View source for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive363

{{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}

== Request for intervention concerning [[User:Aearthrise]]  ==
{{collapse top|title=Original request for assistance containing examples of insults/communication style and individual difflinks}}


Hello admins, I'm kindly asking you to intervene in a matter concerning {{User|Aearthrise}} and the article [[Pennsylvania Dutch]] which I believe is getting out of hand and is harming Wikipedia. 

In little under two years time, a single user (Aearthrise) has basically claimed sole editorship of the [[Pennsylvania Dutch]]-article. If statistics are to be believed, Aearthrise has since become the author of over 50% of the articles content and is responsible for 83% of all edits to the article within a two year timeframe. [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Pennsylvania%20Dutch/2018-01-01/2024-06-20] Now there is of course nothing wrong with a single author being prominent or more involved in an article, but I'm afraid that in this particular case it has resulted in significant damage to Wikipedias reliability, neglect of its principles and a severe lack of respectful communication. In practice Aearthrise adds what he wants, deletes what he wants and does so in a manner which I can only describe as browbeating or just plain bullying. 

Any attempt to engage in a meaningful discussion concerning the articles content is impossible as all of these discussions follow a basic pattern: a question is asked by another user or Aearthrise himself; which is soon followed by a large amount of green quotes from various websites and Google Books. Any attempt to bring in professional literature with an alternative POV is ignored or waved away and the discussion quickly gets unnecessarily personal and unpleasant. Exploring or questioning the validity or reliability of the green quotes is equally not appreciated. Regardless of arguments made, sources provided or discussed: Aearthrise does what he wants.  

Currently there are 4 talk page discussions involving Aearthrise, which I've tried to describe and summarize below. I've added diff links and excerpts which (I hope) give a good idea of the problem at hand, but would advise anyone involved to read the talk page itself and check the recent article history to get the complete picture; especially concerning the first one as I feel it illustrates Aearthrises attitude and debating style as no other.  

In the '''first talk page discussion''' involving him, Aearthrise reverts an edit made by {{Ping|47thPennVols}} several times and then posts a comment on the talk page, asking for a source on how ″Dutchman″ can be considered a slur for some Pennsylvania Dutch. The entire discussion [[Talk:Pennsylvania_Dutch#Claim_that_modern_Pennsylvania_Dutch_consider_Dutchman_to_be_a_slur|can be read here]]. At one point 47thPennVols, who remains friendly and professional throughout the entire conversation, curiously asks why Aearthrise (a user who claims to be a French Louisianian from New Orleans) has such an intense interest in Pennsylvania Dutch history. To which Aearthrise replies: 
:''My grandfather was Dutch, and unfortunately he passed away during the pandemic. I do miss speaking Dutch with him, and I wish I spent more time with him. Developing this article helps me connect with my German heritage.'' [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APennsylvania_Dutch&diff=1163695409&oldid=1163650608]
Reacting to this and the issue at hand, 47thPennVols posts a comment which can really only be described as heartfelt, well-meaning and constructive. In this comment she gives her condolences, tries to make a personal connection and goes on to explain why he wants to address the issue raised and explicitly says he wants to reach a workable middle road.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pennsylvania_Dutch&diff=next&oldid=1165014990] It receives a single sentence reply: ''What is your citation that "Pennsylvania Dutchman" is a derogatory term for the PA Dutch people?'' [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pennsylvania_Dutch&diff=next&oldid=1163710326] — despite the fact that 47thPennVols already gave her citation. 

To his credit, 47thPennVols stays on topic and expresses her concern with the 5 quotes that Aearthrise previously provided. 47thPennVols explains that the publisher of some of these sources (Stackpole Books) has come under scrutiny on Wikipedia over the years and is not considered to meet Wikipedia quality standards. He also goes on to cite an academic review of one of the sources provided by Aearthrise, which said the source contained ″numerous errors″, ″interpretive and rhetorical overstatements″ and ″needs to be handled with care″.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pennsylvania_Dutch&diff=next&oldid=1165031161] Instead of reflecting on the sources used, Aearthrise doubles down, writing:
:''You are continually waffling and nitpicking, but you have not yet provided ONE source for your claim. I've already provided 5 sources both historic and recent that demonstrate the usage of Dutchman in regards to the Pennsylvania Dutch community.'' [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pennsylvania_Dutch&diff=next&oldid=1165030444]
and;
:''You have not proved your claim that Dutchman is a slur in Pennsylvania Dutch community; it is therefore not appropriate to remove the term- this is based on your original research, and not based in reality. I suggest next time you make an unsubstantiated claim, you find the evidence to back it up. Your attempt to remove the term is completely unjustified.'' [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pennsylvania_Dutch&diff=next&oldid=1165037228]
47thPennVols then writes: 
:''I'm asking you, respectfully, to stop now. Despite your repeated claims to the contrary, I have, in fact, presented you with a source that confirms that the terminology you used in the article has been considered a slur. I have presented that source to you twice. I have also documented that, of the five sources you have used to back up your claim that the term you used was not a slur, two were completely irrelevant because they were published before the period when the slur began to be used against Pennsylvania Germans and the Pennsylvania Dutch community, one of your other three sources contains known factual errors, according to at least one prominent historian, and the other two are considered potentially unreliable as sources by multiple, experienced Wikipedia editors because those sources are produced by companies known for publishing the works of self-published authors that are not considered suitable for scholarly research. It is clear from your insistence on pursuing this dialogue, despite the evidence I have presented, that you are unwilling to consider my sincere perspective. Therefore, we must agree to disagree. And because of that, I am, again, asking you to stop, reflect and then move on to another matter deserving of your attention. I will not be continuing this dialogue with you any longer, but do sincerely wish you all the best with your future research. Kind Regards.'' [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pennsylvania_Dutch&diff=next&oldid=1165038587]
Aearthrise responds twice to this, in a manner which speaks for itself: 

