still feel WP:NOTHERE applies.Tvx1 00:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Probably wise, but remember that the raised topic wasn't about a specific user. There has been one block already. I agree there needs to be something done to stop the atmosphere around these types of articles. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, one other specific user WAS discussed following the block and I think an action considering them should be taken now. Especially considering their contributions here.Tvx1 10:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

We should move to discussion about what (if any) action should be taken against ItsKesha given the conduct highlighted above. I think the options are (1) final warning (2) topic ban from darts, widely construed or (3) indef block. GiantSnowman 18:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree. My preference lies with option (3) indef block or failing that (2) topic ban. We're well past the warning stage now.Tvx1 12:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Same, I am fine with either a topic ban or indef block, leaning more towards the latter. GiantSnowman 19:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Any other views on ItsKesha here? GiantSnowman 12:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

ItsKesha has a long history of uncivil behaviour and while I’m definitely no saint their behaviour has gone on too frequently and too long in my opinion. I’ve personally never once seen them cordial with another editor. RossButsy (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

My general opinion is that jumping straight to an indef with no prior sanctions is nuts unless the behavior in question is really overwhelmingly egregious, which this definitely isn't. Loki (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

So you'd prefer a topic ban? GiantSnowman 12:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I would prefer a warning, frankly. Loki (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I would prefer a firm warning and short leash. JoelleJay (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

We’re way past that stage. Warnings have proven useless in the point. We need to impose a strict sanction by now.Tvx1 15:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

There have been previous sanctions against this user. Blocks and even a topic ban in an other area. Yet, they have declared an intent not to change at all. There is a point where we have to put a strict halt to it. Tvx1 15:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I could only find a single block, not blocks, of 31 hours. Nigej (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

A darts topic ban seems reasonable to me. I'd be against an indef, which seems excessive to me. Having felt the wave of negativity that comes from many of the established darts editors, I've got a little sympathy for him (despite my initial comment on him, somewhere above). However it does seem to me that he didn't come to this topic with any genuine attempt to have discussions that might come to some consensus. Nigej (talk) 12:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with a topic ban. GiantSnowman 14:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

My problem with a topic ban is that this has been applied before to them and they just moved to another topic to continue their problematic behavior here. Given their posts here, I’m very concerned that pattern might be repeated again. That’s why I believe we’ve reached the point of a block being warranted.Tvx1 15:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Where/when was a topic ban previously applied? GiantSnowman 19:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

See their talk page. They have a topic ban from articles on wrestling apparently.Tvx1 20:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Seems from Wikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling that itskesha was topic banned from "professional wrestling for 1 month because of persistent hostility and personal attacks" on 18 July 2022. As far as I can see he has had only that one topic ban, together with a single block of 31 hours. Anyway, its not correct to say "They have a topic ban" since it expired well over a year ago. @GiantSnowman: @Tvx1: Nigej (talk) 12:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

My points is that they received a topic ban and it had no positive effect on their behavior whatsoever. That is a very serious problem. I don’t know why you want to keep minimalizing that. Tvx1 15:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Well we need a topic ban or indef and for an uninvolved admin to close... GiantSnowman 18:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why you've been exaggerating his "record". You mention "Blocks" when there's only been 1. You say "They have a topic ban" when they haven't. I'm not sure what you'd make of a current discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an editor whose been blocked 30 times and is still not indefed. Anyway I said above that "A darts topic ban seems reasonable to me." and that's still my position. Nigej (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

There's the wave of negativity, and then there's the stark misunderstanding of PAGs that appears to be commonly held on these pages, given this comment by Penepi (which quotes arguments used by another darts editor) in an AfD:

Thanks for making me laugh. Really. I don't know if you're just trolling, but, dear lady, please stick to your molecular biology and don't comment on things you have literally no clue about. Let me tell you a huge secret - darts is not a science; "passing mention in routine tournament recap". And what would you expect? A website dedicated to his one match analyzing it in a scientific manner? Also mentioning PDC source as non-independent. Extremely bizarre. This is sports and this is how sports news work. In this context I dare to borrow the rational argumentation of my fellow colleague: this is not a scientific article where unbiased, third party sources are extremely important especially when it comes to things that could be deemed as "opinion". These are sporting events, where all that is important to the page is statistical data, and accurate data. There are no POV elements to tournament articles or issues with Bias etc etc, all that is needed are qualification methods, and results, and for those sort of data points, first party is totally acceptable, in fact, it could be argued preferable. Hugo won his WC debut 3–2 against GVV. That is fact, and it does not matter if the source is the PDC, Sky Sports, Darts News, or The New York Times, that fact is not going to change. There are countless instances of sporting results page where the main source is the sport organisers, because they are the body that provides the official (and accurate) results. What elements of this article do you think would be improved by a third party source? There is nothing opinion based that needs it. With this brilliant and absolutely not rigid approach, you would have to delete not only 95% of articles about darts players but about athletes in general.

Which gives me a bit more sympathy towards ItsKesha's desire to align darts articles with PAGs/MOS. JoelleJay (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

All well and good, but completely fails to deal with the edit warring, the disruption, the incivility and personal attacks, all of which has been ongoing long before their recent run-in with Penepi. GiantSnowman 20:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I nuked my contribs by accident.

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

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

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

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

DYK needs admins

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

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

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

...which is too late of course. Back to the bad old days of DYK in and around 2014 or so with that attitude. You are putting things on the main page, you should do a thorough check, not a spot check. For example, you promoted "... that a Connecticut radio station left the air for good after it was out of service for a week and only one person wrote a letter to complain?" In reality, they stopped broadcasting on the FM band but continued on AM. Oh, and did you know "... that the first Jewish newspaper was established in 1686 in Amsterdam?"? The "Gazeta de Amsterdam" would like to have a word[7][8]. That's after, er, spot-checking the first 4 of 8 hooks, and 2 of them are at least dubious. Fram (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Angela Denham

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

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

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

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

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

User talk pages that are excessively long

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.

---

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

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

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

jp×g🗯️ 03:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uncontroversial page move

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: dirty pic on nf1 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.

---

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

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

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

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

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

Could another admin

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

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

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

Thanks, @Yamla: -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Closure request for "Inside Voices / Outside Voices"

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

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

Koavf unblocked

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.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A few points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would generally agree with the spirit of that, even if the net-positivity is declining the more chances Koavf is given, but there has to be a limit at some point, or the myth of "unblockables" in the loose sense ("unbannables"?) becomes a reality. So, let this be the last chance.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: 0RR with no unilateral unblocks

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.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal: site ban, second choice restore indefinite block

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose it's true that they have been blocked something like six times in the last 12 years or so, but the blocks were for edit warring (not vandalism or personal attacks). Ultimately, they remain a net positive (i.e., they give more to the community than they take out), so let's give the 0RR a chance. The incident with Doug (an editor for whom I have a lot of respect) that I missed previously is really unfortunate, but it's also out of character and I'm sure that they will find a way to make amends. M.Bitton (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - This is absurd. Site bans are for egregious misconduct, not stupid crap like edit warring. Edit wars are, in the large scheme of things, mildly annoying at worst. WP:AN3 is thataway if/when he edit wars again. Reaper Eternal (talk) 05:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support to save some time before we do this song and dance in a few months. Some men, you just can't reach Mach61 (talk) 06:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. The editor's specific multi-block-worthy issue is editwarring, and the 0RR already passed above makes even the faintest whiff of that behavior an insta-ban, so there is no cause for a site ban now, if we can get Koavf's productive side working on the project again with his one unproductive tendency completely walled off.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: 0RR and no unilateral unblocks is the least restrictive alternative and pretty much a last chance, given the number of supports for a site ban right now. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. J947 ‡ ^edits 09:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: No reverts restriction

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.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal: No punitive blocks

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.

---

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

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

Therefore, I propose:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Cullen328:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Closure

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

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

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.

CAT:UNBLOCK is quite backlogged

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Name change requests

Quite a few unblock requests are from username violations requesting a change in username. Sometimes the username they want is unavailable or inappropriate, but when they settle on a suitable name the process becomes quite muddy and badly documented. The only people that can actually perform the rename are global renamers - I used to be one, briefly, but didn't use it enough to warrant having it. The only ways of requesting a change in username involve the a user making a request for their own account. So I think the correct process is to unblock the account so that they can put in a proper request - despite having already requested a new username on their talk page - UNLESS the unblocking admin also happens to be a global renamer, in which case they can just do it there and then.

What we don't seem to have, unless I'm missing it, is a way for admins without global renaming permissions to put in a request to global renamers, saying "I've reviewed this, I've checked the new username is ok and available, please perform the rename so that I can unblock them".

I feel a bit reluctant to unblock accounts with a prohibited username and just trust that they'll put in a rename request in some unspecified timescale, and have to keep an eye on them until they do so. So we end up with a situation where I review an unblock request, check the username they want, everything looks ok, but I can't take it any further.

I expect I'm missing some noticeboard somewhere that solves this problem, but it doesn't seem to be documented at WP:UN, WP:BLOCK or anywhere else I can think of looking. Is it as bad as I think it is or am I missing something obvious (wouldn't be the first time)? Apologies for the wall of text, I've hit this problem before and it's very frustrating. WaggersTALK 14:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

If there is any renaming to be done, I can do it. I then remove them from the renaming queue. If they don't make an acceptable unblock request, they stay blocked. The unblock queue has gone from > 100 to about sixty, So, progress. And yes, tldr; -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The reason I became a renamer was because I would unblock people to change names and they would not. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I assume blocked users still have access to m:Special:GlobalRenameRequest? Galobtter (talk) 04:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. Trouble is some renamers decline because of the block. Crazy, I know. I go by the renamer queue several times a day. It can be fun and rewarding. Now I've shifted focus from blocking to unblocking. Still backlog is about 60. (sigh) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Closure request for ANI discussion

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

Re-upping this request. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 06:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

That discussion is a great monster that is very difficult to kill or subdue. It also involves allegations of stalking and of off-wiki canvassing. The inability to find a closer after four days is an indication that this is a dispute that the community has not resolved. We should ask ArbCom to resolve this multi-pronged dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

For any wandering admins, @Ritchie333: has closed this. Leaving this open for any subsequent discussion. Star Mississippi 17:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Unblock/unban request from Phrasia

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.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by Loyalmoonie

It has been brought to my attention that the above user has been unblocked after having a history of violating WP:3RR, WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE. Per the closed discussion above, I cannot and will not intervene or comment directly on supporting or opposing. If the aforementioned user truly does desire to do better on Wikipedia and has proven to the community as such, then I shall not stop him from returning. However, as someone who has had to deal with being personally attacked by said user, I feel that I need to reach out to the admins to request that a further restriction be in place that requires Phrasia to refrain from all personal attacks (including, but not limited to, calling editors homophobic for disagreeing with his edits[9], etc.) when he is in a dispute and/or when another editor reverts his edits. His attacks against me (and other Wikipedians, for that matter) were very hurtful and not very contributing to any kind of dispute, forcing me to request admin assistance in the first place.

I also would hope that Phrasia will understand, in accordance to his past edits on his prior sock accounts, that any genres and categories he adds to any articles must be backed by verifiable sources.

If Phrasia truly does want to do better, then he will have my benefit of the doubt at this time. That is all I need to comment.--Loyalmoonie (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Unblock/unban request for Michaelshea2004 aka Michaelshea04

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.

---

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

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

Here is the request:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Appellant's reply carried over:

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

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

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

  A second chance would be warranted had he not already squandered so many opportunities (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Michaelshea2004/Archive) and if he had not already shown that he currently lacks the competence needed, In this appeal, he has vacillated from wanting to return to wanting to vanish to wanting to not edit ENWIKI but to edit META. You can see via global contribs what past contribs on META were like. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  Note to closer One year appeal ban works for me. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

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

  Reply carried over.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • General replies carried over from UTRS appeal #83545:

  (reformatted by DFO)

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

  
  

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

  
  

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

  
  

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

  
  

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

  
  

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

  
  

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

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

  
  

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

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

• Oppose unban to let this user make a few token edits to then subsequently vanish. It wouldn't make up for their past actions. If they want to leave, they should just leave. 331dot (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
• Carrying over from UTRS appeal #83552. --Yamla (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

If you or anyone else really doesn't want me to vanish. I meant vanish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelshea04 (talk • contribs)

331dot: You also mentioned that if I want to leave, I should. But I'm afraid that it is much more complicated than that. Far beyond what you or anyone else might be able to comprehend or understand. But if you don't want me to vanish, I'll just stick a retired template on my talk page and logout. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelshea04 (talk • contribs)

Courtesy ping @331dot:-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose unban And I see that it is WP:SNOWing here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, but allow vanish at stewards' discretion. No good case is made for an unban, but I also don't see an obvious reason to prevent this user from requesting a vanish, if they wish. Since the user is locked, this should be left to the stewards to decide whether to grant such a request, if made, but I don't think the enwiki block should be taken as standing in the way. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 22:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed. As a renamer, I've taken part in discussions in which we decided to vanish a blocked user and left them blocked. My sense is that there has been discussion among the stewards at length about this user's request to vanish. Were it up to me, I would. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

  Welp, I guess that question has been answered. 😢 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• You asked for more specifics as to why I opposed, so I am obliging. In your latest appeal, you said "it's about time that I am to grow the fuck up", to which I agree, and even give you a little credit for the epiphany. When you do manage to "grow the fuck up", please feel free to come back and ask to have the ban lifted. I think you will find people are more supportive, myself included, at that time. I would wait at least a year, but it is your choice. Call it a gut feeling or whatever, but I don't think you are there yet. Dennis Brown 2¢ 04:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  FWIW, I've deep respect for Dennis and would trust his "gut" unreservedly. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• Schlepping replies from UTRS appeal #83552, with pings and formatting added.

@RickinBaltimore: Huh?. What do you mean by that?.

@Tamzin: I do not want to be vanished without reversing my blocks/bans/locks. Everyone else and probably any future opposals: OK. So I can't change the computer/abandonware articles from past tenses to present tenses, I can't vanish, I can't go to other wikis to help my case because I am globally locked, and I am not taking any chances as an IP user. I know I'm getting overwhelming unanimous opposals, but I'm probably going to give you the same information in 6 months time. So is there anything else that I can possibly do to earn back the trust of you and your community?."

Carried over by me -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) A good way to earn back the trust of the community and prove you are here to build an encyclopedia would be to ask admins to let you go through the {{2nd chance}} process, showing your ability to edit constructively an article in a substantial way (i.e. more than changing tenses). Good luck, ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 11:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Non administrator note Oppose User has been spitting out vulgarities, insult other editors, make inappropriate edits and also changing the tense of articles (without good reason) throughout so many of their edits I can find. With all his brazen actions, why even trust him now? I honestly believe that the abuser is still not here to improve Wikipedia at all even after I read the request. There is nothing in mitigation to push me to the support side. They wanting to vanish does not help anything at all and will not cover for their past actions. SG5536B (talk) 10:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• "2nd chance" is false hope, it isn't going to happen, not with a banned user. No admin could issue a "2nd chance" if they wanted to, only the community as a whole can unban a user, since it was the community that issued the ban. I'm sure you meant well, Chaotic Enby but this is bad advice and the system doesn't work that way. There is no second chance. He can wait a year, and maybe at that time, do a proper and respectful request for review and his odds will be better. Editing here is a privilege, not a right, and the privilege was squandered the first time around. They say time heals all wounds. How much time, I can't say. But the odds of it happening in less than a year from now are approximately zero. Dennis Brown 2¢ 13:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  My apologies. I didn't mean that 2nd chance alone would be enough, but that going through it could maybe convince the community that this user is able to edit constructively. But you make very good points, thanks a lot for your answer. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 13:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  Not an option. Too late False hope. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  I understand, thanks. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 14:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  OK so I was going to ask for the 2nd chance but Deepfriedokra doesn't want to give me that option unfortunately so if I can't do anything else then I will wait a further 6 months and appeal again, I know Dennis Brown wants me to wait at least a year, but I will wait 6 months and see how I feel then. I already know that my appeal here will eventually fail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelshea04 (talk • contribs)

  Comment to closing admin: Very strongly suggest a prohibition on further unban requests for at least one year, based on this. --Yamla (talk) 11:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yamla: Huh?. Why not 6 months?. Deepfriedokra told me in my initial appeal that I only need to wait 6 months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelshea04 (talk • contribs)

  So we don't have to go through another pointless exercise with no chance of success in six months. You don't just get to exhaust us into submission. --Yamla (talk) 13:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  What Yamla said. I said one year primarily because that is the minimum time your appeal will have a snowball's chance to pass, and it still depends on your tone. Remember, when you appeal next time, people WILL look at this appeal, so choose your words carefully. Dennis Brown 2¢ 13:33, 16 January 2024 (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.

Unblock/unban request from Nyantiaz

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.

---

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

carried over below

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • close? Is this sufficient, or do we need more?

  -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  If no one has any objections I think this is good to close. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 00:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  Looks good to me. – robertsky (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Support I think this is a good quality request as far as WP:GAB is concerned and indeed fufills the requirements of WP:SO. SG5536B (talk) 05:44, 16 January 2024 (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.

INVOLVED block by Wbm1058

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.

---

Wbm1058 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at 19:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC) blocked for 72 hours Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Since it was for a WP:3RR breach, the block was arguably justifiable by someone, though Dicklyon was not templated or otherwise warned of 3RR. He's been blocked before for editwarring, and an argument is sometimes made (including by Wbm1058 in this case at Dicklyon's talk page) that such a person doesn't deserve any such warnings, but that's debatable. The cause, "deservingness", or unblock-request outcome of this block are not at issue here.

The issue is that Wbm1058 absolutely should not have taken this action, being directly and long-term WP:INVOLVED in the underlying content dispute, and with Dicklyon (not administratively but topically), since at least 2020.

• The underlying content dispute is about capitalization of the term "draft" in the player-drafting processes of various team sports, including NFL and AFL American football, and NHL ice hockey. It's not really clear why there is a dispute, since policy and guidelines are clear about article titles and what they should be, including in this kind of case. But there's a long-running dispute anyway (dating to at least 2016).
• There is an RfC open to resolve the question, at least with regard to NFL, after RM (and MRV) came to a no-consensus results (same thing happened earlier with NHL): WP:Requests for comment/Capitalization of NFL draft article titles (Moved from WP:VPPOL due to length, much of it caused by people, mostly in favor of capitalization, trying to claim that the community somehow cannot examine this dispute at VPPOL or by RfC. I couldn't make this up.)
• Dicklyon added this RfC to WP:CENT, and someone removed it, and he re-added it, and so on until the 3RR line was crossed.
• Wbm1058 then blocked Dicklyon.
• However, Wbm1058 was deeply involved already as a partisan editor in the content-dispute to begin with [10]:
  • At the NHL wikiproject talk page, about moves to lower-case "Draft" in various article titles, Wbm1058, in agreeing to mass-move them all back to "Draft" at the behest of wikiproject participants, writes: Sorry guys, I have unfortunately assumed too much good faith from Dicklyon and given him too much rope. ... I've been silently stewing over this matter for some time, and realize it is now time to put my foot down.
  • This is clearly siding with the wikiproject particpants who prefer "Draft", instead of taking it to RM (as suggested by Dicklyon, GoodDay, and others)
  • It's also a declaration of cessation of good-faith assumption with regard to Dicklyon in particular (who was not even who moved all the articles to lowercase; User:Atsme did a bunch of them, and was who the thread opened about). This at least borders on a personal attack. If I told someone other than a blatant vandal that I had assumed too much good faith from them and given them too much rope, I would expect to get blocked for it.
  • It's noteworthy in passing that all this personalized wikiproject-organized venting against Atsme and Dicklyon was a combination of WP:CANVASS and WP:FACTION behavior to begin with, in which an admin should have been encouraging a neutral RM or RfC, not joining in to go after particular editors, and using the admin tools to help conduct a move-war.
• But there's more. Today, Wbm1058 put their heart right on their sleeve at Dicklyon's talk page [11]:
  • you continue to push to elevate the manual-of-style guidance on capitalization to the level of a de facto black-and-white policy
  • That's a total fabrication, and is partisan "anti-guideline" wikipolitical activism over capitalization trivia in a particular topic Wbm1058 in involved with. Dicklyon has simply correctly pointed out that WP:COMMONNAME policy and the WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS (in particular MOS:SPORTCAPS) guidelines do apply to this topic like all others and do not support this over-capitalization, and neither do non-primary, independent sources. That's what the RfC is going over in detail, with rather clear facts. Nowhere, anywhere, has Dicklyon or anyone else I'm aware of suggested that any such guidelines be made into policies or treated as if they were policies. Nor has Dicklyon or anyone else suggesting lower-casing everything, only following the guidelines (lower-case that which is not consistently treated as a proper name and capitalized in independent RS). Even if Dicklyon did believe in the idea of making naming-convention and style guidelines into policy, that would be a proposal for the community to discuss (and, obviously, reject); it's not an "I don't like what I mis-imagine your policy development intentions to be" rationalization in defending one's bad block decision.
  • The block "rationale" offered by Wbm1058 also makes no sense at all: Indeed the point of the block is not punitive, but rather to deter you from getting edit-warring blocked for a dozenth time, sometime in the future. That's like saying "I killed my dog because I don't want him to die some day."
  • And Wbm1058 also micharacterized Dicklyon's unblock request, which is a reasonable and typical one, as being requests to essentially downgrade the blocking policy to a guideline. The one not following that policy here is Wbm1058. WP:BLOCKNO: Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute. That this content dispute has been going on for this admin since at least 2020 is not an "old news" mitigation, but makes the matter worse, as it's evidence of long-term "guidelines don't apply to topics I don't want them to apply to" tendentiousness on the content matter, and grudge-holding against the blocked editor.
• Update: It's gotten worse not better; Wbm1058 thinks this is about the community ... freaks out about a lousy three-day block for edit warring [12]. This is about INVOLVED.
  • See also in same diff: "There is no right or wrong answer (on the content dispute) and the madness of the dysfunctional manual-of-style debates. This is bogus both-sidesism that is contrary to policy (WP:CONLEVEL, etc.). There unmistakably are right and wrong answers to the question of whether something should be capitalized on Wikipedia simply because someone(s) devoted to the topic like to capitalize it despite doing that being against both P&G and the sourcing. It's an open and shut question, even if some drag it out until an RfC becomes necessary. MoS debates turn unpleasant because such editors too often engage in longterm tendentious walled-garden behavior against P&G and sourcing to get what they like better, as if at a personal blog. Such disputations being tedious and frequent is not an excuse for an involved admin to bolster one side in such a debate with the block tool (the same side the admin has had partisan involvement with, including questionable tool use, since 2020).
• There may be more; I did not go digging around, and only ran into the NHL thread involving Wbm1058 accidentally while looking for RM history relating to the underlying dispute.

This was clearly a bad block because of the involvement of the admin with the topic and with the now-blocked editor as a debate opponent within that topic (and someone the admin had previously used admin tools to undo the moves of unilaterally and in support of the desires of other partisans in the topic, not as a neutral RM/TR admin, instead of opening an RM discussion). PS: Given that Dicklyon has already stated he knows he erred and will not change the CENT page again, there is no reason to undo the bad block and reinstate anther one by an uninvolved admin, just on the basis that a 3RR is grounds for a block; it would no longer serve a preventative purpose but only a punitive one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC); updated: 17:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I note that there was no 3RR violation here the block was presumably for general edit warring. Galobtter (talk) 00:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Link to related discussion: Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion#Criteria for RFC inclusion. Mackensen (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Timeline of events:

• Dicklyon adds NFL RFC to T:CENT, is reverted by editor 1
• Dicklyon adds NFL RFC to T:CENT, is reverted by editor 1 again
• Dicklyon adds NFL RFC to T:CENT, is reverted by editor 2
• Dicklyon adds NFL RFC to T:CENT, is reverted by editor 3
• Dicklyon adds NFL RFC to T:CENT, is reverted by editor 4 (me) with an edit summary warning to stop edit warring
• To Dicklyon's credit, they did not edit T:CENT again after this edit summary warning
• Blocking admin probably notices the edits on T:CENT, then places a 72 hour edit warring full block (not partial block). Blocking admin does not post a block message or block template on user talk. This is Dicklyon's 10th or 11th block for edit warring.
• Blocking admin did respond to pings and discussed the block a bit with Dicklyon.
• Dicklyon posts an unblock request using the unblock template. The unblock request is still open.
• An argument is made that the blocking admin is INVOLVED and then this is posted at AN.