:''Your "perspective", i.e. original research, is invalid; the only citation you've provided is a weak Dictionary.com entry that is not at all related to the Pennsylvania Dutch. There is nothing to "agree to disagree"- you have not provided sufficient proof for your claim, and your attempts to remove "Pennsylvania Dutchman" from this article are completely unjustified. I shall roll back your last edit.'' [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pennsylvania_Dutch&diff=next&oldid=1165049067]
and;
:''You undid my reversion of your post claiming "Ther term "Dutchman" is considered to be a slur by many in the Pennsylvania Dutch community"; either produce reasonable evidence of your claim now, or I shall revert it again. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pennsylvania_Dutch&diff=prev&oldid=1165638669] 
Regrettably but understandably, 47thPennVols gave up his attempts to edit and improve the article.  

The '''second talk page discussion''' involving Aearthrise concerns a long bilingual quote that Aearthrise has added to the article. The quote is very wordy (in fact the quote has a higher word count than the section its in) but the main point of disagreement is that Aearthrise insists that the original Pennsylvania German quote (from a book published in 1903) should use the Fraktur font — which 𝔴𝔥𝔦𝔠𝔥 𝔩𝔬𝔬𝔨𝔰 𝔩𝔦𝔨𝔢 𝔱𝔥𝔦𝔰 and is something highly uncommon if not nonexistent on Wikipedia and in professional literature. When {{Ping|Theodore Christopher}} addressed this, a very unpleasant discussion again unfolds, which can be read [[Talk:Pennsylvania_Dutch#Professor_Daniel_Miller's_comment,_and_Fraktur|here in full]] but contains remarks directed at Theodore Christopher such as:    

:''Although I already answered this question in an edit, which you choose to ignore now, I shall entertain the question with this response.'' [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pennsylvania_Dutch&diff=next&oldid=1184831904]

:''You speak on that the usage of Hebrew and Greek are irrelevant to Palatine German- this is another statement without a thought.'' [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pennsylvania_Dutch&diff=next&oldid=1184985609]

:''Your inability to comprehend that is telling of your mindset; you ignore sound arguments and prefer to just waffle and blather.'' [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pennsylvania_Dutch&diff=next&oldid=1184985609]

:''Your words are based in ignorance, coming and from an outsider to Pennsylvania Dutch culture, you who don't even speak the language nor know our cultural traits.'' [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APennsylvania_Dutch&diff=1184915154&oldid=1184838105]

:''As I said in my previous post: "your thoughts are not worth very much.'' [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APennsylvania_Dutch&diff=1184915154&oldid=1184838105]

:''Lastly, your (...) quote is completely incorrect, and it shows you lack knowledge of Pennsylvania Dutch culture or basic understanding of the message.'' [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pennsylvania_Dutch&diff=next&oldid=1184985609]

:''Your arguments and words are all vapid nonsense (...)'' [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pennsylvania_Dutch&diff=next&oldid=1184985609]

Theodore Christophers edit were repeatedly reverted by Aearthrise and he (once again, regrettably but understandably) stopped engaging with the article. When I joined this discussion some time later and wrote I fully supported Theodore Christophers changes and argumentation, this too was ignored or waved away and edits reverted multiple times.

The '''third talk page discussion''' involves a NPOV-dispute concerning the etymology of ″Dutch″ in ″Pennsylvania Dutch″. There seem to be two main trains of thought: one is that Dutch was used in an older broader meaning, the other that is an anglicization of the Pennsylvania Dutch word for themselves ″deitsch″. Both views have reputable academic publications behind them and are widespread among scholars. Per WP:NPOV, both views should be represented in the article, as they were in the past and are represented on other Wikipedias.    

Aearthrise opposes this, considering one view to be ″the truth″ [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APennsylvania_Dutch&diff=1229809000&oldid=1229784457] and the other nonsense and again and again [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Pennsylvania_Dutch&diff=1225571694&oldid=1223524557] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Pennsylvania_Dutch&diff=1229377866&oldid=1228989624] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Pennsylvania_Dutch&diff=next&oldid=1229778008] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Pennsylvania_Dutch&diff=prev&oldid=1229902948] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Pennsylvania_Dutch&diff=next&oldid=1229904711] removed the second view from the article. 