–Novem Linguae (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry if I was imprecise; I though that Dicklyon had gone past the 3RR limit; I was going by Galobtter's "I do think you know better than revert the RfC in 4 times rather than discussing on the CENT talk page. Not sure if this block is necessarily needed anymore though".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes the 4 reverts happened but over ~4 days. Galobtter (talk) 01:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Noted, belatedly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Just for reference, this was Dicklyon's 11th block for edit warring,

• October 12, 2007 – 6 hours
• October 28, 2007 – 24 hours
• June 18, 2008 – 72 hours (adjusted to 48)
• March 01, 2009 – 48 hours
• March 09, 2009 – 72 hours
• August 27, 2011 – 1 week
• January 18, 2015 – 31 hours
• February 03, 2015 – 24 hours
• July 14, 2019 – 24 hours
• June 13, 2022 – 48 hours
• January 15, 2024 – 72 hours

Dicklyon admits (on their talk page) that they were edit warring, but they also believe they should not have been blocked for this because they were "...warned in an edit summary and did nothing more". I disagree that any type of warning should have been necessary for somebody who had already been blocked ten times prior for edit warring. They should be very well aware of the rule and should have taken it to the talk page instead of continue to re-add it to the template. They've been around long enough to know better and, frankly, I'm surprised that they've been given as much rope as they have been. They're a productive editor and I appreciate a lot of the work they've done, and while I recognize that the primary focus of this discussion is the accusation of being INVOLVED, I felt it necessary to bring this aspect of the block up because it was, quite frankly, a deserved block. If it brought to WP:3RRV he would not have received a further warning consider he added the content 5 times. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment As everyone should know by now, three revert over 24 hours is a brightline. However, one can edit war over a longer a period of time and get blocked for it. Certainly, Dicklyon should know it. However, if Dicklyon has stopped and won't restart, we should probably unblock. @Wbm1058: This certainly looks like an WP:INVOLVED WP:BADBLOCK. Must the Community haul you off to ARBCOM, or can you address this in a satisfying manner here? Thanks-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  It looks like that is no bueno, since the involved admin is offline for the moment; for now, I think they won't respond here. – 64andtim ^(talk) 11:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  I don't believe it's a bad block, but I can see the argument for it being an involved one. Dicklyon has shown an inability to drop the stick at times and they should have never felt it appropriate to re-add the RfC link 5 times after having already been blocked 10 times for edit warring in the past. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  The actual definition of WP:BADBLOCK is WP:INVOLVED: Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute. There are other kinds of improper blocks, but this not being one of those other kinds doesn't make this a proper/good one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse block Wbm1058 wasn't directly involved in the content dispute (the details of which should have never been brought here). Dicklyon is a habitural edit warrior and admitted to edit warring. End of story. I believe Dicklyon is working on MOS/capitalization issues in good faith, but the editor is disruptive and there's a long history to prove it. Nemov (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
• I'm not going to comment on the block itself, but I would suggest uninvolved parties take a look at the RFC in question and CTRL+F to see how many times the terms "SMcCandlish" and "Dicklyon" come up. By my count, those two alone have made 100+ comments at the RFC. Jessintime (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  And all over something incredibly trivial. This sort of slavish devotion to a very narrow interpretation of the style guides is a waste of community time and resources, yet it will continue indefinitely and will keep spreading to other topic areas because the community is not going to curtail it. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  Admins misusing the tools to boslter and give license to those who defy both the P&G and the sourcing for completely unjustifiable reasons (and who go to unbelievable lengths to try to prevent the community examining what they are doing) is no way going to improve that situation, just inspire more such unproductive disputes. What will improve it no longer entertaining special pleading from every other topical interest with wishes that P&G and sourcing somehow didn't apply to them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  Me being vociferous has nothing to do with whether this was an INVOLVED block. Cute hand-wave attempt, though.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• I've barely participated in that RfC and was just aware of this, but it seems like a clearly involved block to me based on the presented evidence. SportingFlyer T·C 16:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
• I was not involved in the content dispute at Template:Centralized discussion. Checking the edit history of that page, I've only made one edit there, a technical edit back in 2014 to remove a closed and archived discussion. I've participated in a small number of discussions relating to that page, including "Why is there a straightforward content dispute at the top? – a question that might apply to this matter as well. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  The question is not whether you are involved wrto. CENT. It's whether you're involved wrto. Dicklyon. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  ... which does appear to be the case. wbm1058, I would suggest undoing this block. If an uninvolved admin also thinks it is justified they can always reinstate it. Black Kite (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) And the subject of Dicklyon's RfC that the CENT squabble was about in the first place.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed. Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The block is arguable and not the main question here. The question here is potential violation of wp:involved and at first glance that appears to be the case. North8000 (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• @Wbm1058:, please, undo this block. I haven't dug deep enough to know if you're capital-I Involved, but I see enough evidence that your interactions with Dicklyon have been non-trivial and non-administrative. Voluntarily unblocking is the quickest and most straightforward de-escalation here: nobody is served by escalating this further. I believe there is substantial agreement that Dicklyon was in the wrong, FWIW. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
• I have not been involved in any content disputes with Dicklyon, that I can recall. I have arguably been in behavioral disputes with him, where he thinks he did nothing wrong, but I think he did. In straightforward cases, the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Wbm1058: If several people not party to this dispute think you're involved - and they do - then your wisest course of action is to undo your block, and then let the community dispute the fine points. Doubling down is a sure-fire way to escalate this, and I say that as someone who has immense respect for your work and will not be getting further involved. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  wbm1058 reversed the block at the same time he made the above comment. If no one is seeking sanctions, I would suggest this can be closed with a trouting and a reminder that Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor; that the "straightforward cases" exception is always a risky one to invoke, because the whole point of INVOLVED is that involved admins often lack objectivity, which can include the objectivity to assess whether a case is straightforward; and that, even where an exception may apply, it is still the best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved to pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 19:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  For the record: not seeking sanctions. I'm not a regular "dramaboarder" or an "admin cabal" conspiracy-theorist. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  It doesn't cost you anything to undo the block, which will expire soon anyway, and a short block is there to send a message, make sure the message is received, and get the communication going, and it's absolutely immaterial if it's two days or three days long, so this block, the way you have implemented it has already served its purpose. It isn't doing anything anymore, seeing how Dicklyon is engaging with other editors on his talk page, maybe not in your or my exact most preferred way, but it's something. There's only so much that you can get with a three day block in the best of circumstances. And these are not the best of circumstances. Attention has been brought to the issue which you have identified, and the block is already not materially preventative anymore. So it would be great for you to undo it. —Alalch E. 18:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• Too close to WP:INVOLVED to endorse: ... involved administrators may be, or appear to be, incapable of making objective decisions in disputes to which they have been a party or about which they have strong feelings. Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. The diffs above, e.g. Wbm's comment Sorry guys, I have unfortunately assumed too much good faith from Dicklyon and given him too much rope ... I've been silently stewing over this matter for some time, and realize it is now time to put my foot down, demonstrate strong feelings that may make Wbm appear to be incapable of making objective decisions. This is not a "straightforward" case, e.g. blatant vandalism (it was edit warring but no 3RR violation), and even if it were, as WP:INVOLVED says, ... it is still the best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved to pass the matter to another administrator. CENT is watched by a lot of admins; would have been better to let someone less involved make the block. Levivich (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Request to an administrator

Would an uninvolved administrator, please respond to Dicklyon's unblock request, at his talkpage? GoodDay (talk) 11:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@GoodDay: It would be best to wait and see if Wbm1058 will undo the block himself, or if consensus arises here that it was a bad block and should be undone by an uninvolved admin. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 12:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The block looks likely to expire by then on its own. Dicklyon having a three-day timeout isn't going to make the sky fall down, and no argument was made (and I dissuaded making one in my opening) that Dicklyon should not have received a block at all. This is about an involved admin action, not whether or not someone else blocking Dicklyon would have been problematic. This shouldn't just pass under the bridge as if nothing happened when the block timer runs out because of Wbm1058's absence. That said, I was not thinking of making this into ArbCom drama unless this sort of thing was a pattern, and there's no evidence of that; everyone errs. (The acting as something of a "pet admin" of a wikiproject to effectuate out-of-process moves even after a controversy about the titles had arisen is concerning, but that was in 2020, and others had done this earlier (e.g. multiple admins acted as a "counter-RM" in a wikiproject in the early 2010s, over objections, and for the same cause of capitalizing to suit topic-specific editor's preferences instead of the P&G) without being RFARBed for it, so I wouldn't want to hold Wbm1058 to a different standard. If someone tried that anew, though, it would definitely be a tool-use issue to examine.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment How much more time is going to be wasted on capitalization wars? There's already an overlylong RFC that's going nowhere and that's a dead horse that's been beaten forever. The disruption of these capitalization discussions have been brought to ANI on several occasions. This entire notice is just another WP:BATTLEGROUND. As Lepricavark mentioned above, it's time to curtail this before it gets even worse. Nemov (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2024 (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.

Scammers

I have been contacted multiple times by editors who have received multiple emails from scammers claiming to be me and threatening to delete articles and offering put them in touch with paid help. How can I tackle this menace? File Éireann 22:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Brendanconway, you can find useful information at -Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning. This is a chronic problem. Cullen328 (talk) 01:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

It might be worth a note on your user page saying that you understand that people are impersonating you and that you are not the person represented in those emails. Might keep Jimbo from insinuating you're a shill as well. Primefac (talk) 07:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC) Ah, I see you've already done this. Primefac (talk) 07:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

You may want to shrink File:A no money handshake.svg on your userpage. On my monitor, it is so big it is hiding the text that details the scam by pushing it off screen. Good luck fighting these scammers. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Cookiemonster1618 appeals block made for TBAN violation

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.

---

Cookiemonster1618 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Link to ANI discussion a la topic ban.

Appeal--

Hey I violated a community imposed topic ban when I shouldn't have, and understood well what it meant and instead of fully understanding that my editing actions have consequences, I did not want to fully understand the terms and conditions of my topic ban when It said all 'Northeast African languages and Peoples'. I am committed to following those guidelines through the way until it expires next month and will not edit any pages that fit the criteria of 'Northeast African peoples and languages' this includes all the countries and locations in which they are located. I am ashamed and feel guilty for my editing actions which were inappropriate and they are not reflected upon an editor like me who has made many positive contributions to Wikipedia. I assure you that this will never happen again and I am committed to following all of Wikipedia's guidelines for a topic ban by understanding them clearly and adhering to them to ensure a positive editing experience and environment not only for me but for other editors. I will also follow the Community's editing guidelines to ensure that I can earn the trust of the Wikipedia community and also avoid more sanctions and consequences.
Thank you.

Sincerely Cookiemonster1618.Cookiemonster1618

carried over by -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment The topic ban was imposed here and states, "Cookiemonster1618 and Ngunalik are topic banned from all pages and discussions related to eastern and northeastern African peoples and languages, broadly construed, for three months. A violation will result in a block for the remainder of the topic ban duration or one month, whichever is longer." --Yamla (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: I don't think that an unblock makes sense. In fact, I think that a more enduring block is called for by the circumstances. The current block is the result of a cascade of problems: In the most immediate case, Cookiemonster1618 & Ngunalik were given an interaction ban; this was then accompanied by a topic ban for both individuals on all languages and peoples of Eastern/Northeast Africa construed broadly. Within a month of a three-month topic ban, Cookiemonster1618 had clearly violated the topic ban 180 times & had made 90 additional edits that I think most would broadly construe as related to the banned topic, if less clearly so [13]. This led to the current block [14]. Cookiemonster1618's response to the block has varied in ways that are hard to reconcile into one consistent view of what's been going on:

1. Just over a week into Cookiemonster1618's topic ban, another editor called a violation to their attention [15]. They replied that they had forgotten about the ban, & would not violate again in the future [16].
2. One month into the topic ban, I asked them about the 180–270 violations listed above. They accused me of stalking them & seeking excuses to blame them for something [17] [18].
3. Once they had been blocked, they first denied that their edits violated the terms of the ban, as the edits dealt with places that were not in Northeast Africa or (focusing on the latter ninety edits) dealt with places, rather than people or languages [19] [20] [21].
4. Their next response was that Northeast Africa did not exist as a region, & thus the topic ban was meaningless [22], & then shortly thereafter that they didn't know that Northeast Africa existed [23] (incongruous with their acknowledgment of the region in the claim to have forgotten the topic ban mentioned previously); they then claimed again that the region did not exist [24] [25] [26]. At this point, I made a request at AN/I that the block be made indefinite—I'll come back to this later. Cookiemonster1618's first block repeal request was rejected the following day on the grounds that: 1) the claim that Northeast Africa did not exist was disingenuous & did not accord with Cookiemonster1618's own editing history; 2) the block request did not evidence any acknowledgment of the reasons for the block; 3) the block request did not make it clear that Cookiemonster1618 was aware of the region covered by the block (quite the opposite, actually) [27]. Cookiemonster1618's incivility & apologies for the same were also noted in the block removal refusal.
5. Two days later, Cookiemonster1618 requested a review of the block request, now stating that they in fact had understood the terms of the topic ban but had not wanted to understand [28].

Cookiemonster1618 has blanked most of this history from their Talk page, which is absolutely within their rights, but it makes it harder to follow what's happened. I mentioned that I had submitted a request at AN/I that Cookiemonster1618's block be made indefinite. This discussion is here. No administrator decided to take up the request. In include the link for two reasons: First, I'd like to be clear about my own involvement to date. (To this end, I should note that an interaction with me was adduced in the initial topic ban, tho I did not participate in the request for a topic ban.) Second, the above deals only with the incidents immediately relevant to the current block. I think there are broader & longer term issues which I have discussed at that AN/I request concerning Cookiemonster1618's interactions with other editors: Repeat incidents of refusing to accept that others may be working in good faith, repeat inaccurate accusations of vandalism, some strange threats (administrative—not physical), edit-warring, & general incivility. These have continued right up to the time of their block. Pathawi (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. I see that Cookiemonster1618 has asked to have their unblock appeal withdrawn, but their Wikipedia:BATTLEGROUND behaviour makes me think that it's likely more of this behaviour will continue once it expires. They also used an LLM to write (in part and in full) out some responses to Pathawi, which strikes me as disingenuous. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose this appeal. Instead, I recommend that the topic ban be extended to all topics related to the entire continent of Africa, and the peoples and languages and culture and countries and history of Africa, broadly construed. Appealable one year from today. That should eliminate ambiguity and wikilawyering. Cullen328 (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: As Tenryuu has noted, Cookiemonster1618 has withdrawn this unblock request. I wonder if this item might be closed: Further comment in either support or opposition is irrelevant if there is no request, & opposition may just feel like piling on at this point. Pathawi (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2024 (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.

Request for closure review (image collages in year articles)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Endorse close (involved as !voting and as previously closing this RfC): I probably would have closed this new discussion as no consensus because I think we have a case of two ships passing in the night here, but I think that Sdkb's read of consensus was reasonable. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
• (Uninvolved) Endorse close by Sdkb as a reasonable reading of the consensus and within closer discretion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
• Weak endorse. I was involved, on the remove side. I agree with the OP that the closer over-dwelled on the NOR question when the principal issue raised again and again was NPOV, but the result still would have not been a consensus to remove the collages, so there would be no point nit-picking the close and re-opening the discussion or having someone else re-close it, since we'd just get the answer practical answer. That said, I think think the "I have victory! I'm going to restore every collage no matter what without discussion!" antics that followed are worth examination and probably a lot of reversion, except in the few case there is an affirmative consensus on the specific article's talk page to retain a specfic collage. The fact that they were removed in the first place already means they are a challenged.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  That said, I think think the "I have victory! I'm going to restore every collage no matter what without discussion!" antics – Before anyone calls this a misrepresentation, this edit summary by Koopinator, the editor who requested that the RfC be reopened and then mass restored the collages, caught my eye. Both the mass removals and the mass restorations were unhelpful, but this is part of a larger never ending battleground approach to the topic area that needs more attention from experienced editors. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  I will admit that I liked the result and I celebrated a bit in an edit summary. I quickly realized this was poor form, but there's nothing to do about it now. However, I disagree with the characterization of "I'm going to restore every collage no matter what without discussion!" - I skipped over 1977 because, in the talk page, it said that the collage was removed due to unresolved matters on the talk page and not due to the RFC. Furthermore, there were other pages were there were local reasons for not having a collage and I missed them. In these cases, User:DementiaGaming reverted my edits, and I do not intend to take further action to restore the collages on these pages. Furthermore, I stopped restoring collages as soon as Deb left a comment on my talk page. As for "The fact that they were removed in the first place already means they are a challenged." - you have to remember that the great majority of these were removed solely due to the original (overturned) RFC result to remove. Koopinator (talk) 08:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• I would have gone with no consensus.—S Marshall T/C 08:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  By this I mean weak overturn to no consensus per Rhododendrites.—S Marshall T/C 17:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• Note that a new discussion about mass implementation of this close has been opened at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#Proposal for a standardized process for yearly collage images, and this particular implementation is already being enforced at Talk:2023#2023 Collage Full Discussion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Can an uninvolved admin please step in over toxicity and BATTLEGROUND at darts-related pages?

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.

---

Affected pages span at least 2024 PDC World Darts Championship, 2023 Grand Slam of Darts, Wikipedia:WikiProject Darts, and their associated talk pages, as well as user talk pages.

Edit summaries should be checked too: (Redacted) (diff) and (Redacted) (diff) and (Redacted) (diff) JoelleJay (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm still checking the issue, but I've blocked Penepi for a week for now for their personal attacks. Any uninvolved admin may lengthen the block if they see fit. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 19:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I've extended Penepi's block to indefinite due to the sheer extent and cruelty in all the shown diffs. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 19:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the very quick response! I think that editor was the main antagonizer in these articles. The atmosphere there is still pretty BATTLEGROUNDy and OWNy, but that can hopefully be remedied with more editors looking into it and isn't so urgent. JoelleJay (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll note that ItsKesha appears to have been edit warring on some of those articles. Since it's stale now, I don't think a block is needed, but they should consider themselves formally warned not to do so again.

In the future, they should consider seeking administrative assistance when they see another user personally attacking them, instead of allowing it to go on. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 19:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

IMO there's been some "goading" from ItsKesha, as a minimum. Does "Nobody cares about the opinion of you logged out losers" [29] get over the civility bar? or "Sad act"? (I've been editing there but trying not to be "involved") Nigej (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll remove those comments and I profusely apologise to all involved for such embarrassing, insulting and time-wasting behaviour. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@Nigej: I'm still reading all the linked pages, but yes, I agree with you that ItsKesha didn't facilitate things. I'll also note that their behavior at Talk:2024 PDC World Darts Championship has been poor. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 20:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

In my experience, ItsKesha is disruptive and repeatedly engages in personal attacks. In addition to the edits at the darts talk page mentioned above which they have now removed (calling other editors 'sad act', 'losers' etc.), there are also edits elsewhere such as this ("lol @ u") and this (calling another editor an "oddball") which are indicative of a wider attitude problem. Indeed, a quick look at their contribs in general show a clear pattern - multiple reverts to the same article(s) over & over again. They seem to obsess over an article and try and bully other editors into keeping their preferred version through reverts and insults, and once achieved they move onto another article... GiantSnowman 20:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Other edits by ItsKesha at the talk page which remain up - "You don't half talk some shite" and "you talked a load of shite". I cannot see Penepi's edits that have been revdeled, but how do they compare to ItsKesha's comments/conduct? GiantSnowman 20:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Penepi's were about 2000x worse... JoelleJay (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

OK, then what's 1/2000th of an indef block... GiantSnowman 21:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman Here's a much milder example of the PAs (this one was at least removed by Penepi). Can you please revdel that span of history? The rest of the comments in that chain are pretty typical for interactions here. JoelleJay (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

E.g. their response prior to deleting that comment. JoelleJay (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you please confirm exactly what edits to revdel? GiantSnowman 10:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman Have you looked at those diffs? It should be clear from the content which span of the history should be revdeled. JoelleJay (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

You've asked to revdel a span, but provided one diff.... GiantSnowman 11:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@Isabelle Belato JoelleJay (talk) 20:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@JoelleJay: I've revdel'ed the more egregious one from the ones you posted here. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 17:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Should this diff also have its edit summary revdeleted? ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 19:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. That should be all. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 19:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why there is so much animosity over darts, but there is. While Penepi has shown the worst behavior, ItsKesha's behavior has been subpar, usually adding more heat than light to the discussions they participate in. I wonder if a formal warning to be more WP:CIVIL and avoid commenting on other editors would suffice for now. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 20:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

You mean like the previous warnings for disruption/conduct/civility that litter their talk page going back 3 years? See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1054#User:ItsKesha and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive344#ItsKesha's removal of major WP:RS contents claiming then not notable based on personal views and accusing me of lack of sourcing tag when very line of the aricle was complient with WP:PW/RS and this edit warring warning from October 2021. They were also blocked in July 2022 for personal attacks. Clearly all of this has had zero effect on ItsKesha given they continue the behaviour. GiantSnowman 20:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes it had zero effect on me when I was accused of violating copyright and plagiarism and nothing was done about it by administrators when I reported it. Remind me why should I have any faith in the process of reporting somebody to the administrators? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

TBF, ItsKesha has been trying to bring darts articles in line with policy for a while and has been met with quite hostile resistance from what seems like a LOCALCON walled-garden, including from another now-blocked-and-TBANNED editor. Their approach has often been antagonistic, passive-aggressive, and POINTY, but IMO the responses to them by some of the darts editors have been way out of proportion and non-policy-based to boot, so I can at least understand a bit of their frustration. JoelleJay (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Thing is, being frustrated isn't a reason to not be civil. I'm equally as frustrated by some of the responses on that page, but you can't make such aggressive comments here. I wouldn't consider myself uninvolved at this stage, so maybe one who is could have a word with all parties. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I've had run-ins with ItsKesha in the past, so will leave it to others, but suggest a final warning for civility/personal attacks/edit warring for ItsKesha, with an indef block if it happens again. GiantSnowman 10:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I will note that since this discussion started, they continue to repeatedly revert/edit war with other editors, see 1, 2, 3. GiantSnowman 12:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

And those reverts show yet another example of them not understanding a policy they’re trying to enforce. In this case the difference between the concepts of primary&secondary sources on one hand, and first-, second- and third-party sources on the other hand. Tvx1 12:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

How are the Professional Darts Corporation are not a primary source for the Professional Darts Corporation World Darts Championship? ~~~~ All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Because primary≠first party. How can you not understand that??Tvx1 13:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I suppose this is the exact tone we should be taking when trying to have a discussion. Right admins? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but that’s on oversimplification of the issue. The reality is that they try to force these articles to match their view of what the policies should be. The multiple talk page discussions going on right now on the 2024 PDC World championship article’s talk page show that they have little actual understanding of the policies they quote. And when multiple editors point out the incorrectness of their arguments, they show no intent to accept that.

Therefore, seeing as they already received a topic ban elswhere but changed nothing of their behavior but rather moved to another topic to do just the same, I strongly suggest an indefinite block until such time they can prove they are here to build an encyclopedia. At the very least they should be subjected to a topic ban from darts. Tvx1 12:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, given the ongoing reverts this morning (after this discussion started) which I have just noted and linked to above, it is becoming increasingly clear that only an indef or topic ban will stop ongoing issues. I'd obviously prefer a topic ban to an indef, but I'm not convinced that with a topic ban they won't just direct their attention elsewhere. GiantSnowman 12:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

However we can't put all the blame with ItsKesha. Comments like your's just now "I still don’t understand why something that was used for years without anyone having a problem with it, has now become all but unacceptable." (and other similar comments by other editors) show a reluctance to listen to comments from "outsiders". Nigej (talk) 12:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Nigej I have posted my thoughts at the bottom of the thread, but in line with my view posted there, this has been an ongoing issue for about 12 months, and part of the consequence has been a massive drop in darts articles this year. I think frankly, that people are fed up with ItsKesha and their presence is enough for people to feel backed into a corner and come out fighting. That is not okay of course, and I am guilty of that myself to a degree, but this is something thats been building for twelve months, comes to a head during the worlds when more editors are active, and will no doubt happen again next year if left as is. Dimspace (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

How much of the dropoff in darts editing this past year could be attributed to JRRobinson being TBANned from darts and then indeffed? JoelleJay (talk) 00:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

That has probably had some impact. But there have also been ongoing arguments over notabilty. The Darts project sadly has not established a structured notability scale for events, so in the absence of one there have been disputes over what is notable, and predictably, from what I saw earlier in the year, ItsKesha was at the centre of that with their "interpretion" of notability criteria. But you are correct, JRRobinsons absence would have had an impact. Equally, people who have watched from the sidelines like myself who could contribute more don't have the inclination to throw their hat in that particular warzone :D Dimspace (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Should add, a lot of have fallen foul of issues of sourcing, and the primary sources issue, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Darts#Better_sources_for_darts_articles which I know is something Itskesha has been hot about (I'm not getting into a right or wrong on that one, but thats been part of the reduction as well). But again as noted elsewhere, the approach from people like ItsKesha has very much been "not sourced properly DELETE IT" "doesnt fill a certain criteria DELETE IT" as opposed to how can we work together to remedy those things Dimspace (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a notability guideline for darts: WP:NSPORT, which requires the subject to meet GNG and on top of that requires all athlete articles actively cite at least one IRS SIGCOV source. ItsKesha's interpretation of notability criteria is correct. JoelleJay (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Working with others to establish a notability list for Darts and listing the guidelines, being specific, explaining reasoning, however, would be far more productive, than just stamping feet and fighting. People can see a wall in their path and just knock it down, or they can work together to cross it. Dimspace (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

What I would add, is WP:NSPORT is largely aimed at notablity of individual sports men, women and teams. When it comes to events, it is very vague, generalised, and extremely open to interpretation, but, any discussions on darts events notability have just been "its not notable" "yes it is" "no it isnt" as opposed to objective. WP:EVENT is possibly more relevant. but. getting sidetracked a bit here. But I think formalising event notability over the course of 2024 could solve some issues. Dimspace (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, any notability criteria created for darts events will have to be a very strong predictor of GNG and SUSTAINED independent secondary significant coverage (per NEVENT). Project-level notability criteria are treated as essays and hold zero weight at AfD, so it really wouldn't be productive to pursue this if the hope is to protect certain classes of articles from deletion. Pinging @Nigej who also has experience at NSPORT discussions and might have more background on non-biography stuff. JoelleJay (talk) 00:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Personally I would not view it as protecting certain classes from deletion, but, having an established, discussed, agreed, list of notable events, is a lot better than having editors fighting with each other over their perception of notability. (as long as those establishing, discussing and agreeing are objective and able to look at more than one point of view lol) 01:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

What is "ItsKesha was at the centre of that with their "interpretion" of notability criteria" even in reference to? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 01:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but what is that supposed to mean? I listen very much, I just say that I don’t understand why there is such a big drama about this. I have even offered you a simple solution to your biggest concern with the content. I find this a really low blow from you. Meanwhile the user that this discussion centers on, who doesn’t show any less reluctance to listen to outsiders, has even broken WP:3RR. Tvx1 13:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

It seems from comments below that ItsKesha finds some of your comments "low blows" too. Nigej (talk) 14:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I don’t see any comment that references me below at all. Your snide remarks are totally uneccesary here. They do nothing but detract from the issue at hand here. Tvx1 15:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I mean you've just made a comment here advising @Lee Vilenski to "learn to read". I'd say that's definitely a low blow. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