The pattern described at the beginning again appears: large amounts of quotes are spammed on the talk page. Most are from travel blogs, personal websites or books that are well over a hundred years (1900, 1870) old, followed by insulting or suggestive remarks:   
:''This is your problem- you want to operate on ignorance and your emotions rather than from evidence and knowledge, and you've shown that time and time again. Even now, you're showing how your feelings were hurt and trying to use that to win the argument. You have a bruised ego.'' [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pennsylvania_Dutch&diff=next&oldid=1230087819]

:''Your commentary makes you seem like the type who doesn't like learning, nor wants to learn'' [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pennsylvania_Dutch&diff=prev&oldid=1230006365]

:''You deleted my responsse here earlier for making a discussion here, but yet, as a hypocrite, you started a discussion here yourself!'' [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pennsylvania_Dutch&diff=prev&oldid=1230005631]

:''You are  hypocrite and are playing a game to get your way.''[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APennsylvania_Dutch&diff=1230111739&oldid=1230111206]

I came to the same conclusion as 47thPennVols before me in realizing that a discussion with Aearthrise wasn't going to go anywhere, so I made a Request for Comment-request to try and persuade others to voice their opinions on the matter. As I'm writing this, I don't think that RfC is going to be very successful as it immediately got spammed with large amount of green texts and personal remarks which have nothing to do with the purpose or subject of the RfC. At one point, he started adding large amounts of text to comments that had already been replied to [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APennsylvania_Dutch&diff=1230110876&oldid=1230110339] and despite explicit requests and warnings not to do this, he continued anyway [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APennsylvania_Dutch&diff=1230111871&oldid=1230111750]. 

In the '''fourth discussion''' involving Aearthrise an anonymous IP asked the perfectly normal question if there was a source for the claim that Elon Musk is of Pennsylvania Dutch ancestry, to which Aearthrises replied:
:''It takes a "special" person to ignore the citation that's already present on the article, and a lazy person to not take it upon himself to make quick a google search.'' [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APennsylvania_Dutch&diff=1229587444&oldid=1229460915] and again added a lot of green text from questionable websites.

He has my sympathies for losing his Pennsylvania Dutch grandfather, but this has clearly resulted in a case of [[Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content#Examples_of_ownership_behaviour|WP:OWN]] with regards to this article. Aearthrises behavior has resulted in many unreliable and/or outdated material finding its way into the article, it's been tailored to his personal preference to the point of the fonts used and the talk page and article history clearly show that he is unwilling to accept additional or alternative points of views, even when valid and reliable sources are clearly provided. In addition to the harm being done to the reliability and neutrality of the article, his aggressive, insulting and bullying style of communicating is driving other committed users away from an article which is not very well known or has many involved editors to begin with and is preventing improvements or changes to the article being made. 

This needs to stop before it gets out of hand even more than it already has. Wikipedias principles on personal attacks, proper use of sources and NPOV need to come out on top and I would therefore kindly ask you to intervene in this matter. [[User:Vlaemink|Vlaemink]] ([[User talk:Vlaemink|talk]]) 21:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
{{collapse top|title=Original response indicating Vlaemink's attempt to avoid direct argumentation}}
Vlaemink has continually made poor arguments not based on hard evidence; every single point i've made in our discussion includes evidence. Vlaemink added false information to the article, and also attempted to make an anecdotal argument equal to one that is filled with a plethora of hard evidence. 

Vlaemink has showed he doesn't want to argue and has deleted my arguments several times on the discussion page; he would rather play a game of ego rather than prove that his information is correct through well-reasoned arguments.

All of my edits are based on citations and evidence that are reasonable and well-sourced. Vlaemink here has cherrypicked four arguments, one from 47thPennVols that was completely based on his personal opinion, and which he could not provide evidence for. He tried to talk around the issue instead of providing evidence.

The second, from Theodore Christopher whose whole argument was based on treating a specific Fraktur variety of [[Pennsylvania Dutch language]], that was made to be rendered in Fraktur for historic reasons, the same as [[German language]], which I argued was incorrect and should be treated differently, due to the circumstances around this form of language, and that Pennsylvania Dutch language is completely separate to German language. He kept returning to the same point about how we treat standard German without addressing any of the points of contention I gave.

The third is Vlaemink's own argument about adding content that, partially was misleading, and another part completely false; I talked to him about how parts of his added content were misleading, but he didn't want to address the argument.

The fourth is an anonymous IP who said "The section talking about famous folks of PA Dutch decent says family of Elon Musk. Is this correct? Can this be substantiated with any evidence?", with a source of evidence right next to the word Elon Musk. I produced 4 more quotes in addition to that one, and wrote my response in a way to show the hubris of taking the time to write a whole section on the talk page, but not taking easy steps to view the evidence already provided, which is why I called it lazy.
Vlaemink wants to say that I claimed ownership of the article, but that's not true at all. I improved the article's quality and content with cited material. He claims "signficant damage" to Wikipedia, but includes no evidence for this claim other than points of his bruised ego from himself having not made good arguments for his addition of content. He wants to make you believe that this whole article is questionable now on nothing more than his word.
{{collapse bottom}}
Hello admins, I ask you to intervene in a matter concerning Aearthrise and the article Pennsylvania Dutch, which I believe is harming Wikipedia. I made a previous request which was too long and detailed; it can be found in the above collapsable for specific insults and more difflinks and '''[[Talk:Pennsylvania Dutch|here is article's talk page]]'''.  

In under two years, Aearthrise has dominated the Pennsylvania Dutch article, contributing over 50% of its content and making 83% of all edits.[https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Pennsylvania%20Dutch/2018-01-01/2024-06-20][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APennsylvania_Dutch&diff=1163695409&oldid=1163650608] While single authorship isn't inherently problematic, in this case, it has led to significant damage to Wikipedia's reliability, neglect of its principles, and a lack of respectful communication. Aearthrise adds and deletes content as he pleases, often in a bullying manner.
Meaningful discussions about the article’s content are impossible. Attempts to introduce alternative perspectives are ignored, and discussions quickly become personal and unpleasant. Regardless of the arguments or sources provided, Aearthrise does what he wants. Four talk page discussions illustrate these issues.