No, that’s a comment on the point in reaction to someone who clearly misread a comment I made in that discussion. But that doesn’t even matter. It’s my behavior that was reported, it was yours and that is what you should discuss.Tvx1 19:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

It is a bizarre comment over six months after the last comment in that thread. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Well excuse me if I can't always remember every discussion I ever posted at from the back of my had. And I guess you calling me preposterous on the basic of an obvious misunderstanding of my post is perfectly acceptable... Tvx1 17:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Astonishing. --JBL (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• I see that the arguments from the talk page are starting to leak into here. Have any of the involved parties asked for assistance from uninvolved editors at WP:RSN about whether those PDC reports should be considered a primary source? Moving on from that, can someone point me to which topic ItsKesha has been banned from? I see nothing on their talk page or at WP:AEDR. I think a final civility warning to ItsKesha should help reduce the heat in these discussions, and I wouldn't oppose a WP:1RR sanction to prevent slow edit wars. Concerning the overall darts topic, I think a reminder to all participants to remain civil, respect WP:BRD, and seek assistance from third parties when a discussion appears to be going nowhere wouldn't go amiss. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 13:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  In future I won't even try and collaborate to improve these articles, I'll just work independently because this is so unbelievably boring. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  I do not think this is the answer you want to give. Saying you will not collaborate is a big no-no and the alarm bells are ringing louder for me. GiantSnowman 14:10, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  See, this is another indication that this user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Tvx1 15:33, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  I'll edit to improve articles, I just won't bother asking questions to the community. Why should I even try when I am made out to be the villain and targeted simply for asking a question? Look here and read the first four responses I received. Three of them are absolutely pathetic and I won't subject myself to this going forward, and you can't sway my opinion. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

ItsKesha"read the first four responses I received." the first few responses, my response included are not ok. However, bear in mind two things. a) Nobody had a foggiest idea what stats you were claiming were against WP:SYTH, and even after discussion, and head scratching b) it was established very quickly that they were not against WP:SYNTH. And here's the thing, throughout that thread you refuse to actually explain why you felt they were against WP:SYNTH (Or even which stats you thought were against WP:SYNTH. All you did was repeatedly quote "do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source". You wouldn't actually elaborate on what your issue actually was. So a month long argument (Where nobody actually understood what your issue was in relation to WP:SYNTH ends with "ItsKesha was quoting wiki policies that didnt even apply" again. And so the cycle starts again. Dimspace (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• Again, saying you are going to continue editing (without dealing with the attitude and behaviour concerns that have been raised here and elsewhere) AND that you are not going to collaborate indicates you will continue disruption. Comments like "you can't sway my opinion" means there is little point in the community working with you as nothing we do will have a positive effect. In short, the more you post, the more supportive I become of an indef block as the only way to prevent ongoing issues. GiantSnowman 15:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  So not raising issues is disruption, but raising issues is disruption. Brilliant. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  There is a whole lot of background to why these were the first four reactions you got from these people. These are the many interactions you had with them during the last year or so, including on the article on the previous edition of the sports’ world championship. "you can't sway my opinion" is the core attitude issue you have been displaying throughout that period and is the reason why were here, yet you show no understanding at all. Tvx1 16:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  I think ItsKesha needs an indefinite block for their behavior discussed above. The battlegrounding is just too much. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  Can you explain the "whole lot of background" then, so I can learn from it? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  The battleground behavior is detailed above, and I believe you have responded earlier. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  I would say some of the darts "regulars" have displayed quite a bit more battlegrounding on the darts pages than ItsKesha. Those pages need a serious overhaul by uninvolved editors. JoelleJay (talk) 20:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  See that’s the core issue here. People like the reported user and you unfairly treat the regular editors of these articles like a nuisance. Like an annoying band of rebels that need to be squashed. I’m not even part of that community and I’m still appaled by the treatment they have been given. Maybe what it needs is not for outsiders to barge in with a lecturing attituted trying to enforce their personal views. Tvx1 14:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  P&Gs are not really "personal views"... JoelleJay (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  Interpretations of them are. Multiple editors on those talk pages have carefully read those guidelines and properly adressed many of the incorrect claims regarding these guidelines and policies in the talk page discussions. Yet instead of reading and accepting these replies and collaborating, you and the reported user keep treating these people, who actually have invested a considerable amount of time in reading and adressing your concerns, as a pest that needs to be eradicated.Tvx1 19:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Tvx1: please tone down your rhetoric. No one here is treating the regular darts editors as "a pest that needs to be eradicated." An uninvolved user saw an issue occurring on a certain topic of the Wikipedia and we are discussing to reach a consensus on whether this is a chronic issue and how to best deal with it. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 20:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Isabelle Belato, this comment shows clearly what I meant. A call for outside editors to come in an and overhaul the project. Treating the current regulars as if they have no good intentions or at the very least wouldn’t be willing to colleborate constructively. If find that very respectless and I can sympathise in a way with how this people have reacted to such treatment. Tvx1 00:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  I said some of the darts regulars, which includes two editors indeffed for NPAs and battleground behavior... And content can need to be overhauled without it impugning the motivations or collegiality of other editors. There are still synth issues1 and misunderstandings of notability, PRIMARY, and independence that need to be addressed. JoelleJay (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  I tried to offer my opinion -- that the tournament draws and schedules formulated and released by the tournament itself are primary (and non-independent) as they are original materials ... close to an event ... written by people who are directly involved -- but was told by Tvx1 that my comment didn't make sense and that I was incorrectly conflating secondary sources and independence... JoelleJay (talk) 21:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  JoelleJay What I would say, is when the battle is already raging, any opinions are probably going to be shot down because peoples backs are already up. Now probably isn't the time to be saying whats wrong with this years article, emotions are running too high. I think there needs to be a period of calm, and a built towards next year to be honest. Dimspace (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  Can we please leave the content discussion out of this? This is not the venue for this.Tvx1 04:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I feel like I summarised it in the 2023 Worlds talk page. Basically Kesha seemed to come in from out of the blue, and unilaterally decided that about half the article failed some policy and just slapped a ton of "fix this" templates all over the place; as opposed to... well, fixing it. That same attitude seems to have continued over the year, and is coming to a point again now during the 2024 Worlds. There was little collaboration until I had to call out the 3RR that was ongoing, and even then I don't think any of the discussions really amounted to much. Hence why there's still such an impasse over the whole thing.

The sticking point over notability is going to remain though. Darts is still a relatively niche sport, it doesn't have the same amount of eyeballs on it as other events that Sky and ITV broadcast; and because of that the resulting neutral coverage is also lacking. Snooker — another of matchroom's portfolio — gets a lot from the BBC because they actually broadcast it; but unfortunately they don't offer that same level of effort to darts or pool. 🇮🇪 TheChrisD {💬|✏️} 02:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

You accused me of being "biased against most darts articles on the Wiki" for nominating an article for deletion. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 03:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

That does sound rather unreasonable (and I've had something like happen to me, so I empathize pretty direction). PS: I hope you realize that put putting "All my warmest wishes" on every other post comes across as robotically insincere and false civility. It is liable to rub a whole lot of people the wrong way, even those you're not addressing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I can’t believe we’re letting us be mocked like this. It’s New Year’s Eve for crying out loud, we should be celebrating with our families and friends, not be dealing with this. Granted, maybe for some of you it’s maybe already the morning of New Year’s Day, but still. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvx1 (talk • contribs)

Ok, throwing my two-pennorth in as I have been watching the talk of all darts pages since late last year after things blew up on the 2023 World Championship talk. Darts articles are not perfect, and there are areas as have been brought up by people like NigelJ etc where things can be improved, but there is a way to work with existing editors, discussion, compromise, and explaining decisions. Itskesha since late in 2022 (as far as I am aware, it could even be earlier) has behaved as a bull in a china shop on darts articles. Filling articles with various banners, sourcing need, 1st party sources, etc etc, kicking up a storm over notability, and in many instances citing Wikipedia policies that when actually looked at have zero relevance to what he is flagging. His general passive-aggressive approach (for example, his constant even when baiting people, well wishes) has got a lot of peoples backs up. The net effect has been in 2023 the number of darts articles has dropped massively, many events no longer have articles for them, and a lot of editors have simply backed off the darts community completely. For much of the year I have just been watching, and yes, over December I have decided to butt heads with him, which I probably shouldn't, but honestly, my impression is very much that while he maybe intends well, his forcible opinions (which very often are based on poor interpretations of policy), and his general passive aggressive, non-compromising approach, is a disruption to the Darts community as a whole. As I say that as someone who does not edit on Darts, but read the articles, and have been paying very close attention to talk. (But yes, I will admit I've been like a dog with a bone over the last month). As I say, Darts pages are not perfect, but there are ways of working with the existing editors to improve and develop the pages, and going in, sticking banners everywhere, misinterpreting wiki policies, and being at the centre of every single argument, are not the way to improve things. His aspproach alsi is very much "This doesn't fit the (poorly interpreted) rules so delete it", as opposed to "how can we rework it to make it fit the policy guidelines better"Dimspace (talk) 23:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Just to add, this all started last year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2023_PDC_World_Darts_Championship and has gradually built over the course of 2023. So whats going on on the talk page for this years World Championship is not the full reflection, this has been a 12 month brewing battle. Dimspace (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, it appears at least two regular editors of darts articles have already ended up indefblocked because of this ongoing situation.Tvx1 19:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Not sure who posted this last comment ^^ but yes, this is a side effect, that Darts is losing its most "passionate" editors because of this ongoing conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimspace (talk • contribs)

• Related, would an admin please look at Draft:Alex Spellman and this change an IP tried to make to sports notability? I blocked the first IP as they were being generally disruptive but there's not enough with the new one desipite my spidey sense that it's blocked editors logging out. I know that JRR is far from the only problematic one in this area, but it's who it reads to me. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JRRobinson/Archive exists, but nothing we can do with IPs so I've not bothered filing Star Mississippi 16:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Without sidetracking completely, " Have won an event hosted by either the Professional Darts Corporation or British Darts Organisation." yes, support. " Have participated in the PDC World Darts Championship." as someone who loves the sport of darts, no, not even close. Participating in the worlds is not notable. For me notablity would not start until they reached the last 16, or had multiple appearances in the world championships. A single appearance is not even close to notable. I would say 90% of big darts fans would have to google who Alex Spellman even is :D Dimspace (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

This is again a discussion we should not hold here. This is not the venue. So, please focus on the ANI report at hand. This section is already lengthy enough as it is. Tvx1 19:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Section break

Okay, I hope this is appreciated but I decided to please a section break here because the above discussion was suffering from a lot of sidetracking and became difficult to follow. So I hope we can refocus on the issue at hand. The reported user has shown no insight into their behavior, has no demonstrated to have headed lessons from a previous topic ban and has not shown any willingness to change their attitude in the right way. Therefore I think it would be best to try to find a consensus on some action. Personally I still feel WP:NOTHERE applies.Tvx1 00:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Probably wise, but remember that the raised topic wasn't about a specific user. There has been one block already. I agree there needs to be something done to stop the atmosphere around these types of articles. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, one other specific user WAS discussed following the block and I think an action considering them should be taken now. Especially considering their contributions here.Tvx1 10:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

We should move to discussion about what (if any) action should be taken against ItsKesha given the conduct highlighted above. I think the options are (1) final warning (2) topic ban from darts, widely construed or (3) indef block. GiantSnowman 18:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree. My preference lies with option (3) indef block or failing that (2) topic ban. We're well past the warning stage now.Tvx1 12:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Same, I am fine with either a topic ban or indef block, leaning more towards the latter. GiantSnowman 19:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Any other views on ItsKesha here? GiantSnowman 12:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

ItsKesha has a long history of uncivil behaviour and while I’m definitely no saint their behaviour has gone on too frequently and too long in my opinion. I’ve personally never once seen them cordial with another editor. RossButsy (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

My general opinion is that jumping straight to an indef with no prior sanctions is nuts unless the behavior in question is really overwhelmingly egregious, which this definitely isn't. Loki (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

So you'd prefer a topic ban? GiantSnowman 12:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I would prefer a warning, frankly. Loki (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I would prefer a firm warning and short leash. JoelleJay (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

We’re way past that stage. Warnings have proven useless in the point. We need to impose a strict sanction by now.Tvx1 15:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

There have been previous sanctions against this user. Blocks and even a topic ban in an other area. Yet, they have declared an intent not to change at all. There is a point where we have to put a strict halt to it. Tvx1 15:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I could only find a single block, not blocks, of 31 hours. Nigej (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

A darts topic ban seems reasonable to me. I'd be against an indef, which seems excessive to me. Having felt the wave of negativity that comes from many of the established darts editors, I've got a little sympathy for him (despite my initial comment on him, somewhere above). However it does seem to me that he didn't come to this topic with any genuine attempt to have discussions that might come to some consensus. Nigej (talk) 12:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with a topic ban. GiantSnowman 14:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

My problem with a topic ban is that this has been applied before to them and they just moved to another topic to continue their problematic behavior here. Given their posts here, I’m very concerned that pattern might be repeated again. That’s why I believe we’ve reached the point of a block being warranted.Tvx1 15:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Where/when was a topic ban previously applied? GiantSnowman 19:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

See their talk page. They have a topic ban from articles on wrestling apparently.Tvx1 20:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Seems from Wikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling that itskesha was topic banned from "professional wrestling for 1 month because of persistent hostility and personal attacks" on 18 July 2022. As far as I can see he has had only that one topic ban, together with a single block of 31 hours. Anyway, its not correct to say "They have a topic ban" since it expired well over a year ago. @GiantSnowman: @Tvx1: Nigej (talk) 12:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

My points is that they received a topic ban and it had no positive effect on their behavior whatsoever. That is a very serious problem. I don’t know why you want to keep minimalizing that. Tvx1 15:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Well we need a topic ban or indef and for an uninvolved admin to close... GiantSnowman 18:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why you've been exaggerating his "record". You mention "Blocks" when there's only been 1. You say "They have a topic ban" when they haven't. I'm not sure what you'd make of a current discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an editor whose been blocked 30 times and is still not indefed. Anyway I said above that "A darts topic ban seems reasonable to me." and that's still my position. Nigej (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

There's the wave of negativity, and then there's the stark misunderstanding of PAGs that appears to be commonly held on these pages, given this comment by Penepi (which quotes arguments used by another darts editor) in an AfD:

Thanks for making me laugh. Really. I don't know if you're just trolling, but, dear lady, please stick to your molecular biology and don't comment on things you have literally no clue about. Let me tell you a huge secret - darts is not a science; "passing mention in routine tournament recap". And what would you expect? A website dedicated to his one match analyzing it in a scientific manner? Also mentioning PDC source as non-independent. Extremely bizarre. This is sports and this is how sports news work. In this context I dare to borrow the rational argumentation of my fellow colleague: this is not a scientific article where unbiased, third party sources are extremely important especially when it comes to things that could be deemed as "opinion". These are sporting events, where all that is important to the page is statistical data, and accurate data. There are no POV elements to tournament articles or issues with Bias etc etc, all that is needed are qualification methods, and results, and for those sort of data points, first party is totally acceptable, in fact, it could be argued preferable. Hugo won his WC debut 3–2 against GVV. That is fact, and it does not matter if the source is the PDC, Sky Sports, Darts News, or The New York Times, that fact is not going to change. There are countless instances of sporting results page where the main source is the sport organisers, because they are the body that provides the official (and accurate) results. What elements of this article do you think would be improved by a third party source? There is nothing opinion based that needs it. With this brilliant and absolutely not rigid approach, you would have to delete not only 95% of articles about darts players but about athletes in general.

Which gives me a bit more sympathy towards ItsKesha's desire to align darts articles with PAGs/MOS. JoelleJay (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

All well and good, but completely fails to deal with the edit warring, the disruption, the incivility and personal attacks, all of which has been ongoing long before their recent run-in with Penepi. GiantSnowman 20:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Why, Penepi actually raises some fair points. Primary sources are not forbidden, sources aren't primary just because they are first party and Sports articles do frequentie user primary sources to just list official results and schedules. There is no problem with doing the letter as long as we directly reflect these sources and don't analyze them. Tvx1 16:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Primary and non-independent sources are explicitly forbidden from contributing to notability, which is what the above discussion was about. JoelleJay (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Try convincing the average AfD regular of that. With that said, being right isn't enough. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Tell me about it... JoelleJay (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The article was deleted wasn’t it? The average participant to that discussion actually supported deletion. So what are you still complaining about?Tvx1 01:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

No it wasn’t and you know it. It was about using potentially primary sources to support results and schedules in articles like 2024 PDC World Darts Championship. Tvx1 16:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@Tvx1, the quote is from the linked AfD, in a discussion about the sources needed to establish notability of an athlete. JoelleJay (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding then. I only looked at the contents of the pist, not where it was originally posted. Weirdly the post itself doesn’t discuss notability at all. And while primary sources indeed cannot establish notability, there is no prohibition to use them as a source of information.

I don’t get why you are citing this post as an active problem. The AFD was succesful despite it and the user has been indefblocked.Tvx1 01:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

It's indicative of a wider misunderstanding of notability, DUE, and the requirement that articles be based on secondary independent sources, since Penepi was quoting another active darts editor's argument as if it was the prevailing sentiment among the group. JoelleJay (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Yet, the group in that AFD did arrive at the consensus to delete. And Penepi was indefblocked since. So I still think you are overstaking the problem. The right things DO happen. The correct judgement of notability was made. Tvx1 17:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Wow, I hadn't seen this. That is one really bad take. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

met with quite hostile resistance from what seems like a LOCALCON walled-garden – In a sport topic? Surely you jest! I'm shocked, I tell you. Just shocked.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

In my level-headed opionion, abolish the police sports projects. I assure you, nothing could go wrong. Drastic measures always go as planned. SWinxy (talk) 04:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The solution is clearly to just defund them. No more piles of wiki-lucre for the sporties!  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Closure

So it seems the discussion has ended. How do we proceed with closing this. Does this require a request for closure?Tvx1 16:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. Some patience may be required. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: General Sanctions

Proposal moved. The WordsmithTalk to me 02:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
After reviewing this thread, the linked diffs and talkpages, and the requested closure above, I'm supremely unimpressed with the conduct of a number of people in this topic area. It certainly isn't just one person, incivility is rampant throughout the area. In order to break the back of this problem, I'd propose General Sanctions be authorized for the Darts topic area, text below copied from WP:GS/PW. The WordsmithTalk to me 02:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC) Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length, bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict, bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics, restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor shall be given a warning with a link to this decision and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. Sanctions imposed may be appealed to the imposing administrator or at the appropriate administrators' noticeboard. Support as proposer. The WordsmithTalk to me 02:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC) Per a recent RfC, these sorts of requests now have to go to WP:VPR. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC) Huh, I suppose that's what I get for not having VPR watchlisted. Fair enough, I'll move it over shortly. The WordsmithTalk to me 02:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Note that I have moved this proposal to WP:VPR#General Sanctions (Darts). Please review it and comment there. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:44, 17 January 2024 (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:Cengime: edit-war, refusal to add sources

User:Cengime has edit-warred at Catechism of Saint Pius X (see the edit history between '18:35, 14 January 2024'‎ and '21:13, 16 January 2024‎'). The user is trying to add information without providing any source, let alone a RS, and has repeatedly refused to do so despite being asked for by me.

They have received multiple warnings from me at their talk page, including the notice that I would open an AN if they were to pursue their behaviour. The user seems to have chosen to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, to continue edit-warring and to refuse to provide a RS for their claims. Veverve (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe the edit history and the talk page exchange referred to above each make clear that the source of the information is the Compendio della dottrina cristiana that the article is about, which states on the title page that it was printed at the Vatican Press in 1905, and is prefaced with a letter of Pope Pius X to Cardinal Respighi dated 14 June 1905 saying that he prescribed this catechism for use in the Diocese of Rome as of that date. While information books contain about their own publication must sometimes be discounted, Veverve has still offered no reason for believing that the book was published in 1908, as he has repeatedly altered the page to say, and the book enjoys weighty support from the fact that the letter was printed in the Acta Sanctae Sedis of that year. A cursory search reveals that publication was also noticed well before 1908 in Il Rosario and in the Irish Ecclesiastical Record. Equally, the Catechismo della dottrina cristiana is the source of the information that it was printed in 1912, and prescribed for use in the Diocese of Rome by Pius X's letter of 18 October of that year. Veverve has indicated in the edit history that he does not regard these books as reliable sources of this information. That is completely unreasonable, and the title page alone vastly outweighs his completely unsourced insistence that the Compendio was published in 1908. I do not agree with Veverve that I bear a burden of disproving that the book was published in 1908, or that this totally unsupported claim enjoys a right of prescription simply because some editor put it there first, nor do I understand the choice to waste time with this frivolous notice. - Cal Engime (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

You missed the point of edit-warring and not providing a RS stating "The Catechism of saint Pius X is the name given to [whatever]" or such.

All you have done is edit-warring, refusing to provide any source, any an inline ref. (WP:BURDEN states: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution"), and when pressed (I had to open an AN thread!) you finally give your source and it appears you are doing OR from a primary source. Veverve (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Why do you believe the book was published in 1908? - Cal Engime (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I do not believe it was published in 1908! I simply reverted back to a prior, stable version, because your additions were not properly sourced. I would not oppose removing all dates of publication from the WP article until a RS is given for them.

But those considerations are beside the point, this thread is about your behaviour. Veverve (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I’m not an administrator but I will go find one to report this to. Frostyibex (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

... this is the Administrators' noticeboard, so there are plenty of admins here already. Veverve (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I knew that, just don’t know if they are checking the board. Frostyibex (talk) 00:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Frostyibex was blocked as a sock, so I've struck out their comments. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Gantuze gaming ECP

As there has been some disagreement in the community about what constitutes ECP gaming I'm bringing this here rather than acting unilaterally. Gantuze made this edit before being extended-confirmed, then made ~360 in the next 7 hours updating the stats of sportspeople. Immediately after that they resumed editing at the AFD. To me this is clear gaming, but the edits weren't not constructive, although the separate edits to update the last updated field are pretty blatant. I would have removed the permission immediately if there had not been recent disagreement. What think ye? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Can we just update the definition of ECP to better address this gaming?

Specifically, 500 non-trivial (defined as greater than 10 bytes) and manual edits made outside of topic areas covered by ECP.

Not all of this can be automated, but at least it will provide a clear framework for admins to determine whether the ECP is "legitimate" or not. BilledMammal (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Surely intent, and the common sense interpretation of it, is pretty important. Here the intent is clearly to game the EC restrictions (combined with blatantly WP:NOTHERE rants about socialism - in of itself pretty dire). Iskandar323 (talk) 13:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Because of Goodhart's law, no explicit restriction like this will achieve the goal of limiting editing in WP:PIA to experienced editors as long as Israel is waging war on Gaza. --JBL (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

If the restriction is such that following it will make the user gain enough experience to understand the process, it could work. But I'd prefer having ECP being granted upon request (with 500 edits being the minimum to request it) as a better alternative, although the risk is that it could create too much of a backlog. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 19:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

There is no automatically enforceable restriction that satisfies the property "following it will make the user gain enough experience to understand the process", that's the point. --JBL (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and that's why I don't think an automatic restriction is the best way to go. But at the same time, people deciding on whether someone is fit for ECP or not would risk introducing a level of gatekeeping or bias, so that's also a counterpoint. Definitely not an easy problem to solve. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 19:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

In addition to Goodhart's law, there may be unintended consequences with these kind of edit-count based restrictions, like someone possibly adding off-site canvassing to their toolkit to send detailed editing instructions to editors to make edits on their behalf. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish, that's an edit every 1 minute and 9.6 seconds by my calculations. Then the moment they reached WP:XC they returned to editing at the same AFD. Does that not speak for itself? TarnishedPath^talk 01:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

It's gaming, but their comments at the AfD seem like they're probably a bigger deal? This comment is completely unacceptable to me. Parabolist (talk) 06:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

And this is no better. I don't think their sportspeople edits are gaming in the sense defined by WP:PGAME, though the edits were clearly made with the intention of becoming extended confirmed so they could weigh in on that AfD. If their IP edits are problematic (and the ones on that AfD certainly look to be), they are aware of the IP contentious topic and as I understand it any admin can thus impose blocks and topic bans as necessary. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I find Special:Diff/1195956201 in which they write "a war caused by the Palestinians who started the problem unilaterally by massacring babies and innocent people who were quiet in their corner and unilaterally invading" to be the most problematic. I find this deeply racist. TarnishedPath^talk 10:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not they were gaming, I've blocked Gantuze for those comments. Any unblocking admin should consider only accepting it if the editor agrees to an indefinite tban from the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, as well as Socialism and any related ideologies, broadly construed. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 13:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I pluck a random example from their editing history, Thiago Monteiro. I know nothing much about tennis, but it appears that this player's data was 4 months out-of-date, and appears to be correct according to ATP Tour. The article is accurate now when it was obsolete before. This is the system that you/we have created, for bad or for worse. If you're going to impose some kind of byte threshold, we'll just be back here in a month because someone came up 3 short. In the end, someone rally really wants in to an ECP-gated topic area, and the tradeoff is the project gets updated articles, then call it an acceptable tradeoff. If they prove to be problematic in the topic area, there are mechanisms to deal with it in place. Zaathras (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

If someone is making productive edits, then regardless of how fast or how trivial the edits seem to be, or how "obvious" it is that they are attempting to get ExCon, they are being productive. Making productive edits, such as updating the stats of dozens or hundreds of normally-ignored sportspeople, is not "deliberately misusing Wikipedia policy or process". Unless someone is making hundreds of trivial edits to sandboxes, userspaces, or simply doing nothing more than tweaking whitespace, we should consider it to be a productive edit and leave it be. Obviously if someone becomes problematic in a topic area, we can ban them from it. Nitpicking about "well this person made 300 edits overnight, and they're all positive, but they're all tiny!" is a waste of our time here. Primefac (talk) 12:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

It's clearly not nit-picking when the user is also quite blatantly WP:NOTHERE for a variety of other reasons. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

If they are NOTHERE, then they can and should be blocked. Whether they "gamed" the system to get EC is rather irrelevant at that point. Primefac (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps views should be weighted by how much time people have spent in ARBPIA. If the rules mean that people can do what Gantuze did to become extended confirmed in order to make those kinds of inflammatory comments at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Human_rights_violations_against_Palestinians_by_Israel, the rules could presumably be improved. I'm not sure how many editors in ARBPIA would happily make that kind of tradeoff, pain for gain elsewhere. It doesn't seem like a great deal from the perspective of people active in ARBPIA. I guess admins should at least have some discretion when it comes to excluding people likely to cause problems in the topic area. Regarding "there are mechanisms to deal with it in place", they don't seem to work very well. One banned user, for example, has created at least 930 known sockpuppets and made tens of thousands of edits using those accounts, and caused the ongoing ArbCom case, so the various mechanisms seem to need a bit of fine tuning. Some of that banned editor's more recent blocked socks where they managed to cross the ECP threshold might be helpful for potential gaming recognition discussions e.g. Special:Contributions/Petruccio Salema, Special:Contributions/Mike Rothman2, Special:Contributions/Eastern Geek, Special:Contributions/SpottedOtter, Special:Contributions/Psiball, Special:Contributions/Shuvam Koleyri, Special:Contributions/Vanna Phil, Special:Contributions/General Blorp, Special:Contributions/Emolu, Special:Contributions/Merarish89. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I had reporting this user for this blatant gaming on my list of things to do - thankfully I gave been spared the effort. Yes, obviously gaming. No, the passably constructive nature of the gaming edits does not mitigate the clear behavioural issues in the editing pattern. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Gaming or not, the behavior overall is symptomatic, if one asks the question how likely is it that this editor intends to contribute usefully to the topic area, there appears only one answer.Selfstudier (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• It's frustrating seeing these gatekeeping threads keep coming up here. ECR isn't meant to be a trial by ordeal or an initiation ritual for new editors to be challenged and scrutinized before more experienced editors allow them into the EC club; several of the discussions leading to its implementation have specifically called out this behaviour as undesirable. Wikipedia is still the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. ECR is only meant as a technical barrier to greatly increase the effort required for sockpuppetry in topics that are frequently tainted by dedicated abusers, and it was never going to stop those who are very seriously dedicated (everyone knows who we're talking about) nor was it meant to. Our approach to "EC gaming" and disruption in these topics should be rather simple:
  1. If the majority of an account's first 500 edits are useless edits, meaning they clearly serve no other purpose than inflating edit count (these are obvious: adding and then removing single characters from a sandbox, adding a 500-character blurb to their user page one character at a time; minor good-faith gnoming edits like spelling corrections or updating statistics keep getting called out here but they are not useless) then that account fails the duck test and should be blocked for sockpuppetry.
  2. If an account has reached the 500-edit threshold otherwise, they have done so in good faith (see WP:AGF). If they then start editing disruptively in a contentious topic, block them for the disruptive editing, not for variously invented definitions of "gaming the system". The "quality" or "usefulness" of their 500 good-faith edits is irrelevant, as is whether or not the topic is under ARBECR.
• This account was over two years old and had a consistent history of good-faith (though often minor and sometimes politically contentious) contributions, and they also created several new articles on South American athletes. Then they started their POV crusade, and that rightly got them blocked. This was a good WP:RGW disruptive editing block and kudos to Isabelle Belato for seeing that; I'll add that if they appeal they should also be subject to a TBAN from Brazilian politics per edits like this. It was not and is not necessary at all to try to invent a more broad and subjective definition of "EC gaming" and doing so will not improve anything, it will only harm and drive away genuine new users. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

It's frustrating for the gatekeepers. The tools, whatever they are, ECR, AE, SPI etc., should provide the framework for them to be editors, not gatekeepers. Apparently they don't quite do that yet. Hence the gatekeeping. While there are 2 classes of editors, genuine honest editors and disingenuous dishonest editors, editors who must follow the rules and want to follow the rules, and editors who can game the system for as long as they can get away with it (with plenty of Wikipedia's reinforcement training for civil POV pushing), gatekeeping is inevitable.

• Regarding "it was never going to stop those who are very seriously dedicated", true, but it seems to help. For one banned user up to end 2023, the total number of their blocked socks since ECR was adopted for ARBPIA is 228, and 14 of those accounts managed to cross the ECP threshold.

Sean.hoyland - talk 16:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, regarding 'is not necessary at all to try to invent a more broad and subjective definition of "EC gaming" and doing so will not improve anything', we don't know that. We don't know what will improve things and shrinking the solution search space won't help. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

1. ECR isn't meant to be a trial by ordeal or an initiation ritual for new editors to be challenged and scrutinized before more experienced editors allow them into the EC club
2. ECR is only meant as a technical barrier to greatly increase the effort required for sockpuppetry

I don't understand the difference between these two. Can someone explain the difference between a trial by ordeal and a technical barrier to greatly increase the effort required for sockpuppetry? Levivich (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Admin help needed at NPP

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer is currently backlogged. It'd be nice to clear it out because NPP is currently conducting a backlog drive and needs all the hands it can get.

I think we could also really benefit from having more active admins working NPP-related tasks in general. I've started a list of things where having a mop is particularly handy. – Joe (talk) 11:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Seems like that backlog was cleared? I will say this was a good reminder to add that page to my watchlist, though. :) Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit war by User Arind7

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.

---

ANI is now this thread's home.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User Arind7 is edit warring in multiple articles like Homosexuality in India, LGBT rights in India, Hinduism and LGBT topics, Marriage in Hinduism using some unreliable user generated websites like TamilCulture.com. Even after multiple warnings 1 2 he continued the edit war. A block might be needed to stop the vandalism. Timovinga (talk) 10:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC) 3RR ? Timovinga (talk) 11:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC) This person is removing large amounts of text without valid reasons, even when I provide numerous sources (often five) from a variety of backgrounds including major news outlets and legal scholars (for example the sentence where I used Tamil Culture also has another five sources from a variety of outlets). He has been repeatedly removing text across numerous articles related to LGBTQ and India, and seemingly also in various articles related to casteism in India. I have stated that he can add alternative viewpoints if he wants, but he seems to be more concerned about removing text instead. Many of his removals have no provided substance as well. The person above is engaged in vandalism and is targeting topics related to homosexuality and India. He needs to be banned from editing topics related to casteism, homosexuality and India. A good example is his edit here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_rights_in_India&diff=prev&oldid=1197136466 I removed a duplicate paragraph further down which repeated the same information twice in the same section. He reverted it on the basis on bad source despite me adding no new information whatsoever. It's obvious he is engaging in conflict rather than actually trying to build the article. Arind7 (talk) 11:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC) I moved the case to the relevant page, accidentally posted it here. Timovinga (talk) 11:41, 19 January 2024 (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.

Create https://1.1.1.1

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.

---

https://1.1.1.1 should redirect to 1.1.1.1 MSMST1543 (talk) 02:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I see absolutely no reason why. --Yamla (talk) 10:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

As Yamla says, why?

And as I said before, this is not a matter for AN. Follow the instructions on the talkpage and request at MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist, this time with with an explanation of why that is desirable. Acroterion (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done see notes above. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:22, 19 January 2024 (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.

John Jones (record producer)

John Jones (record producer) was deleted as an uncontested prod in 2018. A version on the Internet Archive (I can't tell if that was its final state) shows that the subject is clearly notable, albeit the article was badly under-cited. The deleting admin no longer has the bit. Please restore it, and either tag it as needing citations, or draft-ify it, so that it can be cleaned up and cited. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done, please update/improve accordingly. GiantSnowman 19:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I was struggling to do with this, with errors, then realised GiantSnowman had beaten me to it and we were admin conflicting. PS: For reference, WP:REFUND is a better venue for this sort of thing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Request for uninvolved admin to reopen NAC

Hi! Would an uninvolved admin please reopen Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 11 § Category:African-American Crooners? I would argue this is a textbook WP:BADNAC (it was closed as keep by the creator, who also !voted to keep the category). I requested the closer (User:Polemic-nerd) withdraw it, but they blanked the page in response. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Warning issued for disruptive editing and then failure to correct disruption when made aware of it. Daniel (talk) 02:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I've admin-closed it. Polemic-nerd is an SPA here, no idea if there's COI. DMacks (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Polemic-nerd is an SPA here That doesn't appear to be true at all. --JBL (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Drmies'_redirection_of_Michael_J._Fox_Foundation

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'm wondering if there's a CU around who thinks it worthwhile to run a quick check on this brand-new SPA. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2024 (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.

Arbitration motion regarding PIA Canvassing

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Since at least October 2023, there has been an ongoing effort by one or more banned editors to canvass discussions within the Israel-Palestine topic area and asking for proxy edits to promote a pro-Israel point of view. Based on the evidence received by the Committee, the following discussions have been targeted:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocide against Palestinians
• Talk:Allegations of war crimes against Israel#Requested move 11 October 2023
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nakba denial
• Talk:Israel#Request for Comment on apartheid charges
• Talk:United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine#Unexplained removal
• Talk:Ahed Tamimi#Instagram account suspended following call to butcher civilians
• Talk:From the river to the sea#Lead dominant View
• Talk:From the river to the sea#For Clarity on Removal of Kelley Source
• Talk:Gaza Strip#"Oppressive one-party state"
• Template talk:Genocide navbox#Correction of date range and citation in need of correction
• Talk:Human shields in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict#Merge proposal
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glorification of martyrdom in Palestinian society
• Talk:Israel#RFC on human rights language in lead
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beit Rima massacre
• Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war#RfC on sexual violence in lead section

The Arbitration Committee would like to thank the editors who reported canvassing. If editors have any additional canvassing evidence, please bring it to the Committee's attention. The Arbitration Committee asks the Wikimedia Foundation for assistance creating technical measures to prevent the ongoing abuse.

Based on information from the checkuser tool and on information received, the Committee determines that Dovidroth (talk · contribs) most likely participated in discussions due to canvassing and made proxy edits for a banned editor. As a result, they are indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed immediately after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Based on information from the checkuser tool and on information received, the Committee determines that Dovidroth (talk · contribs) most likely made proxy edits for a banned editor. As a result, they are indefinitely topic banned from making edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed immediately after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Based on information from the checkuser tool and on information received, the Committee determines that EytanMelech (talk · contribs) most likely made proxy edits for a banned editor. As a result, he is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed immediately after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Based on information from the checkuser tool and on information received, the Committee determines that EytanMelech (talk · contribs) most likely made proxy edits for a banned editor. As a result, they are indefinitely topic banned from making edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed immediately after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Based on information from the checkuser tool and on information received, the Committee determines that Homerethegreat (talk · contribs) most likely participated in discussions due to canvassing and made proxy edits for a banned editor. As a result, they are indefinitely topic banned from making edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed immediately after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

For the Arbitration Committee, Aoidh (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding PIA Canvassing

User insists on making hundreds (thousands?) of cosmetic edits, refuses to stop or discuss

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.

---

Joe Vitale 5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps on making many, many edits of the following sort:

• inserting a line break that makes no visual difference
• inserting a line break that makes no visual difference
• inserting a line break that makes no visual difference
• inserting a line break that makes no visual difference
• changing a template from a lowercase first letter to uppercase
• inserting whitespace in a template
• inserting whitespace next to the asterisks in a list
• inserting whitespace next to the asterisks in a list
• inserting a line break that makes no visual difference
• changing a template from a lowercase first letter to uppercase

These are all just illustrative examples from the past 24 hours, but it is trivial to find many, many more going back many, many months. In between, he makes some constructive, but very minor edits like this. When asked why he is doing this or to please stop, his responses range from giving no response at all to asides about how he melts or writing off-topic quips or chatting about music, but he has explicitly stated why he is shuffling around whitespace on hundreds of articles and it's to bring some conformity to (presumably) every single instance of a line break or a template across millions of articles. Prior to posting this thread, I checked in with the Teahouse to confirm that this kind of semi-automated whitespace shuffling was not acceptable, per WP:COSMETICBOT/WP:MEATBOT (@Chipmunkdavis and Cullen328:) and I posted one more time to Joe Vitale 5's talk page imploring him again to please stop (this has been going on from my perspective for several months) or else would post here. and he just kept on doing it with no response on his talk page. As far as disruption goes, this is pretty minor, but it is irritating to see a spate of edits where I check my watchlist to see if something meaningful has been added to an article and then I see this nonsense. If this user's stated goal were even achievable, it is not desirable to add tens of millions of edits across the encyclopedia and I would like an admin to intervene to please convince him to stop making these kinds of edits. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:16, 19 January 2024 (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.

Can someone mass-revert my edits?

I was using AWB to change spellings from "focused" to "focussed" and then realised that I misread the source that I was using. The change that I was making was incorrect. Is there a tool to mass-revert these changes? There's about 70 of them. —Panamitsu (talk) 09:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Panamitsu  Done where you had the latest revision. Might be worth double checking to make sure everything looks right. WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! There were two edits that were incorrectly reverted but I've easily fixed them. —Panamitsu (talk) 11:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah oops, sorry about those, I hadn't clocked the edits with bigger changes. Glad I could help in any case. WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Blocks of various autopatrolled/ECP accounts

Hi all - disappointing news. More information at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dentren, but the long and short of it is that I have just indef blocked the autopatrolled account Sietecolores (>10,000 edits), and the EC account Mamayuco (>4,500 edits), along with a couple of other fairly new/low-edit count accounts. They are all confirmed to one another, and I have little doubt that they are all socks of the blocked Dentren. Sorry to anyone who has interacted with them in good faith; I always find cases like this disappointing, since it is obvious that they are capable of doing good work here, but their dishonesty and willingness to flout the behavioural expectations of this project leaves me with little choice. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

😥 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

AngelicDevil29 requests unblock

@ UTRS appeal #83752 The blocking admin, User:Yamaguchi先生, has not edited since July and has not replied to my emails. I'm inclined to unblock, but I'm supposed to consult the blocking admin. But i can't-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Endorse unblocking. My opinion in such cases is that you attempted to contact the blocking admin and gave a reasonable amount of time for them to respond. In cases like this where the user didn't have substantial behavioural problems, I think it's fine to just go ahead and lift the block. I'm not sure my position is supported by policy, and I'd certainly take to the community any request I thought likely to be contentious. Still, it's hard enough to unblock people without making it much more difficult if the blocking admin is no longer around. --Yamla (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Policy's demands are actually pretty narrow, recommending if likely to be objected to, where the administrator is presently available, a brief discussion with the administrator whose action is challenged (internal parentheses removed). The way I've interpreted that in unblocking is that if an unblock is obviously not objectionable (e.g. undoing a username softblock after rename), no notice is required at all; and if it is, it's enough to wait a few days after an initial ping/talkpage message/email. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 06:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I tend to think that way too, but the other side of the coin is WP:BLOCKPOL#Unblock requests, If the blocking administrator is not available...then a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard is recommended. Maybe that needs to be reworded: generally speaking I think WP:RAAA's standard is high enough for this sort of thing. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Concur with Yamla - you made the attempt. Let's proceed. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Assuming you don't mean that you emailed them ten minutes ago, yeah, go for it. Admins don't own their blocks - if you made a reasonable effort to contact the blocking admin and didn't get a response then proceed how you think best. Don't do that if it's a functionary block, of course. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, y'all. I will proceed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

It's a courtesy, but we're not magicians. Adding to the pile on of endorsing proceeding without waiting further. Star Mississippi 17:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse from a "commoner". Buffs (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

report on sock

டாக்டர் வா.செ.செல்வம் (talk · contribs · logs) has a sock தென்னை மருத்துவர் (talk · contribs · logs) and it is good to delete both users' edits as they are promotional. Both are blocked in ta.wiki. I report for admin intervention. AntanO 14:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Coco Doctor V C Selvam is already deleted from his edits. --AntanO 14:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

DYK at 2-sets-a-day

DYK has switched to two-sets-a-day to reduce the backlog of nominated hooks. Admin are encouraged to help promoted preps to queues. With PSHAW, many of the promotion steps are automated so you can complete the checks more quickly. Instructions on how to promote to queue are at WP:DYKAI. Questions can be answered on the DYK talk page. We appreciate any help you can give.

Non-admin: DYK also has a backlog of nominated hooks. Any help reviewing these would be apprecitated (and QPQs never expire, so you can review hooks now and use the review later). Instructions on how to review are located at WP:DYKRI. Thanks for your help. Z1720 (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Motion on use of remind, warn, and admonish

A motion to formalize the Arbitration Committee's usage of remind, warn, and admonish in the procedures is now being considered at Arbitration/Requests/Motions. Community feedback is invited and welcomed. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Motion on use of remind, warn, and admonish

Help for deceased Wikipedian

Kittybrewster was a delightful and valued contributor, a proper gentleman (I say this as an alumnus of a thousand-year-old school). As a relative of James Arbuthnot, involved in the Horizon scandal, his page is getting some views, but Talk is infested with semi-automated notices. Would some kind soul please help with archiving? I am rusty on this stuff, having edited only rarely since the Before Times. Thanks much, Guy (help! - typo?) 01:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I did some work on this and I think it's in better shape now. Hope it helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm surprised I don't see a red-dashed underline under that name. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 04:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

For future reference, when I find extremely long user talk pages from inactive users, generally what does the trick is this:

{{Archives}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| archive             = {{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}/Archive %(counter)d
| algo                = old(30d)
| counter             = 1
| maxarchivesize      = 100K
| minthreadsleft      = 10
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| archiveheader       = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| key                 = 
}}

Or, of course, whatever "counter" is, based on the currently existing archives. This will get lowercase sigmabot to come through and fix things automatically (and, unlike the naughty cluebot, it won't cram 1,000 kb of shit into one archive even though the max archive size is 100k). jp×g🗯️ 17:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Closure review for RFC at Talk:Lucy Letby

Following BilledMammal's close of Talk:Lucy Letby#RFC on Lead sentence, they responded to objections and another draft text with "I suggest that editors discuss it informally here, and if there is clear agreement that D is more suitable than C then switch to it; otherwise, remain with C. If you're not certain whether there is clear agreement, please ping me again and I'll be happy to assess in the context of the RfC."[30] An editor has now opened a subsection with another option, Talk:Lucy Letby#Option 4, pinging previous participants and saying "Please review the above close and following discussion about Option 4."[31]

Would it be more appropriate to overturn the close and re-open the RFC so that the new proposal can be considered within it, formally assessed and closed? Should the close be reviewed here? Or what?

(Disclosure: the close found that neither option A nor B had consensus and that something I'd written but not proposed did represent consensus, which was unexpected, flattering even, but I'm more worried about how we establish and respect consensus, especially when feelings are strong, than I am about my text.) NebY (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

The new version of the lead is within the scope of the close and was created by Jfire who endorsed the close. If that version doesn't find consensus then the version adopted by BilledMammal will remain. I don't understand why you brought this topic up here. Nemov (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

"Option 4" isn't in accord with the close and isn't the "Option D" that the closer referred to in comments afterwards. It's irrelevant that its drafter endorsed the close. The invention of a new way to review and modify RFCs is problematic and uninvolved guidance would be welcome. NebY (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

This is why I asked you what your specific objection was because Option 4 is a variant of Option D. I mistakenly labeled it 4 (I was going to fix it, but you linked to it here so it'll break links) in the new survey, but it's where the discussion about D ended up. If you don't like D/4 just oppose it. Bringing it here is a waste of time. Nemov (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

My 2¢: even though I endorsed it, I agree that the nature of the close was not typical of RFC closures, and I would welcome some guidance from fresh eyes about how to best proceed. I did draft the variant that's now receiving discussion and agree that it's within the scope of the close, but as I wrote on the talk page, I am also sympathetic to the argument that we should let the matter sit for a while, letting the wording from the RFC closure stand for now. Happy to accept doing that if it's the consensus on how to best proceed. Jfire (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with either BilledMammal's close or with discussing a new proposal right after it. Consensus can change, sometimes quickly. – Joe (talk) 21:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

• It's a bit of an "odd close" (and by the way I'm not sure characterising it as "the close found that neither option A nor B had consensus" is quite right: BM found "there is a clear numerical majority for A, and A is not incompatible with policy"...aka rough consensus). There's maybe an argument that there was a super-vote for an unsupported half-proposal. But, meh, on reflection (I supported option A in the RfC), the close was not unreasonable, let's move on. DeCausa (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Simply put, I believe the original close was invalid by picking Option C. Option C was never formally proposed as part of the RfC, it was an offhand suggestion by an editor partway through the debate, and didn't really have much discussion as a result. We had two choices, and the closer went with a third as a "compromise." Now we have a new Option D being proposed after the closing and... it seems like the entire RfC has done nothing but lead us into more debates over the phrasing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Unblock request User talk:TatyanaZhelyazkova

TatyanaZhelyazkova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Could an admin address this request? I did one already, and it languishes -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @331dot: -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Help for deceased Wikipedian

Kittybrewster was a delightful and valued contributor, a proper gentleman (I say this as an alumnus of a thousand-year-old school). As a relative of James Arbuthnot, involved in the Horizon scandal, his page is getting some views, but Talk is infested with semi-automated notices. Would some kind soul please help with archiving? I am rusty on this stuff, having edited only rarely since the Before Times. Thanks much, Guy (help! - typo?) 01:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I did some work on this and I think it's in better shape now. Hope it helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm surprised I don't see a red-dashed underline under that name. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 04:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

For future reference, when I find extremely long user talk pages from inactive users, generally what does the trick is this:

{{Archives}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| archive             = {{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}/Archive %(counter)d
| algo                = old(30d)
| counter             = 1
| maxarchivesize      = 100K
| minthreadsleft      = 10
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| archiveheader       = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| key                 = 
}}

Or, of course, whatever "counter" is, based on the currently existing archives. This will get lowercase sigmabot to come through and fix things automatically (and, unlike the naughty cluebot, it won't cram 1,000 kb of shit into one archive even though the max archive size is 100k). jp×g🗯️ 17:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Closure review for RFC at Talk:Lucy Letby

Following BilledMammal's close of Talk:Lucy Letby#RFC on Lead sentence, they responded to objections and another draft text with "I suggest that editors discuss it informally here, and if there is clear agreement that D is more suitable than C then switch to it; otherwise, remain with C. If you're not certain whether there is clear agreement, please ping me again and I'll be happy to assess in the context of the RfC."[32] An editor has now opened a subsection with another option, Talk:Lucy Letby#Option 4, pinging previous participants and saying "Please review the above close and following discussion about Option 4."[33]

Would it be more appropriate to overturn the close and re-open the RFC so that the new proposal can be considered within it, formally assessed and closed? Should the close be reviewed here? Or what?

(Disclosure: the close found that neither option A nor B had consensus and that something I'd written but not proposed did represent consensus, which was unexpected, flattering even, but I'm more worried about how we establish and respect consensus, especially when feelings are strong, than I am about my text.) NebY (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

The new version of the lead is within the scope of the close and was created by Jfire who endorsed the close. If that version doesn't find consensus then the version adopted by BilledMammal will remain. I don't understand why you brought this topic up here. Nemov (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

"Option 4" isn't in accord with the close and isn't the "Option D" that the closer referred to in comments afterwards. It's irrelevant that its drafter endorsed the close. The invention of a new way to review and modify RFCs is problematic and uninvolved guidance would be welcome. NebY (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

This is why I asked you what your specific objection was because Option 4 is a variant of Option D. I mistakenly labeled it 4 (I was going to fix it, but you linked to it here so it'll break links) in the new survey, but it's where the discussion about D ended up. If you don't like D/4 just oppose it. Bringing it here is a waste of time. Nemov (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

My 2¢: even though I endorsed it, I agree that the nature of the close was not typical of RFC closures, and I would welcome some guidance from fresh eyes about how to best proceed. I did draft the variant that's now receiving discussion and agree that it's within the scope of the close, but as I wrote on the talk page, I am also sympathetic to the argument that we should let the matter sit for a while, letting the wording from the RFC closure stand for now. Happy to accept doing that if it's the consensus on how to best proceed. Jfire (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with either BilledMammal's close or with discussing a new proposal right after it. Consensus can change, sometimes quickly. – Joe (talk) 21:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

• It's a bit of an "odd close" (and by the way I'm not sure characterising it as "the close found that neither option A nor B had consensus" is quite right: BM found "there is a clear numerical majority for A, and A is not incompatible with policy"...aka rough consensus). There's maybe an argument that there was a super-vote for an unsupported half-proposal. But, meh, on reflection (I supported option A in the RfC), the close was not unreasonable, let's move on. DeCausa (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Simply put, I believe the original close was invalid by picking Option C. Option C was never formally proposed as part of the RfC, it was an offhand suggestion by an editor partway through the debate, and didn't really have much discussion as a result. We had two choices, and the closer went with a third as a "compromise." Now we have a new Option D being proposed after the closing and... it seems like the entire RfC has done nothing but lead us into more debates over the phrasing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Unblock request User talk:TatyanaZhelyazkova

TatyanaZhelyazkova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Could an admin address this request? I did one already, and it languishes -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @331dot: -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

User moving page

Special:Contributions/Solo-man User moved pages without consensus, not sure how to properly revert, so posting here. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted the change at Trump wall. I will note there is nothing inheritly nefarious (or against the rules) about boldly moving a page, even if in this case it was ill-advised. Mach61 (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mach61: I know there's nothing wrong with being bold, but in this instance, without a discussion, was too bold. Thanx for the fix. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and move-protected the page at admin level. This WP:AP2-covered page should not be moved without a move request that closes with consensus to move. Thanks. El_C 01:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

El_C Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Of course. El_C 02:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Oliver Savell

This user continuously spreads his "experience" in the talk page of the Little Rascals film. Regardless of whether he's telling the truth or not, this information is not allowed on the article or on the talk page. Action must be taken against this user. 100.8.243.246 (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Sheesh...I've read every one of their edits, and they sure read like someone trolling us. Schazjmd (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I am telling the truth, I wouldn't make it up, it was a very embarrassing moment for me being dressed as a girl. Oliver Savell (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

If it will keep you happy I will not post anything more about myself on the talk page, I didn't think it would cause a problem. Oliver Savell (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

It's too late. The damage is done. 100.8.243.246 (talk) 00:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

NOTHERE'd. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? 100.8.243.246 (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@100.8.243.246 SFR has blocked the user per WP:NOTHERE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

As for It's too late. The damage is done — I've revision-deleted the problematic edits, so damage undone. El_C 02:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Admin eyes needed

Could the admin crew logging in for duty please keep an eye on whatever is happening at Standoff at Eagle Pass? -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I think I've alerted all the relevant contributors (thus far) to WP:AP2-related WP:CTOPs. ScottishFinnishRadish has semi-protected the page. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I have eyes on it, but I also have 4700 pages on my watchlist and need to sleep soon. Any additional eyes are encouraged. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I've added the AP2 editnotice, I'll try to keep an eye on it for a bit. Let's see if the semiprotection quiets things down, otherwise for a powder keg like this I'd consider 500/30. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The semi-protection seems to have helped a lot for now. If the real world events escalate, I suspect you'll be right that ECP will be necessary. But I don't think we're there yet. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the assist all; came across it as I was stepping out for dinner and it looked in desperate need of admin attention.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Noting that following a protection request, I upgraded the protection level to WP:ECP and extended the duration for 6 months, as AP2, independently (unaware) of this thread. HTH. El_C 02:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Close Review requested for RFC at Talk:Donald Trump

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 review of the close of this RFC (with parent discussion here), by Vanderwaalforces. The underlying content debate was whether or not we should include a single sentence mention of the Abraham Accords article in the 'Foreign policy' section of Donald Trump.