In the first discussion, Aearthrise reverted edits by {{ping|47thPennVols}}: and demanded a source on how "Dutchman" can be considered a slur. 47thPennVols provided a citation and raised concerns about Aearthrise’s sources, which were aggressively and unilaterally dismissed. 47thPennVols eventually gave up on editing the article.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pennsylvania_Dutch&diff=next&oldid=1165014990][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pennsylvania_Dutch&diff=next&oldid=1163710326][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pennsylvania_Dutch&diff=next&oldid=1165031161] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pennsylvania_Dutch&diff=next&oldid=1165030444][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pennsylvania_Dutch&diff=next&oldid=1165037228][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pennsylvania_Dutch&diff=next&oldid=1165038587][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pennsylvania_Dutch&diff=next&oldid=1165049067][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pennsylvania_Dutch&diff=prev&oldid=1165638669]  The second discussion involves a long bilingual quote added by Aearthrise in Fraktur font, highly uncommon on Wikipedia. When {{ping|Theodore Christopher}}: addressed this, a very unpleasant discussion ensued. Aearthrise made derogatory remarks and repeatedly reverted Christopher’s edits. My support for Christopher’s changes was also ignored.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pennsylvania_Dutch&diff=next&oldid=1184831904][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pennsylvania_Dutch&diff=next&oldid=1184985609][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pennsylvania_Dutch&diff=next&oldid=1184985609][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APennsylvania_Dutch&diff=1184915154&oldid=1184838105][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APennsylvania_Dutch&diff=1184915154&oldid=1184838105][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pennsylvania_Dutch&diff=next&oldid=1184985609][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pennsylvania_Dutch&diff=next&oldid=1184985609] The third discussion is a NPOV-dispute about the etymology of "Dutch" in "Pennsylvania Dutch." Both views should be represented, but Aearthrise opposes one view and repeatedly removes it, despite valid sources. He spams the talk page with quotes from unreliable sources and insults, questioning others’ motives. An RfC was similarly spammed, deterring other participants.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pennsylvania_Dutch&diff=next&oldid=1230087819][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pennsylvania_Dutch&diff=prev&oldid=1230006365][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pennsylvania_Dutch&diff=prev&oldid=1230005631]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APennsylvania_Dutch&diff=1230111739&oldid=1230111206][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APennsylvania_Dutch&diff=1230110876&oldid=1230110339][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APennsylvania_Dutch&diff=1230111871&oldid=1230111750] In the fourth discussion, an anonymous IP asked for a source on Elon Musk’s Pennsylvania Dutch ancestry. Aearthrise responded insultingly and added text from questionable websites.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APennsylvania_Dutch&diff=1229587444&oldid=1229460915]

Aearthrise’s behavior has led to unreliable and outdated materials in the article. His aggressive, insulting, and bullying style drives committed users away, preventing improvements. This must stop before it worsens. Wikipedia's principles on personal attacks, proper use of sources, and NPOV must prevail. I kindly ask you to intervene in this matter and hope my description of the problem is now brief enough to be workable. [[User:Vlaemink|Vlaemink]] ([[User talk:Vlaemink|talk]]) 06:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