There were many issues with the closer's rationale, which I pointed out to them at their Talk page (please see the link, as I don't want to reproduce all of that here). Cessaune agreed that many of my concerns were valid, and said they would've closed the discussion as "no consensus." Iamreallygoodatcheckers also mentioned they thought a "no consensus" close was more appropriate. In response, Vanderwaalforces said they would re-review the discussion and amend their close. After 4 days of no changes to the close, and no replies from Vanderwaals despite active editing, they said they'd "changed their mind" and wouldn't be engaging with the close review.

One of the more salient points about the original discussion: Of the editors who made reasonable attempts in the discussion, 13 voiced Support for the proposal and 9 voice Opposition. I know RFCs aren't a vote, but there was no policy-based reason to rule this discussion on the side of the minority. In addition, more users than myself have questioned the closer about their rationale on their talk page, and they've hardly responded at all. I think at a minimum, this close needs to be overturned; and ideally, someone can find it in their heart to re-close it. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

RFC non-participants (Trump RFC)

• Overturn This clearly falls under the purview of POTUS and, in that role, it was notable. A single sentence does not surpass WP:UNDUE. Moreover, the !votes seem to be clearly in favor. As I've stated at other RfC results, while it isn't vote counting, you cannot seriously look at something with a 3:2 majority opinion and conclude that consensus is the opposite is incorrect. It would be much more appropriate to say "no consensus". Without doing so, you are literally giving the minority the authority of the majority. While we are not a democracy, deciding an outcome like this and siding with the minority as a "consensus" is antithetical to general western principles when assessing what the "consensus" is. To be blunt, the closer of this decided "these arguments were better", not "what was the consensus in the discussion". Buffs (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  [ADDENDUM] from the closure "...they have been discussed and opposed by many editors in previous discussions, and there is no need to have an RfC to rehash the same arguments and sources. The issue has been settled by consensus, and the proposal is disruptive and tendentious". The idea that this discussion itself was "disruptive and tendentious" is the height of arrogance when more than half the people disagree. Buffs (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  I didn't !vote and I don't wish to speak for those who did. But I'm fairly certain the UNDUE arguments were about increasing the subsection's word count by 52%. 52%. Anyway, per Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures, closure review should not be used as an opportunity to re-argue the underlying dispute – even for uninvolved editors. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC) (Last sentence improperly inserted after reply, per REDACT.) ―Mandruss ☎ 04:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  If that was in fact their argument, it's not a very good one - the 'Israel' subsection two sentences long. In the broader scope of the article, the proposal would've resulted in a 0.069% expansion of the Presidency section, and a 0.036% expansion of the article. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  Agree to disagree on that. I think DUE can apply within the context of a single subsection. Per sources, how significant are the Accords compared to what's already there? Significant enough to justify a 52% increase? Maybe, maybe not. I have no opinion, just saying it's a very legitimate argument. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn. While I have some reservations about the specific wording of the RfC, a majority of the oppose !votes related to the fact that the Accords were criticized or that they were deemed unsuccessful. These should have been given less weight, not more. The support !votes were backed by reliable sources, while the oppose !votes were not. A more pressing issue is that the WP:BLUDGEONING was allowed to get as bad as it was, including a few editors for and against who picked fights with a significant number of !voters who they disagreed with and are continuing to bludgeon at User talk:Vanderwaalforces/Archives/2024/01 (January)#Close at Trump. A lot of the discussion was stifled by this, making any sort of consensus impossible. It should have been brought to ANI a month ago, and it's still ongoing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  concur Buffs (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• uninvolved Comment: I am concerned that the close focused on how the various arguments convinced the closer, rather than how they convinced other editors in the discussion. Weight should be assigned based on reasonable application of policy by those responding and supporting sourcing, rather than which content argument the closer found better. A close against a 60% majority should focus on why the policy based arguments of the minority were sufficient to not only override a rough consensus by the numbers, but to swing consensus to the minority. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn (uninvolved): I basically agree with Thebiguglyalien and Buffs. I count a 12/10 support/oppose vote count. This I'd normally read as a "no consensus", but especially strong arguments on one side or the other could sway it, especially towards support as support has the slim majority. The closer instead swung towards oppose, and I read the oppose arguments as actually particularly weak for the reason Thebiguglyalien and Buffs listed above: the Accords being criticized or unsuccessful is not a policy-based reason not to include a mention of them. That Trump's personal involvement in them was relatively slight is slightly stronger, but not good as we regularly include information about things an administration did in the articles about presidents, and Trump's administration definitely did do a lot of the work on the Accords per the sources. Personally I would have closed as a rough consensus for inclusion, and I see a no consensus close as also very reasonable, but not a consensus for exclusion. Loki (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus to include. That close simply doesn't reflect the discussion that gave rise to it. There was certainly not a consensus to exclude; and I would say that consensus to include has a higher than normal bar in that case, because of WP:ONUS and the sheer number of times that similar ideas have been rejected on that talk page in the past.—S Marshall T/C 23:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think I'm involved. I do recall editing that talk page once, when I closed this RfC, but I don't recall ever participating as an editor.—S Marshall T/C 23:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn to include (uninvolved) basically agree with the comments of the other overturn voters so I won't repeat them in detail. In sum, the support side should have been given more weight as their sources applied WP:BALASP and were better-quality sources as well, as can be seen from the examples in the closing statement. The oppose side focused more on the significance of the event itself rather than on whether the event was a significant-enough aspect of Trump's presidency to mention in his wikibio (and no policy suggests it needs to be a unique or defining aspect to be included -- WP:BALASP says something different); these are weak arguments that should result in downweighing of votes. So after weighing the votes, the majority is stronger than the numbers suggest. Also the bludgeoning and general hostility in the pre-RFC, RFC, and post-RFC closer's talk page discussion was really noticeable. WP:CCC, there was nothing procedurally wrong with the RFC. Levivich (talk) 01:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I'm surprised that I seem to be the first person to note this, but shouldn't the IP's comment have been struck or even removed? While the general topic of Donald Trump is fine, the RfC seems to be clearly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, I mean the lead of Abraham Accords says "The Abraham Accords are bilateral agreements on Arab–Israeli normalization". And even if we put aside one of the countries being call United Arab Emirates, there are several editors who refer to Arab countries (or similar) and Israel in their reply. The IP's comment is clearly not an edit request. So I don't quite get why people not only failed to strike their comments or at least note they shouldn't be participating but were even replying to them (directly or indirectly). I don't think it makes a difference to the result, as they look to be the only non extended confirmed editor involved but still let's remember there's a reason why arbcom decided to limit non extended confirmed editors from participating in anything related the conflict besides edit requests and so we should generally enforce it especially at this time and in a case where it so clearly relates to the conflict as this. (Note while the discussion relates to stuff before the recent extreme flareup in the conflict, the IP specifically brought up the flareup.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn, per Buffs and Levivich. The supports cited sources saying the event was a big deal, to which the opposes met with their own opinions that it was not. Those are not stronger, they are not even of equal value. --GRuban (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn to include (uninvolved in this article, but have interacted elsewhere with some opposers) By my count, it was 12 that Support inclusion and 10 that Oppose, counting only explicit use of those bolded terms and excluding any other bolded phrasing. At the very least, the close should have been no consensus, not exclude, although I believe the correct close would have been Include.

The closer Vanderwaalforces said:

"The opponents of the proposal argue that the Abraham Accords are not a meaningful or lasting foreign policy accomplishment, and are mostly a media event and a PR campaign for Trump and his allies." Yes, of course; it's a truism that the signing was a media event/photo op--just like innumerable other such events in the modern presidency and modern politics everywhere, from the surrender on the USS Missouri to GW Bush's speech atop a pile of WTC rubble. That such events were staged for the camera and microphone does not make them automatically not meaningful or significant, as the opposers would have people believe, at least in this one particular case. Numerous mainstream RS used terms such as "significant", "landmark", "game changer" to describe the Accords, which were signed at the White House with Trump presiding. Disregarding extensive coverage that included such characterizations of the ceremony and the Accords in plain text in reliable sources, opposers of inclusion simply substituted their own personal judgement and undisguised contempt for Trump as a justification to exclude the content. And for no good reason that I can see, the closer agreed with that approach. I don't criticize opposers for holding Trump in contempt. I criticize their disregard for the way Wikipedia operates: that the content of articles is not to be determined by personal political opinions held by editors; it is to be determined by what reliable sources publish, no matter how contemptible the subjects of the reporting may be.

The opposers seemed to think the outcome of the Accords must be positive, otherwise the subject could not be mentioned in a section of the Trump article about his presidency, a point made concisely in the RFC discussion by Loki. The opposers' personal geopolitical analyses and predictions about the success, failure, or ultimate impact of the Accords did not, by definition, constitute a policy-based argument. Numerous RS reports and commentaries about the importance and future of the Accords, as adduced in the RFC by editors on both sides of question, only further illustrated the significance and noteworthiness of the Accords, readily justifying inclusion of a sentence about the ceremony and the Accords, regardless of how many RS reports and commentaries were positive or negative about the matter.

The closer, in his summary of the opposers' rationale, wrote of the Accords:

"They are also not a defining or unique feature of his presidency, as other presidents have also brokered peace deals in the region".

Where to begin? Again, the opposers, with apparent agreement from the closer, substitute their personal political analysis of an event in world diplomacy which received extensive coverage in RS that runs contrary to the opposers' dismissive personal opinions. As for other presidents who brokered peace deals...by the so-called logic espoused by the opposers and the closer, Wikipedia articles about Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan and probably any others one cares to name, should not describe, even in a single sentence, their efforts to broker peace in the Middle East, or anywhere else. They all did it, so why should we even bother to mention it? That's the tortured logic that results from the substitution of editors' personal political bias in place of summarizing plain text about prominent events published in numerous mainstream reliable sources.

See the following examples from the RFC discussion of the opposers' dismissive personal opinions and conclusions as a basis for article content, in disregard of Wikipedia policies on Original Research and Neutral Point of View:

"The agreement was not significant because the parties were not in conflict"

"the purported significance of the cleverly-branded 'accords'"

"the principal objection is that this was a Trump media event" (The objection referred to was that of Wikipedia opposing editors, not any reliable source discounting the event.)

An editor's description of their thinking about the matter of Trump and the Accords:

"I probably have a prior belief that it is fluff".

An editor used the following phrase in the discussion, apparently to describe Donald Trump:

"overblown, self-obsessed, narcissistic, cartoon animal circus performer carnival barker huxter showman". I'll stand corrected if the editor was describing someone or something else.

In the context of collaboratively writing a neutral biographical article, none of these quotes from opposers in the RFC discussion, of which the closer was fully aware, stand as persuasive or even legitimate policy-based contributions. DonFB (talk) 02:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn to include per Levivich and DonFB. Putting aside the numerical advantage, arguments based on reliable sources should take precedence over arguments based on personal opinions of the significance. Rlendog (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn I'm not going to weigh in on the include/no-con debate but given both sides had sound arguments and weight of numbers favored inclusion it is really hard to see this as consensus against. Springee (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

RFC participants (Trump RFC)

• (involved) Overturn close - The close has two parts to it: a summary of both sides and a decision rationale. The former is mostly good from my reading with the exception of a couple problems, mentioned by PhotogenicScientist at User talk:Vanderwaalforces. The main issue with this close is the decision rationale where they conclude there to be a consensus against including the Abraham Accords. They sum it as "The opponents have provided more convincing and substantiated reasons for their position, and have addressed the points raised by the supporters more effectively." This is not about number of arguments per se or even how many were rebutted; though, it should be pointed out that the discussion demonstrated that the support side was far more diligent on addressing the points made by the oppose side. PhotogenicScientist also addressed this well when they said: "Just from a quick scan of the discussion, for votes that were ANSWERED in some way, 2 were Supports and 8 were Opposes; for votes that went largely UNANSWERED, 8 were Supports and 1 was an Oppose. How on earth do you look at that discussion, and think that the Oppose voters are being more responsive and receptive to discussion? Anyway the rest of the meat of their decision rationale are based on (1) WP:WEIGHT in scope of the size of the article and (2) demonstration of personal relevance. Firstly, both of these points are fairly subjective and lie in the gray areas of content decision making; so for a closer to find a consensus for the minority position (the vote was 13 support, 9 oppose), the minority reasoning should be clearly superior or proof that the majority was not within policy and guideline. Ultimately, both sides provided reasonable and policy/guideline-grounded arguments with reliable sourcing. The WEIGHT argument is weak since the one sentence proposed is so negligible to the totality of the article, and frankly any true decision based on the subjective personal relevance to Trump is not a evenhanded decision-making its a super vote, especially when made against the will of the majority. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 20:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  well-stated Buffs (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse as it appears to be just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. ValarianB (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  Did you actually read any of the points I made at their talk page? Would you like to answer to at least one of them? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  Really? This bears no similarity to the examples at WP:IDONTLIKEIT. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  I concur Buffs (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  The irony is that this endorse vote does bear a similarity to the examples at WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Levivich (talk) 01:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  It would appear that ValarianB !voted against an argument that they didn't read on the basis of an essay that they haven't read. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  it would appear there's a gaggle of hens clucking about opinions they do not like. be better, as our former first lady once aid. ValarianB (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  In your defense, dismissing all contrary input as some form of 'IDONTLIKEIT' is much easier than crafting a well-reasoned response. That is, as long as you don't care about being taken seriously. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  Be careful what you link to, Grasshopper, lest you shoot down your own argument. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

• The 3rd option IMO the close was within a closer's discretion, but S. Marshall's point above is quite reasonable, as there is clearly no consensus to include. If we want to re-close it that way I'd find that acceptable. The fact that the proposed addition has perennially failed to gain consensus is important. Zaathras (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  As Zaathras has said, there was clearly no consensus to include -- so this review is about a distinction without a difference. SPECIFICO talk 03:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  So, you now think this "very thorough and thoughtful" close was in fact closed incorrectly? Intriguing.

  You know full well at least one major difference between a close of "no consensus" versus "consensus against": This item would then not go on that article's "Consensus items" list. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  There's nothing in my brief comment above to suggest that I think the poll was closed incorrectly. As numerous editors have already stated, per WP:ONUS, it is immaterial whether there was a "consensus to omit" or "no consensus to include." I don't see any policy-based criticisms of the close here, just unsupported rehash of the RfC question, minus the discussion of sourcing and context. SPECIFICO talk 14:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  I mean, you said there was clearly no consensus to include and the discussion was closed as there is consensus, so. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  I stated, above, no consensus to include. That is not inconsistent with the close of consensus not to include. Is that clearer now? SPECIFICO talk 16:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  I see - you actually don't think the discussion should've been closed as no consensus to include, and instead maintain that the close of consensus to exclude was correct. Thanks for clarifying. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  I did not say that. Please don't put words into other editors' mouths. I'm confident my words initially (and as clarified in response to your ) are sufficient. My point was/is that this review is pointless. SPECIFICO talk 20:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  I too found your explanation confusing with respect to the previous discussion. Rephrasing it is one way to clarify your intent. I'm still not 100% sure on your meaning. If there is "no consensus to include" (as you're stating) that is indeed different from the conclusion by the closing admin which was "The consensus is against the proposal". There is indeed a difference. One says there is general agreement it should be excluded. The other is that there is no agreement on inclusion. While both result in the information not being included, one states the community says "don't include it" (affirmative) and the other says "eh, we don't agree on this" (inconclusive). The latter is MUCH easier to overcome in a later discussion ("We finally have agreement!" vs "Now we have two results that conflict"). Buffs (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  SPECIFICO, you have been at Trump long enough to know that this is not the case. It is not immaterial at all.

  • We have the consensus list for a reason, and outcomes of no consensus aren't on it. It's either consensus for or consensus against.
  • Outcomes of no consensus are free to be discussed at later dates, while outcomes of consensus for or consensus against are, while still technically free to be discussed, much harder to change given the fact that there was prior consensus.

  I hope I'm characterizing your argument right. Cessaune [talk] 03:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• (involved) "No consensus" is probably the least objectionable close option, but for some bizarre reason the editor chose to force a consensus where there wasn't one. Plus they didn't correctly weigh many of opposition votes which were quite poor. It's disappointing the closer didn't reflect and change this close. I would recommend someone else close it. Nemov (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn. While this isn't a vote, a !vote of 13-9 falling in favor of the 9 requires some pretty good arguments from the 9 side. Were the Oppose arguments good enough to sway the close against the direction of the wind? I don't think so.
  Side note: This was a no consensus (or even consensus for) outcome that should've been closed as such. At the very least, the closer should have amended their close. I'm quite disappointed that the closer in question failed on both these accounts. Closing CTOP articles is no easy task, and I feel that they failed to grasp this. It's clear from the current votes that the close is going to be overturned, and I don't get why the closer didn't just reclose. It's relatively clear to me that the closer should stay away from closing CTOP articles if this is the kind of thing people are going to have to deal with in the future. Cessaune [talk] 03:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  Based on what I've seen at their UTP, I think Vanderwaalforces has the capacity to learn from the well-reasoned comments here, and the potential to become an excellent closer. We don't have enough good closers to dismiss them so easily. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Cessane and Buffs: The consensus list at the article talk page serves only to indicate which BOLD edits may be reverted to restore a version and place the ONUS for an alternative on the editor who initiated the bold edit. Consensus can change, and in that respect there is no difference between "no consensus to include" and "consensus not to include".

  More significant, and quite problematic in my view, is that this heavily viewed and edited article page has developed various approaches and solutions to recurring issues that have arisen. Most of them relate to DUE WEIGHT, balance of detail between the main Trump page and subtopic pages, and other NPOV factors for this main page. They are valid WP:STEWARDSHIP of this page. These approaches have been hashed out and accepted by longtime editors there but are unknown or disregarded by others who are less experienced or familiar with them. In the uninvolved section of this review, we see several comments that rehash content and sourcing views that were rebutted in the RfC. I cringe to see editors counting votes (instead of reviewing the entirety of the RfC and its arguments, policy-based discussion and sourcing) to arrive at any conclusion about the closing assessment itself, which is the issue that should be discussed in this review.

  My comment about "no difference" relates to article content. That's our focus, and in my opinion it's not worth the time and attention to revisit a question like this over and over (and over) when there is no article content at stake. SPECIFICO talk 12:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  There is article content at stake - an item going on the "consensus list" has historically been a great way to shut down many future discussions about that article content, effectively ensuring it does not appear in the article. Just because a close of "no consensus" vs "consensus to exclude" makes little difference for article content today, it makes quite the difference for article content going forward.

  Also, The consensus list at the article talk page serves only to indicate which BOLD edits may be reverted to restore a version and place the ONUS for an alternative on the editor who initiated the bold edit - this is the case at ANY article, not a special privilege granted to this one by the consensus list. Any Bold edit may be Reverted, and then Discussed at the talk page - that applies all over. How Trump's consensus list is "special", is it's used to further shut down that Discuss phase. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  The consensus list is a red herring. Its purpose is just to keep certain longstanding content in place for our readers while any challenges or improvements proceed. I don't see any of the overturn comments on this thread addressing the central point as to whether there was any serious flaw in our closer's reasoning or application of policy or representation of the sources, policies and arguments discussed in the RfC. A close review is not just another bite at the apple after some editors are disappointed at the outcome. Frankly, to state the obvious, your opening statement was not a neutral request for commmunity review of the closer's work and set the tone for a thread here that is not really doing what is intended for AN. Unless something new or a new question comes up, I don't expect to participate further. SPECIFICO talk 15:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  There are many flaws with the close, specifically:

  • They have not brought peace or stability to the Middle East, and have been criticised by many sources, such as Time, The Intercept, Responsible Statecraft—this is not a valid argument at all. I don't even have to go into this.
  • ...they have been discussed and opposed by many editors in previous discussions, and there is no need to have an RfC to rehash the same arguments and sources. The issue has been settled by consensus, and the proposal is disruptive and tendentious—this is a flawed point. The RfC proved that the issue was far from settled. This shouldn't have been taken into account, because 13 people agreeing with addition basically discounts this.

  Remove these two points and the close falls apart. Cessaune [talk] 15:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  Frankly, to state the obvious, your opening statement was not a neutral request for commmunity review of the closer's work Any lack of neutrality is not obvious to me - care to elaborate? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  Eventually, inevitably, there will be article content at stake, and that's when the difference between "no consensus" and consensus against will actually matter. Sure, the outcome right now (excluding the proposed article content) may be the same, but six months from now? A distinction without a difference—there is a difference. Just not at the exact current moment. We have a process, and we can't simply disregard it because the outcome (as relating to article content) is the same. We might as well do away with the consensus list at that point. Because what's the actual point of even having a list of consensuses if the closes that generate the consensuses are faulty themselves?

  Pertaining to serves only to indicate which BOLD edits may be reverted to restore a version and place the ONUS for an alternative on the editor who initiated the bold edit—this applies to every consensus ever. This is not how the consensus list is used in practice. It's relatively rare for prior consensus is overturned, as it was here. Normally, proposals against consensus are closed as against consensus after three or so editors chime in.

  Counting !votes is one of a slew of entirely valid ways to arrive at a personal Overturn decision. Unless you are suggesting that the Oppose votes are more sophisticated than the Support !votes to such a degree that they deserved to override Support. If so, ScottishFinnishRadish says it much better than I can: A close against a 60% majority should focus on why the policy based arguments of the minority were sufficient to not only override a rough consensus by the numbers, but to swing consensus to the minority. That wasn't done here. Cessaune [talk] 15:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  Re: "The consensus list is a red herring. Its purpose is just to keep certain longstanding content in place for our readers while any challenges or improvements proceed." You basically proved my point right there. While there isn't consensus to include now, there may be later. There is already a majority opinion that it should be included. As Cessaune/SFR said, " A close against a 60% majority should focus on why the policy based arguments of the minority were sufficient to not only override a rough consensus by the numbers, but to swing consensus to the minority. That wasn't done here."

  Re: "I don't see any of the overturn comments on this thread addressing the central point as to whether there was any serious flaw in our closer's reasoning or application of policy or representation of the sources, policies and arguments discussed in the RfC." There are a LOT of people that disagree. This section alone addresses those points. If you choose not to see them, you are willfully ignoring them.

  Re: "A close review is not just another bite at the apple after some editors are disappointed at the outcome." Speaking of red herrings... I said it straight up and so did others. This isn't a matter of being solely disappointed by the outcome. We didn't even participate in the discussion in the first place. This is an assessment of the close and that it wasn't in-line with policy nor common sense. By this logic, I can just dismiss everything you said because the only reason you have your conclusion is based solely on the fact that you got what you wanted and you're horribly biased (see how bad that sounds?). Buffs (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  Re: "I cringe to see editors counting votes..." When you claim "consensus", but don't even have a majority viewpoint, it sorta discounts the entire conclusion that a consensus exists. At 13-9, arguably the conclusion should be a consensus in the other way. Buffs (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn - I recommend that a panel of three editors go over the RFC & make a decision. Indeed, concerning 21st century American political pages, perhaps a panel of three would be best for all RFC closures in future. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  At a minimum, it might be a good idea to end NACs in AP2 or even CTOP in general. An editor who has only been here 5 months should probably not be closing these, and I think most RfCs and other discussions requiring closure probably fall under WP:BADNAC. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  I would support such a proposal; not because the qualified non-admin closers make bad decisions (they don't) because even if the close is valid, in a CT we will get people kicking and screaming that it was a BADNAC, and the community doesn't save time by allowing a non-admin to make the close. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  People are always going to whine, and we shouldn't cater to baseless whiners. That's being said, this is a discussion for a different location. Cessaune [talk] 18:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  A lot of NACs are not about complex article content issues; e.g. these recent examples by me.[34][35][36] Even if you drew a line between the article and the ATP, some article content issues are too minor to require an admin; e.g. this. AP2/CTOP do not obviate the benefit of competent NACs for things like this. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  I was thinking more about formal processes like RfCs and maybe a few others like XFD, ANI etc. Most talkpage discussions don't even really require formal closure, so I don't see that it would affect that. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  Ok, if you make the assumptions that admin = good closer and non-admin ≠ good closer. I wouldn't. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  That's an assumption made by Wikipedia policy, not us. Loki (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  WP:NAC is only an essay. Cessaune [talk] 18:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  That you genuinely think "admin = good closer and non-admin ≠ good closer." is highly concerning... Everyone makes mistakes. Their opinion is just as valid as the next person's. Buffs (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  There are certainly admins who make terrible closes and non-admins who make good ones. But admins have at least been vetted by the community at some point, and are entrusted to patrol contentious topics and per WP:ADMIN to take responsibility for judging the outcomes of certain discussions. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  A better idea than ending NACs in AP2 would be to TBAN the core long term disruptive, bludgeoning, tendentious editors. We're all reading the same RFC page, the same pre-RFC discussion, the same discussion on the closer's talk page, and this discussion... and I know you all see what I see. I've been seeing it for years -- the same fucking names -- and I know you all see them too, for even longer than I've been seeing them. The problem isn't NACs, it's not that close reviews are futile, it's not some natural phenomenon, it's the same few people making the consensus-forming process like pulling teeth, for years and years. There's a few like this in just about every topic area. Levivich (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  True dat, but AE is thataway. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  To be clear, I lament not that no one is filing for sanctions, but that anyone can look at the RFC and think the person who should be excluded is the closer (or all non-admin closers). The closer is not the problem here, and I say that as someone voting to overturn the close. Reminds me of a story...