:I'm condensing this section because Vlaemink has edited his original post to make it smaller, and is making different claims now. 
:He claims that 1.my challenging 47thPennVols insulted him, so it scared him away; this is untrue, as I asked for evidence for the opinion he was presenting, but he did not produce anything beyond a weak quote unrelated to the topic. 
:2. Vlaemink claims I made derogatory remarks and reverted Theodore Christopher comments; none of those links he added shows "derogatory remarks", it's just long-winded debate, and for the reversion, it's because Theodore Christopher completely removed content, which I challenged the removal, and we subsequently discussed it. 
:3.Vlaemink's problem is not the addition of content (beyond the false content he added), but rather the misleading nature of equating a consensus based on an abundance of hard evidence with an anecdotal folk etymology debunked by experts on the topic. 
:4. Vlaemink says I insulted the anonymous IP by calling him lazy for asking for evidence, when evidence was already present on the article, attached directly to the information he read; the anonymous IP didn't at all make the post about reliability. Now, on this thread, Valemink is now claiming these are questionable websites. Forbes is a questionable website? I don't think so, and if it is this isn't the place to discuss that, it should be done the article's talk page. [[User:Aearthrise|Aearthrise]] ([[User talk:Aearthrise|talk]]) 22:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
::@[[User:Vlaemink|Vlaemink]] and @[[User:Aearthrise|Aearthrise]] these are both quite extensive [[WP:Wall of text|walls of text]]. It is far more than I and many other editors or indeed administrators (all of whom, remember, are volunteers contributing in their spare time) will have time to read. I'm sure you both carefully crafted your comments and were aiming for completeness but I'd urge you both to condense your concerns down to the most salient points. [[User:Adam Black|<span style="color:red">Adam</span> <span style="color:blue">Black</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Adam Black|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]] &bull; [[Special:Contributions/Adam_Black|<span style="color:orange">contribs</span>]]</sup> 22:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
:::I can condense this whole argument: Vlaemink is mad that because he can't argue with hard evidence, he would rather make an ego-filled post here to administrators about how my words could hurt people's feelings, instead of actually providing well-sourced proof for his arguments. Vlaemink wants an administrator to step in and save him, rather than address the points of discussion. [[User:Aearthrise|Aearthrise]] ([[User talk:Aearthrise|talk]]) 22:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
::::This type of combative [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] response doesn't exactly defend yourself well from the complaints above. [[User:The Kip|<span style="color:#333f42;">'''The'''</span>]] [[User talk:The Kip|<span style="color:#b4975a;">'''Kip'''</span>]] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Kip|contribs]])</sup></small></span> 23:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::That's your opinion, but it doesn't change the fact that this whole post is about how Vlaemink says my words may hurt other people's feelings, and that he made it here because he wasn't willing to wait for comment on the article's talk page (he already put in a request for comment); his arguments weren't convincing through discussion and evidence, which is why he is taking the route of notifying administrators- his actions show that he's not confident that he can win with his own arguments. [[User:Aearthrise|Aearthrise]] ([[User talk:Aearthrise|talk]]) 09:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::Wikipedia is not about ″winning arguments″, it's about finding sources and finding consensus. The fact that I asked for a third opinion, RfC and now have taken to the Administrators Noticeboard is anything but a sign that I do not believe in the validly of my sources and the need for their inclusion.[[User:Vlaemink|Vlaemink]] ([[User talk:Vlaemink|talk]]) 13:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC) 
:::::::Wikipedia is about showing what is verifiable and true, and that is "winning arguments"; Wikipedia is all based on evidence. There is no evidence that Dutch is just a corruption beyond that people have said it. The consensus on the origin of Dutch has an abudance of evidence to show why it's correct, and that's the view scholarship accepts. [[User:Aearthrise|Aearthrise]] ([[User talk:Aearthrise|talk]]) 15:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Any Wikipedian familiar with Wikipedia's principles can tell ([[WP:NPOV|and show you]]) why that is completely false: Wikipedia does not show what is ″true″, it repeats and summarizes what has been written about a particular issue by reliable and valid authors. And if there are multiple views, then multiple views are to be mentioned to provide the reader with the full scope of an article. This an encyclopedia, not a bundle of personal essays. [[User:Vlaemink|Vlaemink]] ([[User talk:Vlaemink|talk]]) 18:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)     
:That is 2000 words. You'll need to cut that down by like 75 percent at least. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 22:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
:While this is far too long, I'll just say that from inspection, Vlaemink raises some good points, and Aearthrise needs to adjust their behavior ''even if they're right'' (which I don't think is a given).  In #4, an IP address asked a harmless question, and Aearthrise was pointlessly rude and insulting, and even made their case seem ''worse'' by linking some truly awful sources like random websites with "A brief biography of Elon Musk for young kids" (looks '''obviously''' AI generated!  Terrible formatting, alien wording! [https://vocal.media/humans/elon-musk-l91j20u7u]).  See [[WP:BITE]], there's no need to be hostile to a standard question, just politely link your source and move on, or ignore it.  (And frankly, given Musk's reality distortion field, it wouldn't shock me if it was at least ''possible'' that someone just made it up in the past, so there is an interesting question here.)  For #2, We absolutely don't do fancy Fraktur fonts because it was contemporary, and I don't think the Miller quote is worth including at all, let alone 4 full paragraphs of it that is extremely partial (I'm sorry, but Eastern Pennsylvania was not the "model of the world" for agriculture, the good professor was deluded, why are we quoting this guy).  Aearthrise claims that German nationalism only existed in the "late 19th century" ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Pennsylvania_Dutch&diff=next&oldid=1229778008 diff]), which is 1000% false to anyone who knows ''anything'' about the [[German question]].  For #1, I'd argue that one Aearthrise has a point on the merits, but he was still needlessly hostile on the talk page, seeming to invoke ownership rather than finding some compromise, like a footnote discussing the issue from both sides.  Similarly, for #3, even if we grant for a moment that Aearthrise is correct (we'd need someone uninvolved to examine the literature), then there's probably an interesting missing section about the "folk etymology", its supporters, and reliable sources on why it's wrong.  Instead of just deleting it outright.  [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 23:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