  Three little wikipigs built a house of straw, and a wolf came by and blew it down. So they revised the building code to prohibit houses made of straw. Then they built a house made of sticks, and a wolf came by and blew it down, so they revised the building code to prohibit houses made of straw or sticks. Then they built a house made of bricks, and a wolf came by and could not blow it down, and the wikipigs congratulated themselves on their building code revisions. The wolf broke down the door and ate them all. Moral of the story: stop messing with the building code and deal with the wolf. Levivich (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  Now where's that little boy who cried wolf gone off to now... Buffs (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  Sure, I've felt for as long as I can remember that there is far too much tolerance of problematic editors who have "tenure". Little to nothing has changed in ten years, so I conclude that it's just too deeply entrenched in the culture/ethos. TBAN is not a death sentence, but it's treated like one. Indef is something worse than a death sentence, maybe death by drawing and quartering. I don't expect this to change within my remaining lifetime, which is partly why I'm semi-retired. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

The futility of close review #2

For previous discussion on the proximity of close review to rehash/forum shopping and on proposals to improve the process, see this thread from last October. SPECIFICO talk 19:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

A topic for WP:VPP, not here (as evidenced by the fact that the linked discussion went nowhere). ―Mandruss ☎ 19:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion does not always reach immediate resolution - as can be seen from this RfC. Thanks for the refactor. SPECIFICO talk 20:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Regardless, this page is not where we make policy changes, as I understand it. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I do think the structure that came out of that discussion has at least partially helped. The non-participants section at least doesn't have reply to reply to reply bickering that is in some way inevitable of editors who have been on opposite sides of a contentious RFC. Maybe it would be helpful to find some way to cut back on that in the participants section.
The endless back and forth doesn't generally add anything to the discussion, and arguments that relitigate the close should be given less weight in any close of the review. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I say out of that discussion, but rather it came out of a discussion at village pump that took up some of the points raised at ANI. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Vanderwaalforces input request

@Vanderwaalforces:, there are several in the community who would like to have your input on this matter. Given that you closed it and it is now being addressed here, could you please clarify? If you are unwilling to respond to community feedback, I would respectfully request that you rescind your closure. Buffs (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

notified user on talk page, something that may have been missed in this discussion. Buffs (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

What should they clarify? It's seeming like there's enough community input coalescing to overturn this close. At this point, I no longer think it would be prudent for them to try amending their close, and that it'd be best if an admin could re-close the discussion, seeing as its become particularly contentious, and in a CTOP area (recommended by WP:NAC). PhotogenicScientist (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

If Vanderwaalforces is unwilling to be accountable to the community, I retract this comment. That would be requirement #1. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:12, 26 January 2024 (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.

Unblock decline review Raja Atizaz Ahmed Kiyani

Raja Atizaz Ahmed Kiyani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I'd've posted to Wikipedia:Administrator review, but it's inactive. User contends I declined his unblock because I'm friends with the blocking admin. I'm afraid that's not the case, but he saw this conversation on my talk page with @Bbb23:, and came to that conclusion. .

The dif's for the decline and discussion is HERE. Please review my decline for the sake of keeping everything above board and in order. (Yamla removed TPA, so replies might be hard.) Thanks, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Endorse but, Wikipedia:Administrative action review, let's go! El_C 22:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that's what I was looking for though. It's hard to tell using this damn phone -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I have +10K blocks and +10K protections and I only became aware of it the other week. But a forum is a forum, I suppose. So long as people know it exists! El_C 23:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

And Joe Roe just closed it. Unlucky. Oh well. Can't fairly represent em all. But I agree that this is a nothing-burger. El_C 23:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse We can handle it here, or there, but we are already here. Pretty easy case to review and the actions by all admins involved seem pretty run of the mill standard for a disruptive sockpuppet. Dennis Brown 2¢ 22:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse The editor did not make a convincing case to be unblocked, and their assumption that two administrators are friends just because one made a quip in a discussion with the other is pretty strange. I try to be friendly with other administrators but only a handful are actually friends. The evidence would have to be much stronger than a brief joke about jump starting a car. Cullen328 (talk) 07:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• Not to mention the fact that Dfo did not come over and jump-start our car. As long as we have a gaggle of admins in one place, I don't suppose any of my many close admin friends would like to do it?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  Get a horse. Get a horse! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse decline when they haven't even engaged with their block reason in their unblock request. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 10:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

U4C ratification vote is open

Since it hasn't been properly mentioned yet on enwiki: the vote to ratify the U4C is now open until 23:59:59 on February 2nd. More information about the vote is available on Meta here.

The U4C, or Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee, is a co-equal body with other high-level decision making bodies (e.g. ArbComs and AffCom). Its purpose is to serve as final recourse in the case of systemic failures by local groups to enforce the UCoC.

As a reminder of the timeline, the Universal Code of Conduct (UCOC) was approved by the Board in December 2020. In March 2022, the Enforcement Guidelines (EG) for the UCOC was subject to a Wikimedia-wide vote. The vote only passed with 57% support, which was recognized as too low, and the guidelines were subsequently amended, passing a second vote in January 2023 with 76% support. This current vote ratifies the policy establishing a committee to investigate failures to enforce the UCOC. Giraffer (talk) 09:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps a watchlist notification? BilledMammal (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I have requested one here. RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 11:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

A notification was posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 76#Vote on the Charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee on January 19. isaacl (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Is there any venue where people are discussing the pros and the cons? Cullen328 (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd be interested in this as well. A summary of the UCOC's goals and motivations and effects by someone I trust and in a concise way would be very helpful. Is it just "oh we need a code of conduct like all the other FOSS websites on the internet"? Or is there an actual need for something like this, for example, if there is a lot of anarchy on smaller wikis and the stewards are requesting it? I really have no idea, and metawiki pages are not always very decipherable in how they are written. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Some of the UCoC came out of FRAM, where the lack of global expectations was one of the many shortcomings of the WMF, some of it came from the 2030 strategic plan, and some of it came from the experience of volunteers, particularly on small wikis. The UCoC was adopted by the board without any direct community ratification. That was then followed by the Enforcment Guidelines to say how the UCoC would actuallly be enforced, whose history Giraffer noted opening this discussion. One element of the enforcement guidelines was the establishment of the U4C, whose charter is now being discussed and voted upon. Pros/cons of the charter (what Cullen suggested) would be pretty different than the UCoC because they're trying to do different things. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

There has been ongoing discussion since last year at meta:Special:MyLanguage/Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Charter. isaacl (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah! Well given that I was actively looking for an announcement and couldn't find it, the added visibility here is probably for the better. Giraffer (talk) 08:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Just as a note (and not to preclude the posting of further notifications in other places), the miscellaneous village pump is typically where the WMF posts notifications of general interest to the English Wikipedia community. This practice pre-dates the deployment of the WMF village pump, and shortly after its deployment, the WMF said it would continue to use the village pump page of greatest relevance or other specialized venues, as it felt that would reach the widest audience. isaacl (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I will note the U4C is explicitly not a global arbcom and has equal mandates to investigate failures to enforce the UCoC and to do training and community building so those failures don't happen and so enforcement can be done at a local rather than global level. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

What it is, what it isn't, that is the question — rhetorical: the answer is vague, disconcerting. El_C 06:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Huh? This wasn't the answer to any question. Giraffer choose to focus on part of the work of the UCoC in their helpful summary. I replied pointing out there's more to that work. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

More work to erode the indepdence and self-governance of the English Wikipedia project, surely. El_C 12:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Suspicious link on user page

I found a user who has something on their page that has a "Mods click here" link to something unknown and I'm afraid it might lead to something like an IP logger. I tried removing it but the user responded by removing everything off my profile in revenge and reinstated the link. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Coronaverification Pyraminxsolver (talk) 07:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

You didn't notify the user of the discussion here, per the instructions at the top. I have done so. I have also removed the suspicious link from their userpage requesting in my edit summary that they not restore the link and instead explain it here. ^{(non admin)} Polyamorph (talk) 07:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

See Rickrolling and the Rick Roll Link Generator site. Kids today...I blame the parents...etc. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't click random links, and regardless of the final target, the inclusion of random external links is not appropriate. Polyamorph (talk) 08:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Very sensible. It's usually possible figure out what a URL is pointing at without clicking it. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

It is a rick roll link, don't ask me how I know. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 08:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't see anything about the site more dangerous than any other novelty site. I made my own page there and it gave me an analytics page, but it doesn't contain viewers' IPs or anything like that, just a view counter. Fundamentally, one should never click on a link if one isn't comfortable with the site's webmaster knowing one's IP. If that's something one isn't comfortable with, VPNs are an option. (Wikipedia blocks VPNs, but most have some sort of whitelist setting.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 10:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The issue is not that the target in this case is harmless, it's that placing an obfuscated external link anywhere on wikipedia, even as a harmless prank, is not productive and may indeed be harmful. Not something to be encouraged, IMO. Polyamorph (talk) 11:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not too convinced that it warrants removal. Yes, we shouldn't encourage it, but it is their user page. If you don't trust the link, don't click on it. It's far easier to IP log/do something malicious with domains with similar names, like the one in this blogpost 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

While I would agree with you for most (harmless) userpage content, the WP:USERPAGE guidelines state Inappropriate internal or external links that unexpectedly direct the reader to unreasonable locations or violate prohibitions on linking may also be removed or remedied by any user. Polyamorph (talk) 11:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, that's weird. It was added in this edit, referring to this discussion, which didn't talk about what links are appropriate on user pages. The external links guidelines should be about articles, and applying them to userspace seems to be overly restrictive. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Johnuniq was active in that 2010 discussion and has posted on the talk page of the user concerned. @Johnuniq: please could you clarify this? Polyamorph (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I could clarify anything from 2010, however we should not encourage obfuscated external links that might be funny or might compromise your account or computer. Johnuniq (talk) 02:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Yep, if you don't trust the link, don't click on it. Fonts are tricky too e.g. google and googIe look identical with my settings, but with monospaced text google vs googIe. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The rickroll and use of the word mod, along with the retaliatory blanking and some other purposeful incoherence, indicates a relatively inexperienced user here more familiar with the norms of other sites/forums. Nothing malicious stands out, but I'm not sure what the benefit of allowing obscured external links is. CMD (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't block VPNs as a general rule. We block connections that are used abusively, which does tend to converge on "all VPNs" at long enough timescales, but no networks are blocked (by Wikipedia) from reading, and trusted editors with a legitimate need to use anonymizers to edit can request IP block exemption. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

You sure? It's my understanding that we do mass block known VPN IP addresses. User:ST47ProxyBot comes to mind. This happens both at the enwiki level and at the global level. Before I became an admin, when I forgot to turn off my VPN, I was usually unable to edit. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I often use a VPN. As for the editor, interesting filter log. Also edit warring. Doug Weller talk 19:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Note that administrators automatically get exempted from IP autoblocks, so any blocks on the VPN IP address wouldn't affect an administrator. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 01:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes administrators are automatically granted Wikipedia:IP block exemption except for Tor, so aren't affected by VPN blocks unless editing from a non admin account or well Tor.

More generally, I agree with Novem Linguae here, we proactively hard block VPNs meaning without really requiring evidence for abuse or even use on Wikipedia because history has provided sufficient evidence they will be abused if someone finds one. I'm fairly sure that this includes stuff like colocation sites and webhosts even when we have no evidence that these are actually used for general purpose outgoing connections. Note also this can happen at both the en level and the global level, e.g. Meta:No open proxies and Meta:Apple iCloud Private Relay.

This doesn't mean every VPN IP is hardblocked, it depends on the efforts of those involved in blocking them, the availability of data and whether we have access, etc. (I think sometimes we've paid for that data but don't quote me on that.) So even without IPBE you might find you're editing from an address not yet blocked depending on the service you use. And I'm sure people tend to make much more of an effort when there has been abuse. So while abuse is involved in whether something is blocked in several ways, it's not a specific prerequisite for any block.

While some of these efforts are newish coming significantly in response to the rise of P2P proxies [37] [38] [39], I don't think it's accurate to say it's a new policy. It's really part of Wikipedia:Open proxies which as those blog posts mention go back to 2006.

I'm sure some of us remember when after long controversy over how to handle AOL addresses we hardblocked them indefinitely quickly once they became open proxies Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive63#Block of AOL ranges per m:Meta:No open proxies. This didn't last long as AOL began to use X-forwarded-for Wikipedia:AOL#December 2006 but I think it illustrates the point that we've always been willing to just hardblock such IPs.

Note that while we'd always had problems with AOL, I don't think there was any evidence it was worse from AOL. The problem was simply the shared IPs in a days where it was a lot less common made it difficult to deal with. And you can see in discussions about when they made AOL OpenRide available to anyone, the comments weren't we're seeing much more abuse because of this so we're hard blocking them indefinitely, but rather they're now open proxies so there's a potential for abuse so we're hard blocking them.

Also I'd add that even when not proactive, policy IMO often did affect how we handled such blocks. For example, if a sock used a different ISP, a library, whatever; we might block it for a short time or even not at all depending whether we expect the sock to come back to it and how many other good-faith editors might be affected by it. If a sock used an IP which we were fairly sure was an open proxy/VPN, AFAIK we'd generally hardblock it for a long time no matter whether we saw thousands of other edits from this IP with no evidence that any of them were abusive and whether we expected the sock to continue to use it.

(This would also depend on the specific admin, I'm sure a bunch didn't and of course many wouldn't have realised it was a proxy. But the point is if some admin did do so, I don't think there was much room for challenge with the open proxy/VPN except for claiming it wasn't one. In other words, both for the originally blocking admin and for any review, the key question would not be 'evidence for abuse' but 'evidence that this was indeed an open proxy/VPN or webhost, colocation site etc'. If an admin did it with the other IP, they'd need to be able to demonstrate some reason why it was necessary or this block was likely to be reduced or reversed if challenged.)

As reflected in the blog posts and discussions about iCloud's VPN, Meta:Talk:Apple iCloud Private Relay and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive334#Upcoming Apple's iCloud Private Relay (sort-of VPN), there has been some talk about whether we should change how we handle things but so far this hasn't happened. Indeed the prediction that iCloud's service would force some change or lead to lots of complaints doesn't really seem to true. (Actually as pointed out in that discussion, T-Mobile issues while not open proxy related are arguably a bigger deal.)

Even the prediction it would lead to everyone doing it is somewhat unclear. While Google does seem to be implementing something, it's not clear AFAIK whether it would actually apply to Wikipedia. It sounds like Google's efforts are only targeted at known trackers i.e. Facebook etc so I'm not sure they'd relay traffic to our servers.

IMO if there is a change and we stop proactively hardblocking VPNs, it's likely to come from when we start to hide IPs and the tools etc that were developed for that.

Nil Einne (talk) 01:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Ultimately, the only thing that would allow us to abandon large-scale blocking of proxy infrastructure is a fundamentally reworked technical infrastructure and – at least so far – IP masking doesn't seem to be bringing that. Our tooling (blocks, CheckUser) is (and will for the foreseeable future continue to be) heavily reliant on IPs as identifiers, and we're essentially forced to clamp down on spoofing infrastructure until that changes. With how popular VPNs have become not just among people who have a "sound" use case for them, but also among people who were just fed questionable promises about inherent security and privacy benefits by Youtube sponsor segments, that is of course pretty suboptimal, but I don't really see a way around it.

Perhaps somewhat ironically, our "anti-privacy" stance that people have to turn off their proxies to edit is a result of a more meaningful pro-privacy stance, namely that we ask for extremely little identifying information aside from IPs. There is no intrusive fingerprinting, no "give us your phone number to register", no "must use gmail for signup": The only things needed to get an account are a username and a password – and people can even skip that registration step entirely. --Blablubbs (talk) 14:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Two users enforcing made up rules that violate community consensus

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.

---

At Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language, two experienced users whom I would have considered in good standing up till now, User:Viennese Waltz and User:Baseball Bugs, are trying to enforce their private rules, repeatedly ignoring all requests to follow the applicable guideline. Here's the sequence of events:

• 01-25 12:30: Viennese Waltz inserting {{tl:bat}} ... {{tl:bab}} [40]
• 01-25 19:50: Viennese Waltz expanding {{tl:bat}} ... {{tl:bab}} [41]
• 01-26 08:38: SebastianHelm removing {{tl:bat}} ... {{tl:bab}} [42] with reference to discussion.
• 01-26 19:50: Baseball Bugs reverting without discussion. [43]
• 01-26 19:50: Sebastian asking Baseball Bugs respectfully about which policy they applied, politely requesting undo of their revert. [44]

Both users never listened to my concern that their actions were against our applicable guideline, stubbornly ignoring requests to provide a policy or guideline for their actions and instead came up with more and more absurd links.

I'm bringing this up here because I am asking our community to clarify that trying to enforce your own rules against community consensus is inacceptable, even if you found another editor who agrees with you. ◅ Sebastian Helm 🗨 18:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Pinging User:Favonian and User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, both of whom are experienced in dealing with the banned user. I would just add that none of your comments on this issue yet have addressed the basic fact that this user is not allowed to edit Wikipedia. That includes your own talk page, where you have just reinstated another of the user's edits. --Viennese Waltz 18:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I've found that editors enforcing their own WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is quite common on Wikipedia, and there's no real recourse. Any sort of improvement or new approach in this area would be welcome. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• WP:BMB refers to a section of the banning policy, which in a different section (WP:BANREVERT) says that edits by banned users may be reverted by anyone without regard to 3RR. It goes on to say: "this does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor" (emphasis in original). It has long been a convention that if a user in good standing undoes another user's BANREVERT revert, they are taking responsibility for it and should not be reverted again on the same basis. That is the start of an edit war, and we don't want that. On the other hand, the banned editor in this case is a known dedicated refdesk troll, so the question ought to go to SebastianHelm why you felt the need to restore their edits? Also, these rules are not "made up", go see the links if you disagree. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

That section says: “changes that are obviously helpful […] can be allowed to stand”. And nowhere does it allow hiding other users' constructive edits. ◅ Sebastian Helm 🗨 18:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't consider using the reference desk to entertain a banned troll playing word puzzles to be "obviously helpful", but I guess there can be a range of opinions on that. Hatting discussions started by sockpuppets is a fairly standard practice, though, when continuing the discussion is unlikely to be useful. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

If use of the reference desks was restricted to their intended purpose, rather than as a forum for all sorts of unsourced waffle, it would be a lot easier to deal with such problems. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

That may be true, but at least one of the users in question stands out for repeatedly adding waffle. So far, I found that harmless and rather amusing, but we have to be fair and apply that standard to all. ◅ Sebastian Helm 🗨 18:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Personally I don't see a problem with repeatedly adding waffle, though my waistline might disagree. But on a more serious note, word puzzles are not really the purpose of the Reference Desk (nor is entertaining banned editors). Her LTA page specifically advises revert, block, ignore whenever she pops up. I'm surprised to see anyone, especially an admin who was around for her original tenure, arguing for keeping VX4C's shitposting. I even checked that you were actually an admin and this wasn't an impersonation account, because making nonsense AN/ANI reports about people who revert her edits is a classic VX4C tactic. Oh, and the IP making false claims about policy and the existence of her ban that "corroborates [your] impression" is another classic VX4C tactic. To put it simply, you swallowed the bait whole. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Support the hatting of banned users playing word games at the reference desk. Deleting would have been even better than hatting. Not sure why anyone would unhat that--no reason has been put forth here--nor how hatting can be accurately characterized as "enforcing made up rules that violate community consensus," when WP:BMB/WP:BRV have community consensus. Levivich (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@SebastianHelm: WP:DFTT is worth a read, because this kind of community wrangling over policy interpretation is exactly what the banned user revels in and encourages. Revert, block, ignore.. Acroterion (talk) 00:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• @SebastianHelm: See WP:NOTBURO. There are no rules about the ref desks but entertaining trolls is unhelpful. To avoid sanctions, please don't do it. Johnuniq (talk) 02:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with Johnuniq and Levivich and Acroterion and the other editors commenting further above. Such good sense in one place! We should have zero tolerance for LTA trolls, who are deeply disturbed people as shown by their astonishingly bad behavior. Revert, block and ignore. This very conversation is a feather in the cap for a very sad person who cannot control themself. Cullen328 (talk) 07:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreeing likewise. WP:DENY should be applied against this tenacious, site-banned troll everywhere on Wikipedia, using all available remedies: block, revert, hatting, etc. Favonian (talk) 10:52, 27 January 2024 (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:Davit Hambardzumyan

Again reporting Davit Hambardzumyan (talk · contribs) for adding unsourced content despite multiple warnings and a previous block. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 12:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Someone please do something because the user keeps disrupting the project. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 10:33, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week (site wide this time): User talk:Davit Hambardzumyan#Block. El_C 15:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

File mover, template editor, and patrolling access

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.

---

There was a thread here recently about inappropriate editing on my part. The outcome of the discussion imposed some editing restrictions and there was no consensus or discussion regarding user rights such as file mover, autopatroller, patrolling of new edits, or template editing. Note: template replaced per discussion below:Jc37 (talk · contribs · logs) removed these rights from me and not having them is interrupting my work flow and creating more work for other editors (e.g. now new articles I create need to be reviewed, template edits that I can't directly make I have to request, and file uploads that I misnamed I cannot move, but have to ask to have an admin delete the old name and file). Since there was no allegation that I misused these tools and per his solicitation on my talk page, I am posting here to request that they be restored to make me a more efficient editor for things that I do on a daily basis. @Jc37: for visibility, in case the previous mention doesn't show up on his alerts. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - firstly, you need to actually notify an editor, not just ping them; I have done that for you. Secondly, you are still here by the skin of your teeth (and I'm saying that as somebody who opposed the proposed site ban at the recent discussion). I see no need for additional user rights at this time. Let's wait 6-12 months to see if your behaviour has improved. GiantSnowman 20:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  Per his instructions on my talk page, he just said to post here. What obliges me to notify him on his talk page? To be clear, the thread is not about the person: it's not personality-based. It's about the user rights. I only mentioned someone by name as a courtesy, not an indictment, etc. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  Literally the big red warning note at the top of this page that says "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough." GiantSnowman 20:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  Sure, but I didn't think the thread was about him, it was about the user rights. I wasn't trying to make a personality-based discussion. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  You thought it was about them enough to name them and ping them twice...anyway, this is a distraction from the matter at hand. GiantSnowman 21:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support The reasons for the ban have nothing to do with any of the rights removed other than rollback, and hence there was no valid reason for them to be removed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:46, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Apart from not linking to the thread that was mentioned in the first sentence and not letting Jc37 know on the user talk page (a ping isn't enough) this thread exists (both things that an editor with Justin's experience should know to do without prompting), he makes a personal attack here by using the template {{vandal}}. The last of these should be enough for him to be blocked. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  It wasn't a personal attack: I was just linking to a way of showing his talk page, contributions, etc. How would that be an attack? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  Of course calling someone a vandal is a personal attack. What planet are you on? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  Earth. I didn't call him a vandal or criticize anything he did. I used a template which is called a certain thing that you would only know by looking in code just to provide links to his contributions, logged actions, etc. If you know of another template that does that, I'm all ears. The allegation that I was accusing him of vandalism is untrue and ridiculous. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  I didn't even notice the template, what on earth was Justin thinking?! GiantSnowman 21:21, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  I was thinking that I would provide a link to his contributions, logged actions, etc. If you know of another template that does that, I'm all ears. Thank you for confirming that no one would reasonably think that I was calling him a vandal. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe try {{user}} to link to a user - are you seriously saying you have never seen that template used in your 18 years of editing?! GiantSnowman 21:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  I did not say that and that template does not link to someone's logged actions, etc. I have not looked at the template documentation for that template in many years and I have since chosen another template that does not have any allegation or purported allegation of vandalism. I did not intend to or explicitly call anything that he did vandalism: I just chose a template that was convenient and have since replaced it. I publicly apologize for giving anyone an impression of impropriety on Jc37's part and that was not my intention. Please excuse me for the distraction and for not having explicitly looked at the template documentation first. I also personally apologize to Jc37 in particular: I hope you can please understand that it was an error, not an allegation and nothing that I wrote above was intended to implicitly or explicitly accuse you of anything inappropriate. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• Withdrawn There is clearly a process problem here. There's no point in continuing the discussion. I'll post again several months from now and ensure that I explicitly notify the other user on his talk page and use {{user}} in the future. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

 This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support this appears to be a punitive removal, for which there was no support for in the discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, but I'd personally prefer if this thread were just closed. I don't want to cause any kind of conflict on process. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:06, 27 January 2024 (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.

2two2twenty2two

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.