*:Well, I read all of the comments here and Aearthrise, if you can honestly read all of this evidence and blame it all on a "hurt ego", it shows to me that you are taking this too personally and refusing to address the merits of the complaint. Of course no one likes to be criticized but there is some unreasonable and uncivil behavior on your part that you can't wave off with a "hurt ego" comment. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 03:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
*::I addressed the merits of the complaint, but my point of contention was that Vlaemink was misleading people by equating anecdotal evidence with the consensus explanation of "Dutch" by linguists and experts, proven by an abundance of hard evidence. Vlaemink refused to revise the content he wrote, and included false content at the same time. [[User:Aearthrise|Aearthrise]] ([[User talk:Aearthrise|talk]]) 09:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::You can repeat this time and again, that etymology A consists of ″anecdotal evidence″ and etymology B does not — but it doesn't make it so. It's a debate tactic, it's not based on the sources provided. The talk page contains numerous publications by reputable authors which subscribe to etymology A, and this alone shows that a ″consensus explanation proven by an abundance of hard evidence″ does not exist. One of the authors supporting etymology B even explicitly mentions the fact that etymology A is <u>mainstream among nonscholars and scholars alike</u>. A Wikipedia editor is supposed to report on relevant view from reliable publications, we are not here to create our own preferred version of reality. This is the core issue here. [[User:Vlaemink|Vlaemink]] ([[User talk:Vlaemink|talk]]) 13:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC) 
:::::::You show you don't want to cooperate on this article, because you ignore the points of contention and want to make the claim based on anecdote equal to the one based on heavy evidence, and is the consensus view on the origin of Dutch.
:::::::You don't want to acknowledge how equating these arguments is misleading, and that's the whole problem, not whether we include the information at all. [[User:Aearthrise|Aearthrise]] ([[User talk:Aearthrise|talk]]) 15:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
*:{{ping|SnowFire}} I didn't claim German nationalism only existed in the "late 19th century" as you're claiming from that revert link, but if it is a point of contention, it can be easily discussed and proven or disproven with proper evidence. I didn't revert Vlaemink's revision because of when German nationalism started, it was because he deleted a lot of content, and for his inclusion of false information, that High Dutch was a calque of "Hochdeutsch", false and not substantiated by the sources added, and misleading content which was saying there was confusion by linguists about an anecdotal folk etymology while there is consensus of the historic of use of "Dutch" backed by an abundance of hard evidence. There is no problem with adding a footnote, but Vlaemink did not want to change his position on the way of writing the content, because he wanted to present them as equal arguments.
*:You talk about the quotes for Elon Musk, which as I said were all easily found on a quick Google, and you only mention one, being the last quote. The others are [https://www.forbes.com/sites/hannahelliott/2012/03/26/at-home-with-elon-musk-the-soon-to-be-bachelor-billionaire/ Forbes.com], [https://www.forbes.com/sites/hannahelliott/2012/03/26/at-home-with-elon-musk-the-soon-to-be-bachelor-billionaire/ Industrytap.com], etc.
*:As for the Fraktur, which you're trying to dismiss in the same way as Theodore (who called it ridiculous), and Vlaemink who called it (ludicrous),  i've spoken at length on the discussion page why it should presented in that form, as it is a classical literary variety of Pennsylvania Dutch written specifically in Fraktur as a way to fight against the complete loss of German education in Pennsylvania. The Fraktur wasn't only a circumstance of being written at that time as you want to claim, it was consciously written like that to be an opposition to fight against the "Englisha rule" Pennsylvania Dutch, which was simply the spoken language of the time written in an English way, and part of the reason it was ridiculed. 
*:For the quote by Daniel Miller itself, it painted very well the feeling of the prejudice faced against the Pennsylvania Dutch community, and that was the point of the paragraph. Your nitpick is on how Dr.Miller showed that emotion towards the prejudice, and are making an argument about his words aimed at uplifting a marginalized people.
*:As for invoking ownership, there is no proof for that claim, unless you're basing it on the passion i've shown to make this a quality article. I always want people to challenge content on Wikipedia, but the content should well-sourced, and if there is confusion about content, it can be discussed until a resolution is made, based on the best argument and best evidence. [[User:Aearthrise|Aearthrise]] ([[User talk:Aearthrise|talk]]) 09:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
:::Leaving aside a literal declaration of ownership, there is plenty of clear evidence that you are behaving as if you own this article: 
:::*Over half of the current article content was added by you in less than two years and your edits make up 83% of the total during that period. [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Pennsylvania%20Dutch/2018-01-01/2024-06-20] — and these edits did not come about in a collaborative and constructive way: you are unnecessarily aggressive and insulting. 
:::*Prior to 2022 you did not edit this article. You described yourself as a Louisiana Cajun living in New Orleans, and a professional translator proficient in  English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Latin, Greek, Italian and Romanian.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Aearthrise&oldid=1079033084]. 
:::*After 2022, you stated that your grandfather was Pennsylvania Dutch and claimed to speak Pennsylvania German.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APennsylvania_Dutch&diff=1163695409&oldid=1163650608] You started to edit the article intensely and at one point even claimed that you yourself were in fact Pennsylvania Dutch, as evidenced by a remark in which you accused a fellow editor of ″not even speaking the language nor knowing <u>our</u> cultural traits″ [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APennsylvania_Dutch&diff=1184915154&oldid=1184838105] and  explicitly stated that you edit the article because it ″helps you to connect with my German heritage″ [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APennsylvania_Dutch&diff=1163695409&oldid=1163650608]. 