---

{{subst:AN-notice}}~~~~ I would like to create the page 2two2twenty2two 2two2twenty2two (talk) 02:44, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@2two2twenty2two you are very unlikely to find sympathy here. You have been sufficiently warned by administrators to cease using wikipedia inappropriately. Philipnelson99 (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeffed for promotion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:49, 28 January 2024 (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.

changin my user page draft to an article draft

Hi I wrote an article in my user page draft. But I want to check it and submit it but I can not find the button. Is it possible to move it to an artcle space that I can edit it and then submit. Thnaks a lot. Rrosasaberi934 (talk) 14:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:AFC. GiantSnowman 14:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@Rrosasaberi934, a draft was already created for that individual: Draft:Stefano De Marchi. You can edit that draft, which appears to be abandoned. Schazjmd (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Close Needed

Could an uninvolved admin please close Barts1a's unban request at the top of the page. It's been open for more than a week and collecting dust for the last several days. Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Closure requests#Administrative discussions is also a good spot to request closures. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, this seems to have fallen off everybody's radar. I posted at CR. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The C of E tban appeal

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 is an appeal about my tban from WP:DYK ( ruling here). It has been over 2 years since the ban was created and I have obeyed the decision of the community. I would like to request if I can be permitted to return to DYK under the previous restrictions that I had been under prior (banned from nominating any hooks related to British or Irish politics, Religion, and LGBTQ topics and any user can veto a hook proposed by me).

I sincerely apologise for my actions at DYK that resulted in this. I recognise the harm it did to the community and to users and I am deeply sorry for it. If I am permitted to return, I give my solemn undertaking that I will not return to what I was and ensure that hooks are only created for the betterment of Wikipedia as a whole rather than for any POV on my part. In my time away, I have worked on creating several articles and been involved more in WP:ITN to show I can be a more productive member of the community and not the disruptive, immature POV pusher that I was. I wish to help also with the building of DYK sets and also be able to assist members of the project with any concerns they may have. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 11:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the ban came out of juvenile behaviour (childish double-entrendres and the like) rather than POV-pushing. I guess to lift it comments from others on whether they have seen any re-occurrence of this over the last 2 years would be relevant. I haven't, but I haven't gone looking. DeCausa (talk) 12:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@DeCausa: Yes, I worded it wrong so I have clarified by rewording by adding "immature" to the above. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@DeCausa: No, it was both ([45]). I'm still considering this appeal. Black Kite (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• @The C of E: Can you please list your previous appeals of this ban, so that editors can see the full context? – Joe (talk) 12:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Of course @Joe Roe: 1 and 2 of this one. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 13:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comments in the last appeal. DYK now, just as then, does not need an editor who repeatedly tried to get racial slurs onto the Main Page and who still advocates for a "white man's burden" British imperialist worldview on their userpage—which, as Joe noted at the last appeal, is fringe even for the British far-right. It is impossible to take seriously someone's claims that they've learned from their mistakes about pushing a racist POV when they continue to push a racist POV. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
  • @Tamzin: My userpage says nothing of the sort here. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

    Oh come on. You know what "The 4 nations of the country that helped make the world" means. You know it because you wrote it, you know it because you used to have it alongside User:Mender/Userboxes/BritishImperialist (This user is a modern imperialist and believes in the re-establishment of the British Empire), and you know it because it was discussed at length in your last appeal. I'm not dumb and neither are you. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 23:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

    • I don't see how you are connecting the flags of the 4 nations of the UK with the Imperialist userboxes that I removed because I felt they no longer represented my views. The imperialist ones were removed because I realised what they were portraying so I got rid of them (as people rightly said I should). The point of making this appeal is to show I have matured and changed from then and I would like to be able to return to DYK. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

      It's not the flags. It's the caption. Surely you're aware of the connotations of "the country that helped make the world"? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 23:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

      • I'm not quite seeing what you're trying to connect but OK, if its the caption that concerns you, I'm more than happy to remove it for you. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

        You could have done that nine months ago when that caption and its connection to British imperialism was pointed out to you by several editors, including me. The fact that you waited until today snd are still professing to not understanding why, speaks volumes. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Tamzin. I'm not particularly familiar with this matter, but from looking over at the threads that lead to the topic bans the user page content is strongly suggestive that lifting the ban would lead to a return to problematic editing. The DYK community seem to have been very fed up with this type of stuff ahead of the ban, and I don't see a need to subject them to it again. Not being able to edit DYK seems a pretty minor type of topic ban. Nick-D (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
  • @Nick-D: But I have matured since then, I have given an undertaking that I won't do that again, my editing since the ban has not gone anywhere near anything like what it was. All I'm asking for is a chance to prove I have changed. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 06:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Tamzin. I cannot forget how this editor messed around with a very interesting article to try get their twisted kicks by posting puerile penis jokes at DYK. I will quote myself from the last appeal: This editor has spent nearly 15 years engaging in provocatively inappropriate editing. I remember their shockingly inappropriate disruption of United States v. One Solid Gold Object in Form of a Rooster, a fascinating article about the legal and artistic status of gold, and mining gold in the United States, and the use of gold to market gambling casinos in the state of Nevada. This editor creepily reasoned "rooster is a synonym for cock and cock is a synonym for penis", accompanied by "a man named Richard has a nickname of Dick" to make multiple repetitive strikingly unfunny penis jokes, severely damaging an article about a notable topic to advance their puerile and utterly inappropriate agenda, and to try to shoehorn something shocking into DYK, when the stupid "hook" was entirely unsupported by what the actual reliable sources say, all of which discuss a golden rooster statue and none of which make penis jokes. This is not ancient history - it took place in 2021. Cullen328 (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
  • @Cullen328: A lot can change in a few years and my attitude has too. I have refrained from anything similar to that in any article I have made or edited and I do sincerely regret what I did back then and I apologise for it. I'm more than happy to subject myself to any sort of proposal whereby if I return to my old ways in any way, I'll be blocked or any ban from April Fools Day Jokes. All I'm asking for is a little WP:ROPE/WP:SO chance to prove that I have changed since then. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 06:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cullen, and because I'm not seeing anything other than future potential disruption from a lifting of the ban. Grandpallama (talk) 01:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
  • @Grandpallama: What about my editing since then? Does 2 years of editing and participation at ITN and other articles count for nothing? The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 06:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Tamzin and Cullen. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Tamzin. I really need more than someone's word that they have "matured". I weigh it based on actions and behaviors, and so far, there has been nothing to prove to me that the appellant is aware of why and how his edits were problematic, not simply that they were problematic. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Of course I understand that @WaltCip:. Granted I'm not the best with wording things and I understand that what I did brought Wikipedia into disrepute and caused a lot of hassle for people at the DYK project especially around April Fools Day (which I am also willing to undergo a ban not to nominate anything for it to prove my sincerity that I have changed). The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 14:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I think Wikipedia is better off with C of E not participating in DYK, and nothing in the appeal here convinces me to change my mind. There are many other areas in which they are free to work. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
  • @Pawnkingthree: I always thought bans were meant to be preventative not punitive. I am asking for a chance to show I have changed and my work on other pages and projects have shown I have, I haven't attempted to insert any of the smutty stuff or POV stuff that I was banned for into articles or other projects. I am willing to undergo any restriction to show I have changed, all I'm asking for is a little WP:ROPE to indicate that I have reformed. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 14:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

    I believe that the ban is preventative, and that you have been previous chances which still led to further problems. Again, DYK is a very small part of Wikipedia so I do not think this ban should be much of an inconvenience to you continuing to participate here. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

    • @Pawnkingthree: 2 years away from it and 2 years of not participating in the same sort of behaviour that led to the ban anywhere else counts for nothing? The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
• Tentative support. As far as I can see no one has produced examples of him going back to the ways that led to the ban. At this point, I take that as meaning he hasn't gone back - and there would be opportunities for him to do so outside of DYK if he were so minded. CoE must also be aware that if he were to go back to DYK and if there was the slightest hint of his former behaviour it would, quite rightly, be straight to a CBAN. The strong feeling here seems be rooted in disgust at his previous behaviour rather than the threat of reoccurrence, which is fair enough and understandable. But there's something deeply depressing about ruling out all possibility of change. I was going to say I hope i don't regret giving even tentative support but there doesn't seem any real prospect of the ban being lifted anyway. DeCausa (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
  • It is depressing indeed @DeCausa:. I feel like there's been a distraction based upon a minor connection as the main focus and no looking at the overall change in behaviour/editing when its come to this discussion. I put this forward in good faith to show that people would see that I have changed and am willing to do anything to prove it and willing to accept any restriction if I am permitted to return to DYK. So I do feel a little bit off by the pile-on above. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  Don't get me wrong, C of E, I don't doubt the reason for the "pile on" as you call it. And actually, it's not a "pile on". Given your previous behaviour it is no surprise that there is oppose after oppose here. I think it's not in your favour that you don't show more understanding of that. But I have a question for you. Why are you so keen to get back to DYK? It's a peripheral part of WP and there's plenty of other things to be getting on with? It makes me wonder what exactly your motivation is. DeCausa (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  The reason is because I enjoyed it, it was a great incentive to improve articles and it was a good place to showcase new articles in the hope they would be improved by the fresh eyes that see them. Indeed, I had over 500 articles run on DYK and aside of the small handful already mentioned, the majority were largely unproblematic. Why I want to return is to show that I am able to create hooks without causing the drama that happened before @DeCausa:. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  The fact of the matter, The C of E, is that you spent nearly fifteen years, with dogged determination, trying to insert provocative and inflammatory content onto the main page through DYK, whether it had to do with the conflict between the UK and the Irish, or some poor guy named "Hitler", or the "N word" or whatever other childishly controversial hooks that you were promoting, including your "rooster" = "cock" = "penis" reasoning that led you to vandalize an article for self-centered clickbait reasons. Other editors implored you to stop but you only stopped when the community forced you to stop. Yes, people can change and mature and I am willing to conclude that a vandal at age 16 may have matured by age 20. But you started editing back in 2008. Sixteen years ago. Even if you were quite young back then, it is clear that you are no longer an adolescent or a young adult. I believe in change and try to practice it in my own life, and treasure my little victories. But I truly doubt that complying with a couple of years of restrictions imposed by the community constitutes actual evidence of a profound change. Fully formed adult personalities and adult ideologies cannot be profoundly changed so easily, in my view. And if such a dramatic change had occurred, the evidence would be stronger than your repeated, banal assertions of "I've changed! Believe me!" That's why I believe that DYK, which is paradoxically highly visible and inconsequential, does not need your help. Cullen328 (talk) 07:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Cullen328: The evidence is in my editing, look at what I have done at ITN with Denis Walker and J. P. R. Williams recently for example and pages I've created like Desert Hero and Caribbean Territories (Abolition of Death Penalty for Murder) Order 1991. All I ask is if people can look at how I have edited since as proof that I am not the juvenile disruptive chap I was back then. I feel that people are focussing a lot on the past from years ago and not on what I have become. All I am doing is asking for forgiveness for my past wrongdoings and be permitted to return to a project that (apart from those aforementioned handful), I contributed a lot towards. I'm even willing to just be permitted to set build if thats what the community would like to do to give me a chance. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 07:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  In my view, The C of E, you should continue writing, expanding and improving articles, and stay far, far away from the main page. Perhaps other editors will disagree with me. Let's see. Cullen328 (talk) 07:51, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Were we to allow this appeal, who knows how much annoyance, grief, offence, turmoil, and drama board verbiage would more than likely ensue. As it is, we have an annual appeal which is easily evaluated and turned down. Per Cullen328, Tamzin, & Nick-D; there's so much else The C of E can be doing, why risk the trouble? Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 18:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
  • @LindsayH: On what grounds do you base that? Have you looked at the work I have done recently and the fact I have kept away from drama and not repeated what caused the ban in the first place? I find that fundamentally unfair that you refuse to even consider an appeal point blank without considering it. All I'm asking for is a chance to prove I have changed and willing to put myself at the position of being blocked if I stray back to what I was in the past. That's hardly unreasonable to ask for a WP:SO. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
• I feel here the evidence of my work since the ban is not being considered at all and it is a position that has clearly made it untenable to continue with this appeal that was made in good faith. So henceforth I Withdraw this application with disappointment. All I will ask, is what can I do to prove that I have changed and be able to have an acceptable chance of being able to return? The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  I realized after the fact that they had withdrawn their appeal, rendering the following moot, but I am leaving it up as the beginning of an answer to their question about what they could do. I want to say that a few well-written an balanced articles about the harm done by the Great Powers in the day would probably count heavily but articles like Canadian Indian residential school system have enough problems. Perhaps start by reading something more abstract and less personal like Scramble for Africa or Western betrayal. And I would consider it a personal favor if you lost the signature or at least toned down its in-your-face colors. Those are fighting words in my family. I doubt I am alone in this and it would be a sign of maturity if you realized that it might be offensive or at least off-putting. Oppose: blatantly nationalist slash imperialist signature speaks volumes. Resentful tone indicates failure to understand the issue. Very minor penalty has been assessed. For the record, I acknowledge my bias: I do not want anything bad to happen to the king of England but I definitely wish he would quietly go away and I certainly would prefer not to be reminded of his existence every time C of E feels slighted, which seems to be quite often. I can only imagine how editors in the same topic area must feel. Elinruby (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC) Elinruby (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2024 (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: 218.215.40.33

i think this user has no clue how WP works, i think a block to avoid future disruptive edits may be a good idea 83.168.137.1 (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

three edits, and the last was 6 months ago... ltbdl (talk) 01:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

understood 83.168.137.1 (talk) 12:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@83.168.137.1 Unless there is something here we are missing, this is not actionable per Ltbdl. Are you sure you have the right ip? -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

right IP, but if u say its not actionable, i trust you 83.168.137.1 (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Car and Cars

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 honestly think that the primary topic for Cars should be the Pixar film, à la friend and Friends. 94.21.205.27 (talk) 07:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

This isn't the place for that; try discussing on the article's talk page. This page is for issues requiring admin attention. CoconutOctopus talk 08:21, 29 January 2024 (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.

Feedback requested for AE's "Information for administrators" section

Feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE. The draft text and feedback section can be found at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Consultation: Admin information draft. Thank you to everyone who participates. Z1720 (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Feedback requested for AE's "Information for administrators" section

Arbitration motion regarding the severity of remedies

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Add the following to the Arbitration Procedures as a subsection of "Arbitration Proceedings"

When used in arbitration motions or remedies, the words below should be considered to have the following order of severity:

1. Remind (weakest)
2. Warn
3. Admonish (strongest)

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding the severity of remedies

Community ban appeal for Barts1a

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.

---

• Barts1a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (user notes this as original account)
• aka Twitbookspacetube (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Link to CBAN discussion

Appeal carried over-- "I have questioned if this appeal is even worth it. I’m so disconnected from Wikipedia at this point that if I was successful I would be starting from scratch. I have not been successful in talking myself out of this so here we go. TL;DR at bottom. I started my Wikipedia saga in October 2006 under the username Doggie015, later renamed to Barts1a due to lessened insult potential. Over the years I slowly built up edits, complaints, blocks, and editing restrictions until I decided I should try to start fresh under a new account. To this day I cannot tell you the logic behind this decision; but in October 2012; I created the user account PantherLeapord, making it clear that I was also the guy operating Barts1a with my first edit. I was evading my editing restrictions from day 1 on that account, and I had become convinced that some time off to let the heat die down could let me return with a clean slate, so in November 2016 I created the user account Twitbookspacetube, which was readily linked to the Barts1a and PantherLeapord accounts, But I was still the same naïve fool and in September 2017 the community bought the hammer down as a community ban.

I made a few appeals of my community ban under the delusional beliefs listed below and obviously they were denied, which caused me to become disinterested in contributing to Wikipedia and take time to truly reflect on what I did. It's a long and complicated saga spanning 11 years, and there is no way to properly sum up the whole thing without writing a biography-length breakdown. But I’m not here to tell you the story, I’m here to appeal the community ban, And to address the various reasons that added up to this outcome.

First of all; I would like to present a list of what I believe to be the reasons that ultimately added up to this. I’ve had 6 years to reflect on this but even then I don’t think I got everything. Repeated lies, manipulation, being too eager to do what I see as "helping" regardless of who gets hurt along the way, being like a metaphorical bull in a china shop for filing at ArbCom, failed/Invalid WP:CLEANSTART, Being on what I now see as a false crusade against "Corrupt admins" where none exist, and generally being annoying.

I realize that there are some things I would have missed here, and if I have, or you want something further explained; feel free to point it out and I’ll do my best to expand on it. Repeated lies & Manipulation: I didn’t see myself as doing these things at the time, but now that I’ve had time to think about it I can see where these accusations come from. I did my best to work around restrictions I viewed as punitive and overbearing. Every time I would be seen as reformed, and even once managed to get some restrictions lifted, I fell back into my old behavior assuming that the lifting of the restrictions was a final victory against my fictional “corrupt admins” and when they were reimposed, I ignored them because I saw that as proof of these fictional “corrupt admins” retaliating against me. It was done to prevent my antics from damaging the encyclopedia, and the actions of all admins involved would pass any level of scrutiny.

Eagerness to help, consequences be damned: I saw myself as a “Hero” of Wikipedia who would lead the encyclopedia into a new golden age without vandalism and disruption. I realize now how stupid I was to assume I could do anything like that. And as I did my “Hero” work, I ignored everyone who I got in the way. I ran through every barrier and every person with no regard for what I did to them. I don’t think I can apologize to everyone, I suspect that a lot of them have left the encyclopedia project, but to those you still able to read this; I humbly apologize for what I did, and I hope I can make up for it.

ArbCom bull in a china shop: I was eager to help take down the fictional “Corrupt admins” so in the brief time my restrictions did not include a ban from noticeboards; I looked for cases of bad admin behaviour, posed the question to the community if there were any objections, and upon receiving none; I filed cases at ArbCom. I was assuming that no objections meant the path was clear, even if it proved to be anything but. I should have slowed down and thought about what I was doing and why, but I didn’t. I apologize for the ArbCom time wasted as a result of this, and to the community for bringing these cases without explicit approval.

Failed/Invalid WP:CLEANSTART: I assumed that WP:CLEANSTART applied to my case as a “Get out of jail free” card, ignoring that it only applies to accounts without any editing restrictions and active blocks. I was thoroughly mistaken about it and for that, I apologize. I will be sticking to the Barts1a account in the interest of transparency, should the community see fit to give me yet another chance.

The false crusade: Underlying all this behavior was my false belief that Wikipedia administrators personally hated me and wanted to do everything possible to prevent me from being the “Hero” of the encyclopedia. This delusion was the driving force behind these actions. I now realize how wrong this belief was and I apologize for it. I cannot undo the many wrongs I have committed, but hopefully, I can make up for them.

Being annoying: There’s not a lot to say on this one. I was annoying. I hope that I can be given a chance to prove that I can stop being annoying.

I cannot truly express my deep regret for my actions, and I hope that the community can forgive me. I can understand if this forgiveness is denied. And hopefully, this wall of text is not too intimidating.

Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 10:39 pm, 14 January 2024, last Sunday (2 days ago) (UTC−5)

TL;DR: I started here in 2006, and attempted to evade sanctions and restrictions by changing usernames multiple times, which led to this community ban imposed in 2017. Upon reflection, I truly realize how I was dishonest, and manipulative, and overzealous, and annoying. I have addressed what I view as the major mistakes in the wall of text above. If you find a point I failed to address, let me know. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 8:26 pm, 15 January 2024, last Monday (2 days ago) (UTC−5)

Additional: I completely forgot about the Sir Uncle Ned account. I had intended to use that account as yet another WP:CLEANSTART attempt, but I couldn't bring myself to so it so I sent an email to TonyBallioni admitting this, and they got the sockpuppet tagged and blocked. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 10:51 pm, 14 January 2024, last Sunday (2 days ago) (UTC−5)"

Carried over by me, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Currently awaiting a response to some questions I left on their talk but leaning towards support per WP:SO and WP:ROPE. This would be conditional on no block evasion within the last few years which would need to be confirmed by a CU. After reading their full throated mea culpa, and IF they have respected their block for the last few years, I think I'd be willing to give them another chance. Obviously, it would be with the understanding that they would be on a very short leash for a while. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

They recently created a sock User:Sir Uncle Ned as recently as June 2023. While they admitted what they did, I wouldn't say that is "respecting the block". RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

They created a sock, however he doesn't appear to have actually used it to make any edits. If a sock falls in the forest and confesses before actually socking, is it still evasion? WP:BANPOL does state forbidden from making any edit, anywhere on Wikipedia, via any account or as an unregistered user, under any and all circumstances and it does not look like that account violated the ban except by existing. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• Conditional Support based on their answers to my questions on their talk page and what looks like an honest confession above. Subject to a CU finding no evidence of recent block evasion. I'm prepared to overlook their creation of the sock account last summer as they do not appear to have used it and declared its existence. All of which said, I would add that any disruptive behavior should result in a swift reblock. There has been a lot of time expended on this user in the past and I have no inclination to go down that road again. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I also left some questions on the user talkpage, and we are still pending a Checkuser. The appeal itself seems pretty sincere and thorough. I'm not taking a firm position just yet without more information, but if everything checks out I could see myself endorsing it. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  Support Unblock after thinking on it more. There would need to be an understanding that this is an absolute final chance; if there is any future disruption the ban will be reapplied and another appeal would be very unlikely. Second chances are cheap, third ones are very rare. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose their original appeal to me via email (which I shared with the functionaries list since I'm no longer a CU or admin) was clearly written by ChatGPT or something similar. That plus the nonsense of their last appeal where they intentionally vandalized logged out in order to attract attention to their appeal has me convinced they are a bad faith user who should never be unblocked. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  Noting for the record that the previous appeal (presumably) referred to by Tony is located at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive297#Ban appeal by Twitbookspacetube. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support unblock. The request itself seems harmless. Seems nothing wrong with giving another chance. Lorstaking (talk) 05:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• Leaning oppose Barts1a/Twitbookspacetube has a number of editing restrictions, currently at Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions/Archive, which are: not allowed to use Huggle, subject to a 1RR restriction, topic banned from all noticeboards, including ArbCom case requests and cases, and topic banned from all contentious articles and their talk pages. I question whether it is worth the potential risk to unblock an editor with so many restrictions. I remember the disruption caused by the Twitbookspacetube account, and while six years is a long time, it's not encouraging that they admit to making "disruptive edits as an IP in late 2022 or early 2023". There's also precious little indication of how they would be a productive editor going forward. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
• I am sympathetic to TonyBallioni's concerns and am dismayed to hear about the IP editing referred to above by Pawnkingthree, but on balance, I support an unban here. I recall seeing some good work from Barts1a (even if I can't recall precisely what, given it was over a decade ago – I was inactive for long stretches of the 2010s). In light of that, and what I view as a thorough and self-reflective appeal above, I believe that the potential exists for Wikipedia to benefit from this user's return. That said, it should be made clear that this would be an absolute final chance; any more disruption at all would lead to a swift reban. If this appeal is unsuccessful, then I encourage Barts1a to contribute constructively to other projects—his work on the Simple English Wikipedia is scant but seems promising, and certainly the Simple English Wiktionary could do with some plugging of its holes in coverage—and file another appeal in six to twelve months. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
• Note This has now been open for a week or so. Although participation has been a bit light, I'm thinking it might be time for an uninvolved admin to close the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support I'm hesitant to comment on such discussions, the last time I supported an appeal I was quickly burnt. But the editor seems ernest and from comments on their talk page seem to have understood The Wordsmith point that this would be their very last chance. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose the confessed disruptive IP edits are too recent IMO. Also, I'm skeptical of the claim that they had forgotten about the Sir Uncle Ned account. If I was a banned editor trying to get reinstated, I doubt it would completely slip my mind that I had created a new account within the past year. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support. They admitted to creating the Sir Uncle Ned account before the unblock request was carried over and said that they forgot. Unless anyone can tell me that they were being pressed to declare that previous sock before their self-declaration I don't see an intention to mislead. As per many above, this would be a last chance if they were unblocked, and I support per WP:ROPE. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 10:46, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support, per 0xDeadbeef & Ad Orientem. Reblocks (if needed) are cheap. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 17:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
• I already supported above; I'm adding another comment in order to prevent the bot from automatically archiving the discussion before it is closed. If the next uninvolved admin who reads this discussion could please close it—whichever way they decide to do so—then that would be greatly appreciated. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 14:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. This has fallen off everybody's radar despite the Attention Needed I added and a request to close I posted below. I've even posted at WP:RC. However this is closed, Barts1a is entitled to an answer to his request and this has been open long enough. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support per Ad Orientem, but on the understanding that this is the absolute last chance. I think Pawnkingthree raises a valid concern about how they would edit productively going forward, but I think LindsayH has a valid answer. Reblocks aren't always cheap, but I think they would be in this case. Mackensen (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2024 (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.

Change to the CheckUser team, January 2024

Following a request to the Committee, Wugapodes' CheckUser access has been removed. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks Wugapodes for their service as a CheckUser and their continuing service as an Oversighter.

On behalf of the Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Change to the CheckUser team, January 2024

Potential vandalism of articles regarding Greek and Albanian history

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, and apologies in advance if this is not the appropriate place to notify the WP community.

However, I think that there is a high risk chance of a number of articles regarding Greek and Albanian history to be vandalized by IP edditors in the near future. A week ago, the Greek Nationalist pseudohistorical YouTube channel «Πρακτική Σκέψη» (en. "Practical Thinking") released a video titled "Πως οι Αλβανοί κλέβουν ελληνική ιστορία" (en. How the Albanians steal Greek history). In this particular video, the uploader attacks both the Greek, as well as the English Wikipedia as being biased towards Albanians and Albanian history in general, using as an example the article "Principality of Arbanon" claiming that the Albanian nation didn't exist at that time and that this is a fabrication of wikipedians.

Today, Youtube user "mecruz" wrote the following comment "Είναι αλήθεια ότι στην αγγλική βικιπαίδεια υπάρχει μια συγκεκριμένη ομάδα Αλβανών που παραποιεί την ιστορία της Ελλάδας με την προπαγάνδα τους. Αυτά είναι τα usernames/ονόματα των χρηστών της αλβανικής ομαδας: Βατο, Maleschreiber, Ahmet Q., Ktrimi991, Khirurg, Botushali, Alltan, Demetrios1993, Αυτοί οι χρήστες συνεργάζονται, έχουν διάφορες τακτικές που χρησιμοποιούν για να προωθήσουν την προπαγάνδα τους στη στην αγγλική βικιπαίδεια."

Users Βατο, Maleschreiber, Ahmet Q., Ktrimi991, Khirurg, Botushali, Alltan, Demetrios1993, are collectively accused as Albanian nationalists that push Albanian propaganda. It wouldn't suprise me if doxing takes place as well.

Thank you for your time, and once again i apologize if this is not the appropriate place to notify the WP community. Popular Punk (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

This is Popular Punk's first edit to en.wiki. WP:NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I know nothing about the background here, but isn't it possible the above is a good-faith warning? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks like there's been an LTA slow-motion edit warring at Principality of Arbanon, but no relevant discussion on the talk page. As written, relevant claims about Albanian identity in the lead are backed up by citations to academic texts with quotes that clearly support the text in question. I'm inclined to agree with Bbb23 absent any actual evidence of misconduct by the named "Albanian nationalist" editors. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@Rosguill: I don't really understand you comment. Popular Punk never claimed there is misconduct by "Albanian nationalist" editors. Instead they have said Greek nationalist editors may be going to cause problems due to accusations by some Youtube video accusing Wikipedia of being biased towards the Albanian PoV. They also said some editors have been accused of being Albanian nationalists by some Youtube user. I don't see any indication Popular Punk agrees with this PoV considering they seem to be mostly concerned about Greek nationalists doing stuff in response to this channel, and that named editors might be doxed, it seems likely they probably don't. (I don't know if there's any particular reason to be that worried, there are always people moaning about Wikipedia bias all over. Unless they are super popular it doesn't tend to cause problems. And I see even less reason to worry about a Youtube comment. There is a lot of stuff on Reddit etc accusing other editors of being whatever, again most of it doesn't about to much.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it looks like someone who just created an account in order to warn about a potential issue. The youtube video linked has >35k views, and the comment that they posted above translates to It is true that in the English Wikipedia there is a certain group of Albanians who falsify the history of Greece with their propaganda. These are the usernames/usernames of the Albanian team: Vato, Maleschreiber, Ahmet Q., Ktrimi991, Khirurg, Botushali, Alltan, Demetrios1993, These users collaborate, they have various tactics they use to promote their propaganda on the English Wikipedia. Schazjmd (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Special:CentralAuth/Popular Punk. –FlyingAce^✈hello 17:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah, not created for this, just popped over from their home wiki to give a head's up. Schazjmd (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Bbb23,Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Rosguill, FlyingAce

Schazjmd

Hello everyone. Let me clarify some things first

a) Popular Punk is the name of my new account. I deactivated my old accountΙπποκράτης2020.

b) I never accused users Vato, Maleschreiber, Ahmet Q., Ktrimi991, Khirurg, Botushali, Alltan, Demetrios1993 to be spreading albanian nationalist propaganda. I stated that the Greek Nationalist pseudohistorical YouTube channel «Πρακτική Σκέψη» was falsely accusing the aforementioned users to be spreading albanian propaganda.

I wrote the previous comment in order to inform the community about potential vandalism that could be done by the viewers of the aforementioned channel (which range from nationalists to neo-nazis) because the uploader claimed that the EN. wp is spreading albanian propaganda, and also to protect the users from potential doxxing.

Thank you. Popular Punk (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for the clarification. My prior comment can now be read as simply an evaluation that there doesn't appear to be widespread disruption just yet. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

You are welcome. Hopefully, it stays that way. Popular Punk (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you Popular Punk for your note. Some time ago the Niš article was mentioned on YT or some other online media to attract the attention of Serb nationalists. Then some vandals emerged from nowhere to remove well-sourced content they did not like. It is possible the same thing might happen with some Albanian-Greek articles as well. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

  You are welcome. FYI, in the same video, YT user mecruz has mentioned the names of the WP users Βατο, Maleschreiber, Ahmet Q., yours, Khirurg, Botushali, Alltan, Demetrios1993," as if you are acting as a gang that is spreading Albanian propaganda. I have no idea about which articles the user is referring to, but -knowing the fan base of this particular YT channel-, thought that i should inform WP. Popular Punk (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

• Welcome to the Balkans. If there has been no actual disruption then this report should be closed as "noted". Editors should also be aware that Youtube is not a reliable source. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning - unfortunately, ignorance will always exist, no matter how many sources are used. Appreciate you taking the time to notify everyone. Botushali (talk) 06:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

By coincidence, I have seen a couple of videos from this channel over the last month or so. It seems to be my brother's favorite YouTube channel. I have not really checked its historical accuracy, but where does it say that the contributors are nationalists? Several of the videos are criticisms of past Greek governments over perceived political corruption and mismanagement of the economy. Dimadick (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Popular Punk seems more concerned about the comment pasted above mentioning Wikipedia users by name and not the video, although the video itself is full of historical inaccuracies, conspiracy theories and pseudoscience. It completely ignores mounds of scholarly research from experts and scholars - YouTube really isn’t the best place to get historical information. Perhaps you should encourage your brother to read the scholarly work of qualified experts to obtain real historical knowledge rather than watching pseudoscientific videos, but that’s none of my business. Botushali (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Dimadick, My concerns are exactly those that Botushali mentioned. Popular Punk (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Can someone who knows how just close this thread? We were warned of potential disruption, and people that have this page watchlisted have seen the warning. What more needs to be done? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2024 (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.

RFC: Proposal to globally blacklist opendatabot.ua

Letting the community know of a proposal to put the domain opendatabot.ua on the global blacklist. The reason for the proposal is that the addition of references has been spam-like and it is not a reliable source. As it has been added widely as a reference and not yet been widely locally blacklisted, a wider consultation is required.

• m:Talk:Spam_blacklist#opendatabot.ua

opendatabot.ua: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Community's feedback, preferably as a consolidated comment from the wiki rather than individual comment, would be appreciated. Feel welcome to let other wikis know of the request for comment. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support blacklisting - we have to control our content; we can't let spammers do this. From many years of experience, blacklisting, not editor-blocking, is the way to shut this down. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  See TioMikon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

  Their contributions are reference spam; spam links added as references. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support, this should be uncontroversial. What little I've seen, the quality justifies blacklisting and unlinking anything related. Dennis Brown 2¢ 04:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support, and especially agree with A._B. that spam sites need to be blocked, not whac-a-mole blocking endless accounts. Currently about 140 'insource' hits in enwiki article-space. DMacks (talk) 04:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Boonyaratvej/sandbox

Good morning, I would like to move my Sandbox article to a Draft page Draft:บุณยะรัตเวช, but I get the following message:

Creation of this page (Draft:บุณยะรัตเวช) is currently restricted to administrators, page movers, and template editors because the page title matches an entry (?!(User|Wikipedia|File)( talk)?:|Talk:)\P{L}*[^\p{Thai}\P{L}].*\p{Thai}.* # Thai + anything else on the local or global blacklists.

Please advise what I am doing wrong.

Thanks, Pitanu Boonyaratvej (talk) 03:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

You can't move it to a Thai character set on the English Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 03:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Boonyaratvej, I will also add that articles on the English Wikipedia need to be in English. If you wish to create the page on Thai Wikipedia, the place would be th:บุณยะรัตเวช. Primefac (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Blatant Vandalism by N.Thanapun, 240b:c010:490:cac0:74b4:461e:b092:803c, and 133.106.36.183

Blatant vandalism by N.Thanapun (talk), 240b:c010:490:cac0:74b4:461e:b092:803c (talk) and 133.106.36.183 (talk) on the articles Kun Khmer and Bokator Pierrevang3 (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Incident report got buried

A user recently reached out to me on my talk page about an ANI thread that had been archived without any comment from anyone, posting the following message:

I reported an incident on the Administrators' noticeboard a while back. No one ever replied, and eventually it was just archived (here) without ever being handled or even discussed. How can I get it addressed? Eievie (talk) 03:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I've agreed to copy the whole thread over, and I've included it in the Hat below:

Discussion from User talk:Red-tailed hawk
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I reported an incident on the Administrators' noticeboard a while back. No one ever replied, and eventually it was just archived (here) without ever being handled or even discussed. How can I get it addressed? Eievie (talk) 03:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC) I'm about to head off for now; let me take a look in ~8-12 hours. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC) Before I give a final response, @Eievie: has the behavior continued even after the ANI thread was created? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC) Fdom5997 messaged me, trying to fight about it here. There have been no more edits on pages undone. Eievie (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC) Ok. There really isn't anything I can do at this point; even an interaction ban in this context is going to have to come from community discussion, and I don't think a block is justified to prevent future disruption given that there hasn't been any hounding in the past two weeks. On the bright side, it looks like they're not hounding you in the present moment, and you've made a couple hundred edits since the ANI report was filed. If they hound you in the future, please let me know, so that I can evaluate then. It also might help (for these sorts of disputes) if discussion is had on the individual talk pages; it's not clear to me that the user is WP:HOUNDing you on the basis of the edits being made by you, rather than the edits being across many pages because they disagree with the same sort of style choice as you've WP:BOLDly implemented across many articles. Nevertheless, regardless of intent, I imagine the situation of having a ton of one's own edits reverted is quite unpleasant. Some sort of centralized discussion (at or some relevant MOS page's talk page) might also help to resolve the style dispute amicably, without resulting to bold edits being made and later contested/reverted across dozens of pages. I think that might save time/stress going forward. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC) This is round 3 of this person wikihounding me. All the . During round 2, the admin ruling on it said Final warning given. If you're not willing to implement that, I'm ok with it because it's not happening right now. But given the history, I do believe it will eventually happen again. Is it appropriate to ask for some sort of assurance that if it happens a 4th time, that's it? Eievie (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC) Ya know what, your assessment is fair. Do you mind if I copy this thread over to the administrators' noticeboard to get more general input? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC) Also, pinging TheresNoTime, since they are the administrator who gave the final warning last time. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC) Go ahead and copy it. Before I asked you for help, I tried messaging TheresNoTime about it here but didn't hear back. Eievie (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm bringing it here looking from feedback from other admins here; the user that was complained about in the original ANI post was involved in two prior ANI threads about hounding (23 December 2021, 13 December 2022). The second one ended with TheresNoTime warning the user being complained about (Fdom5997).

I've given the complaining user some advice as to how to try to deal with the content/style part of the dispute from a consensus-attaining point-of-view, but I'm don't quite think that I've adequately addressed the behavioral aspects. Feedback on this situation from other administrators would be helpful. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Fdom's basically admitted to the behavior and done it to multiple users. Go look up and down their talk page, they're twisting the ears of other editors until they agree that they're wrong and Fdom's right. Fdom will revert partially constructive edits in whole and threaten to continue doing it until other people stop messing with their preferred versions. this stands out as particularly inappropriate, even in context. I'd argue for a tempblock or temp topic ban as a firm deterrent. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Fdom just started doing it again. This time was a particularly egregious example. I found a citation for an uncited phonology table, added it, and changed the table's content to match said citation. And Fdom somehow had the gall to call that "unconstructive". Eievie (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I was mistaken that you were just changing the appearance here, but however, the source you provided was misinterpreted because most of the info was already there (with the exception of the glottalized consonants, and <c> representing an affricate). But now it looks even better than when I reverted it before. It's not a big deal, if this is the hill that you want to die on, and call me a "wiki-hounder" just because of me reverting more users' edits who make minor unconstructive changes to just charts, then I don't know what to tell you. If you are gonna contribute, you need to do much more than just changing charts, because that does not contribute anything useful. So what if it gets reverted? Just move on, and make more constructive edits. Fdom5997 (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours: User talk:Fdom5997#Block. El_C 09:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

While we're here, I would like to cross-check my general understanding of something against the admins' understanding:

Fdom's usual argument is that my edits are "unnecessary." Not bad, not disruptive, just superfluous. As the person making the edits, I obviously think they add clarity. Wikipedia likes niceties; we have infoboxes, navboxes, graphs and a bajillion templates to make things neater and prettier. There's not some super Spartan policy where everything that's not strictly essential should be discarded. Making things slightly nicer is a legitimate goal.

But — for sake of argument — let's say for a minute that there was an edit which was entirely lateral, neither adding nor subtracting value from the page. That would still be allowed, right? My understanding of Wikipedia is that the onus is not on me to argue why I'm allowed to make edits on an open source site where editing is encouraged. Mine is the default position. Undoing edits is not the default, which means that when Fdom does that, the onus is on them — they need to argue the change they're undoing made the page worse, and not that it was merely nonessential.

Is my understanding correct? Eievie (talk) 06:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I think that you've mis-read the situation in one part Eievie. Looking at Special:Contributions/Fdom5997 and all of the undo-tool usages there, this isn't hounding. This is someone undoing more than just edits by you to tables in language articles. In Special:Diff/1200514083 for example Fdom5997 reverted AnomieBOT for datestamping a cleanup notice in a footnote below one of those tables.

By the way, using proper footnote markup for a footnote, instead of manual asterisks that get turned into a list, that was reverted in Special:Diff/1194117301 looked like an improvement to me.

The particular bulleted-list-as-pseudo footnote that AmonieBOT had the temerity to add |date=January 2024 to isn't even beneath a related table. And this isn't the only time. See Special:Diff/1200962596 for another reversion of AnomieBOT simply adding maintenance template dates.

This looks like hitting articles that Fdom5997 just reverts anything from anyone on, not something targetted at you, Eievie.

Uncle G (talk) 09:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

The reason why that happened was because I couldn’t directly revert the other edits. I should have manually reverted them but I just wanted to get that edit out of the way so I can revert the previous one. Fdom5997 (talk) 10:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not surprised to learn Fdom also reverts edits from many other editors as well. Engaging in a broader pattern of overzealous undos is in-character, at the very least.

However, I don't think it naturally follows from there that Fdom does not hound me specifically. For one, Fdom has never actually denied following me around. Second, I can provide many specific instances where an edit I made was promptly followed up by an undo by Fdom, on pages that Fdom otherwise hadn't touched in years. The idea that Fdom merely stumbled across these edits by chance, rather than tracking my contributions page, seems unlikely. Eievie (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).

Administrator changes

• Red-tailed hawk
• Robertsky

• Ameliorate!
• Ancheta Wis
• Anthony Bradbury (deceased)
• Cobi
• Ev
• Moondyne
• Worm That Turned

Bureaucrat changes

Worm That Turned

CheckUser changes

Wugapodes

Interface administrator changes

• Enterprisey
• Izno

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

Technical news

• Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)

Arbitration

• Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
• Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2024 Steward elections will begin on 06 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 27 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found here.
• Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more
• The Unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in February 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism by Timovinga

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.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marriage_in_Hinduism&diff=prev&oldid=1201287475

This edit shows the problem. @Timovinga removed three sources from SCMP, Tamil Culture and The Quint, from three very different political viewpoints, stating that he was not happy with the quality of sources.

He has been edit warring through numerous articles, and has edit warred with other people as well.

In particular he is removing a large amount of text and attributing it not only to me, but also to poor sources, when in the majority of cases I did not even write the text. If he wants to discuss the validity of texts then he needs to contact the original writers and not me.

Furthermore it seems that he created the account just to argue with me. He joined on the 26 December 2023 I think, whereas Arind7 (my old account which I forgot the password to) joined on 22nd December 2023, which might mean the user just created an account to war with me. This was noted by @Bbb23 on a previous edit war investigation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1147#Edit_war_by_User_Arind7

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_rights_in_India&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marriage_in_Hinduism&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homosexuality_in_India&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_culture_in_India&action=history

From my experience it's vandalism based on racial conflict.

Thanks!

Arind8 (talk) 09:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• These sources are not reliable multiple experienced editors already told you about this. This editor is not here to build an encyclopedia, a ban is needed. Also, he has some civility problems. This user previously got blocked and is now back with another account. Pinging another experienced editor Ekdalian (talk) who also warned this editor for disruptive editings. Timovinga (talk) 10:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  Firstly, you also got blocked as well, and have numerous complaints about disruptive editing. I have written on my User Page and informed of my previous account.

  Secondly, you joined soon after me and have been mostly removing text from articles related to LGBTQ and India. The majority of the text was not even written by me. The actions are classic vandalism.

  I have absolutely no idea why you keep attributing so much text to me which I didn't even write. Unless you want to be cited for WP:HAR then go talk to the other editors involved. Arind8 (talk) 10:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  It was not a vandalism, I restored the last version before you stared your disruptive editing. Your edits and citations are problematic as others told you. Timovinga (talk) 10:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  1. You did not remove my text only.

  2. You are contesting the validity of sources which are either reliable and/or were not written by me, but still attributing it to me and/or using this discussion to remove them. Arind8 (talk) 10:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• Indeffed by SpacemanSpiff as NOTHERE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
• User:Malcolmx15 didn't say who was indeffed. The original poster has been hit by their own boomerang. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2024 (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.

Caroline Overington

Hello, The article says: As of 2021, she was in a relationship with writer Gideon Haigh.

This isn't true. It hasn't been true for years. I know that people have tried to change it for Caroline, but Wikipedia editors keep changing it back, saying she has to "prove" that she's not in a relationship with him anymore by using "reliable sources"

That sounds like she has to become the subject of gossip before Wikipedia will change it. She shouldn't be forced to do that.

It's not on his page. It was, but he had it taken off years ago.

I see from her Instagram page, and her Facebook page, both of which are verified, that it's not true. See here: https://www.instagram.com/p/C0VZJaOBcbR/?hl=en for example.

Please help to have it taken off her page. It's bewildering to her partner, children and family that she can't seem to get it removed. If you have to include something about her personal life you can say: In 2021 she *was* in a relationship with Gideon Haigh" but isn't any longer but I don't see why everyone has to know that. Concern10987654890 (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

This article has had a long history of seemingly COI editing, so much so that an entire article in the Sidney Morning Herald was written about it back in 2021 [46]. That said, I don't object to the removal of this particular passage, but I wish that the various accounts that are likely closely associated with Overington (such as Madmondrian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from September last year) who are trying to remove this passage were more honest with their assocation. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. However, it is indeed nonsensical that the subject should have to prove she isn't in a relationship any more, and even if it was true in 2021, it isn't any longer (per her Instagram, which is OK per SELF) so that passage which insinuates that it is still the case needs to go. I've watchlisted. Black Kite (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

No, Overington should not have to become the subject of gossip before Wikipedia will change it, particularly as this was in the article on the basis of what seems to be a fictionalised account of a murder written by her claimed former partner himself, which is no better than gossip. Wikipedia still seems to operate a double standard by which such content is expected for female subjects but not male ones. It would, of course, have been much easier to deal with this without the shenanigans described above. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not gossip in any sense I would describe that term, it's pretty clearly stated in the 2021 SMH article I linked. It has also been discussed before, see Talk:Caroline_Overington#BLP edit war, but didn't seem to go anywhere. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, the information about her being in a relationship with Gideon Haigh was added back in 2020 by the SPA Blogstar2020 (talk · contribs) diff who in a separate edit removed a large amount of negative material relating to Overington, which like the SMH suggests to me that this was COI editing by someone close to Overington, so it's a bit ironic to both add material to an article and then complain when it isn't removed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I participated on the previous discussion. As I remarked there, there are a few different issues here. One is that some of the earlier SPAs seemed to be implying the claim was never true.

But this was reported in the a fairly major newspaper in Australia. And it wasn't some sort of a gossip item about a relationship but instead a story where the claim was somewhat significant to the story. They're two people heavily involved in the media. If the claim was never true, it's hard to believe they don't know how to go about getting it corrected. Therefore, we should treat the claim as true at the time.

However, this doesn't mean we need to mention the claim in our article. If we don't mention the other details, I'm not sure it adds much to mention it.

A wider issue is even if we do mention it, how we handle claims which were true at one time, but which we are no longer the case. The point of the 'as of' is not to claim the statement is still true, but to emphasise that we only know this was the case as of that date. We have no idea of the current situation. But I'm not sure everyone understands this, although I'm also not sure if there's a wording which conveys it which isn't clunky.

Note that especially for marriages we often don't do this and instead simply say they are married to Z. We've actually had several complaints from people who are no longer married but for which there are no RS covering the divorce. The most famous of this is probably Talk:Emily St. John Mandel.

We don't have any real agreement on how to handle these cases. Some people are fine with using WP:ABOUTSELF for this but personally I'm not a fan of this since we're clearly making a statement about some other person/third party (whoever they allegedly divorced from).

While it's a fairly innocuous statement, and in many countries it doesn't really say anything about the other party (in that they don't have to even agree to the divorce), if it does turn out it's a lie for whatever reason, I can understand this other party being pissed that we spread a lie about them. I don't think coaxing it as a "person A said they divorced" really makes it that much better, there's a reason we don't allow aboutself for other statements about some third party even when it's written like this.

My view is that our best solution is generally just to remove the info. In most cases, the marriage isn't that important so just remove all mention of the marriage is fine, no matter if it's in RS. But some people are insistent it's very important info. I also think some of the subjects requesting mention of their divorce might not even be satisfied with this solution.

P.S. Of course it's also fairly annoying the way that editors with a CoI are often super desperate for us to add something about them until something changes and they're no longer so desperate. The worst of these is when want an article until they get into some trouble and then no longer want one.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

There's a meta problem here in that "as of" is commonly[47] understood mean "starting from and continuing". The phrase "as at" would be better to constraint the statement to a date. Bon courage (talk) 11:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Note also while the famous case of Mandel at least had some sort of social media presence IIRC and maybe even a blog and/or official website, there are also plenty of cases when the person has none. Even with identity verification, I definitely don't think we should be relying on people telling us directly to correct the info, and that's also not what aboutself is about, so in those cases even that doesn't work. Nil Einne (talk) 12:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

It would be good if, in addition to the other things mentioned above that the single-purpose accounts (which includes Concern10987654890 here) are getting wrong, they would get the noticeboard use right, too. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard is the place for this and all things like this.

And yes we routinely there see the sort of lopsidedness that Phil Bridger mentions. The last that I myself noted on that noticeboard was the different content standards between Francine Diaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Kyle Echarri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for exactly the same things. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive355#Francine Diaz.

Uncle G (talk) 09:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Blank 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.

---

I was trying to create a the sandbox User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/Sean Jackson and accidentally saved the wrong tab Sean Jackson (basketball). Can someone blank it so that tomorrow when I move the page, it shows it entered the main space on February 3.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:35, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

It seems that you already blanked the page but want it deleted; in this case I've tagged it for G7. Best, NotAGenious (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Now deleted (not by me). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Thx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:07, 2 February 2024 (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.

List of current National Football League staffs

Please re-instate the page that was listed here the way it was.

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

As a writer for Blogging Dirty, but with connections to writers all around the league, national and otherwise, we use this page heavily every year to try and figure out how teams will build their staffs. It really helps us figure things out before we go. It's also been a page that's been built for like 15 years and wasn't anyone's issue until recently. The jobs listed on the page for each template does matter and the staff directory links are updated in here regularly. Please help us continue to have a guide that will save us hours for research. What used to take me 10-15 minutes to research on a regular basis, took me over 3 hours last night. CarasikS (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of current National Football League staffs. The list was deleted because it didn't meet Wikipedia notability criteria. Wikipedia is not a directory, and it would seem rather unreasonable to expect our contributors (all volunteers) to make an exception and maintain such a list just for your personal convenience. Furthermore, the information for individual teams appears to be in the relevant article anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not a personal convenience thing. It's a for the entire NFL writers industry thing. The people who use the reference deem it to be notable enough. If that doesn't matter for notability, then what's the purpose of notability criteria for wikipedia? If the experts in this field deem it notable, how is it not notable? CarasikS (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Experts in the field can deem something notable, but not WP:NOTABLE. On Wikipedia, "notable" means "meets the WP:Notability guideline." There are no experts on WP:Notability (or another way to say it, all editors are "experts" on WP:Notability). But it's not up to subject matter experts to deem things WP:Notable, it's up to Wikipedia editors who vote at WP:AFDs and such. Levivich (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 February 1 and discussion on BeanieFan11's Talk, the List is now at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/List of current National Football League staffs Star Mississippi 23:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

It should be noted the article was merely 32 template transclusions of each team's personnel template (all of which continue to be updated unaffected); Category:National Football League staff templates and Category:National Football League roster templates should fulfill the purposes you need, Carasik, just not appearing on one page. Nate • (chatter) 22:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

It had been up for a good decade. Why was it just now deemed "not notable"? Please answer that for me. CarasikS (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Because someone (an experienced contributor, though that isn't directly relevant) saw it, thought that it didn't meet our notability guidelines, and started a discussion where it was agreed that it wasn't. Which is how we deal with such questions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Can someone protect a few template/module pages for me?

• Template:Easy CSS image crop
• Module:ImageRatio
• Template:Easy CSS image crop/bSize

They're a calculation handler for {{CSS image crop}} that vastly, vastly simplifies using it. But if they get widespread... Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 02:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, we don't usually protect pages preemptively.. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 03:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I believe it's more common for templates. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 03:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd support protection, and I think it's justified by various parts of the protection policy (WP:PTPROT, the last part of WP:PPINDEF) and the guideline WP:HRT. If this ends up being controversial, ECP is also suggested as a compromise measure. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:04, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Aye. Plan to write about this in the next Signpost, and don't want to have a situation where the template gets wider use before the vandalism prevention. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 04:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

What level of protection would be wanted? Semi-protection (require logged-in user with 10 edits + 4 days) would be least controversial but if this request were at WP:RFPP the standard response would be not preemptive. I would support semi for this application. Johnuniq (talk) 04:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi sounds good, though template protection for Module:ImageRatio and Template:Easy CSS image crop/bSize, since they're unlikely to be watchlisted, might be reasonable. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 05:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)