:::And therein lies the problem, because that's only half the story. It's clear to me (and I hope also to others) that it's not just your desire to connect or explore your heritage but also <u>a clear desire to shape your claimed heritage to your own personal liking</u>. If you were truly interested and invested in this article, you would welcome every possible view, nuance and sourced addition to the article. Instead, you seem to exclusively want to see your own personal views and preferences in the article page and get abusive as soon as anyone dares to challenge or even as much as doubt it. [[Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content#Examples_of_ownership_behaviour|That's a clear example of WP:OWN-behavior]] and I really do not see how you can objectively deny this given all the evidence and examples provided. [[User:Vlaemink|Vlaemink]] ([[User talk:Vlaemink|talk]]) 10:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
::::Vlaemink, as someone who agrees with you, Aearthrise's cultural background is irrelevant, and I'd recommend dropping the topic.  Judge by actions here, not possible motives.  The sole thing that matters is refusing to work with others to improve the article and instead insisting on "their" view.  [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 10:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{ping|SnowFire}} You are right, I should have stuck to the refusal to cooperate and ignoring of alternative POVs.[[User:Vlaemink|Vlaemink]] ([[User talk:Vlaemink|talk]]) 13:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC) 
::::::::::::The refusal to cooperate is on your side. You don't want to listen to opposition and work towards a solution; it's not about ignoring alternative points of view, it's about making points of view that are weak equal to ones that are very strong, based on hard evidence. [[User:Aearthrise|Aearthrise]] ([[User talk:Aearthrise|talk]]) 15:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::The problem being identified in the discussion of personal background is the rather blatant inconsistency of the claims, suggesting strongly a history of dishonesty. [[Special:Contributions/100.36.106.199|100.36.106.199]] ([[User talk:100.36.106.199|talk]]) 11:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::You want to purport that sharing self-identity on the talk page this platform is supposed be an "inconsistency of the claims", and say the writing self-identity on the talk pages "strongly suggests a history of dishonesty". This is an incorrect statement, and users should be able identify however they want on their talk pages, without being harassed about it. [[User:Aearthrise|Aearthrise]] ([[User talk:Aearthrise|talk]]) 14:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
::::Vlaemink, you are doing everything to try to save face. You claim [[WP:OWN]], but your only evidence is that I added more than over 50% of the current content on the article, that my talk page identifies me in a certain way, and finally a cherry picked quote from the discussion about treatment of Pennsylania Dutch language in the Fraktur discussion with Theodore Christopher, which his whole argument was based around how we treat standard German.
::::You're using personal information now to try to prove that I claim ownership on the article, but all you're doing is making a discussion of who I am as person. [[User:Aearthrise|Aearthrise]] ([[User talk:Aearthrise|talk]]) 10:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
* (de-indent, reply to Aearthrise above, but it seems Vlaemink decided to reply there instead): I'm going to try to keep this brief.  A), Yes you did make such a claim on German nationalism, it's right in the linked diff above (and the incorrect statement wasn't in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Pennsylvania_Dutch&oldid=1101563161 version of the article in 2022] before your revisions), but if you're saying it was a good edit of Vlaemink's accidentally swept up in the undo, fine, glad we agree.  B) Okay, so your sources are right and Vlaemink's are wrong on etymologies.  Put a pin in this.  C) You clearly aren't understanding The Problems in what I wrote on the IP's Musk question.  C1) How would you react if someone on a talk page asks what is in your view a simple and easily answered question in the future?  The same way or different?  Why?  C2) I agree that the Forbes article is the real source.  I was saying you only should have linked that before.  Instead you linked '''obvious''' chatbot splurge as "proof" as well.  This suggests you thought it was real proof.  This does not speak well for your discerning judgment in figuring out which sources are reliable and which aren't - do you understand that?  Everybody makes mistakes, it's no big deal, I've personally trusted some ''awful'' sources in retrospect. But an editor who makes mistakes, refuses to acknowledge them after they're pointed out, and then basically invokes their own judgment on which ''other'' sources are reliable (say in case B on etymologies) as unquestionable is treading on thin ice. (SnowFire, interjection by Vlaemink)
::::::{{ping|SnowFire}} I hope you don't mind me placing this small comment in between your comment, but the sources I've provided on etymology A are valid, reliable, and cited in full on the talk page. Also, Aearthrise is trying his utmost to frame this as ″my theory″, but I've provided sources on both etymologies and have no personal preference; my POV is that both should be mentioned as they both appear in the scholarly field.[[User:Vlaemink|Vlaemink]] ([[User talk:Vlaemink|talk]]) 13:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC) (SnowFire again:)
:::::::That was meant only as a summary of Aearthrise's argument that I'd loop back to (hence the "put a pin in it").  I'm not saying he's actually right about everything and you're wrong about everything.  [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 13:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Thanks for clarifying that, I misunderstood. English is not my native language and I think I got my idioms mixed up.[[User:Vlaemink|Vlaemink]] ([[User talk:Vlaemink|talk]]) 13:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC) 
:::::::::You claim i'm trying to frame this as your theory, but show no proof of it. The point of contention, and we've repeated this several times, is the consensus around the origin of the word "Dutch" in English. The other theory has been debunked by experts of the topic, and the debunking is based on a plethora of hard evidence.
:::::::::You haven't tried to revise your work as of yet, and you still want to present them as equal arguments. Wikipedia is based on what you can prove, and you can prove that some people mention it as the etymology of Dutch in English, but it has no evidence behind it beyond anecdote.
:::::::::[https://www.oed.com/dictionary/dutch_adj?tl=true Oxford] for example lays the term out perfectly {{tq|"from Middle Dutch dutsch ‘Dutch, Netherlandish, German’: the English word originally denoted speakers of both High and Low German, but became more specific after the United Provinces adopted the Low German of Holland as the national language on independence in 1579."}}. Oxford on the same page explicitly mentions the Pennsylvania Dutch as an example that falls under the historic use: {{tq|The German language, in any of its forms. Obsolete except in  High Dutch n. A.1a; Low Dutch — Pennsylvania Dutch, a degraded form of High German (originally from the Rhine Palatinate and Switzerland) spoken by the descendants of the original German settlers in Pennsylvania.}} [[User:Aearthrise|Aearthrise]] ([[User talk:Aearthrise|talk]]) 15:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::At this point I think there can only be two options: either you never understood what is being discussed to begin with or you did but are now purposely creating a smoke screen: <u>nobody</u> is contesting that the word ″Dutch″ at one point had an older, broader meaning in English which, in today's terms, could also include Germans. I wouldn't be able to name a single  professional etymological or historical linguistic publication that has ever disputed that. That's not what being discussed here:</u> the issue is not whether ″Dutch″ had additional meanings in the past, but why the ″Pennsylvania Dutch″ are called ″Dutch″ — and <u>that</u> question has at least two possible answers. Yoder in his 1980 article assumes ″Dutch″ is a relic of an earlier meaning surviving in American English, another explanation found in reliable sources is that its an Anglicization of ″deitsch″ or ″deutsch″. That's two theories, both of which should be mentioned in the article. The fact that (etymological) dictionaries prove that ″Dutch″ had a more diverse meaning the past does not mean they validate or prove Yoders hypothesis, it merely means Yoder used a historical dictionary as part of his explanation. Your quote from an 1897 Oxford Etymological dictionary entry (which also defines Pennsylvania Dutch as ″degraded German″) is in the same ballpark: it supports Yoder, but this has no relevance on the fact that other scholars hold a different view and that this view should be included per WP:NPOV. Louder already explicitly mentioned the popularity of the alternative among scholars, proving its relevance and further casting doubt on your continually repeated claim that a ″total consensus″ exists on the matter. [[User:Vlaemink|Vlaemink]] ([[User talk:Vlaemink|talk]]) 18:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)  
:::::::::::First, this Oxford post is from the online dictionary, which they've updated with all of the information they've collected, so you're claim that it's just an 1897 quote is unsubstantiated here. You say "Louder already explicitly mentioned the popularity of the alternative among scholars, proving its relevance". Dr. Louden like Dr.Yoder explicitly states that this idea is '''incorrect''', and he provides reasoning why, the same that I have presented to you over the past few days.
:::::::::::Dr.Louden says: {{tq|"Contrary to a widespread belief among both nonscholars and scholars, though, the Dutch in Pennsylvania Dutch is not a historical mistranslation of the native word Deitsch..."}}, and Dr. Yoder was quoted: {{tq|Dr. Don Yoder, father of American Folklife Studies, and co-founder of the Kutztown Folk Festival, tackled this question in 1950 for previous generations: “When they stepped off the boat at Philadelphia, they were called by the English-speaking people ‘Dutch’ and ‘Dutchmen.’ This term was not, as you often erroneously hear, invented in America as a mispronunciation of the German word ‘Deutsch’ which means ‘German.’ No, ‘Dutch’ was in 1750 already an ancient and well-established term. It has been traced by the Oxford English Dictionary as far back as the late Middle Ages.”}}
:::::::::::Online beyond Oxford, the [https://language.mki.wisc.edu/essays/pennsylvania-dutch/ University of Wisconsin-Madison] clearly shows {{tq|Although scholars and some language advocates prefer the term “Pennsylvania German,” the use of “Dutch” here does not reflect a (mis)translation of “Deutsch” or “Deitsch.” The English word “Dutch” was used in earlier times to describe people of both German and Netherlandic origins...}}. I can produce so many more quotes and evidence,  so many already being on the article's talk page.
:::::::::::You're still trying to push the definition not based on any hard evidence to be equal to one that does. Your thought process is like using a '''paper tiger'''. You can't prove it isn't a tiger by looking at it, but it doesn't hold the weight of a true tiger. 
:::::::::::This is the whole point of contention, which your unwillingness to compromise has lead you to create several RFC requests, and being impatient, skipped over them to make this call to administrators because you're not getting your way. [[User:Aearthrise|Aearthrise]] ([[User talk:Aearthrise|talk]]) 20:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Louden does not provide any reasoning why the alternative is incorrect, he defers to Yoder as anyone looking up the source can see for her or himself. If you take a close look at the online Oxford Etymological Dictionary (which is an active project, not a finished dictionary) you'll find (in the top left corner a disclaimer stating whether an entry has been revised since 1897 or (as in this case) not. [[User:Vlaemink|Vlaemink]] ([[User talk:Vlaemink|talk]]) 20:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)  
:::::::::::::Louden does provide reasoning why the alternative is incorrect. The expanded quote, from his book "Pennsylvania Dutch: The Story of an American Language" reads {{tq|"Contrary to a widespread belief among both nonscholars and scholars, though, the Dutch in Pennsylvania Dutch is not a historical mistranslation of the native word Deitsch, as earlier pointed out by Don Yoder. Although the words Deitsch and Dutch do share a common Germanic etymology, both German and Dutch were used in earlier American English to mean 'German.' The two synonyms differed in terms of formality. The word German, which was borrowed from Latin, traditionally had a neutral or formal connotation, while Dutch was used in more familiar and informal ("folksier") contexts."}} [[User:Aearthrise|Aearthrise]] ([[User talk:Aearthrise|talk]]) 20:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::No he doesn't, as can be clearly accessed from both the quote above and the source itself. He expands on why he thinks Yoder is correct, he doesn't address why the Anglicization hypothesis is wrong, unlikely and/or impossible anywhere in his book. [[User:Vlaemink|Vlaemink]] ([[User talk:Vlaemink|talk]]) 21:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)  
* On Fraktur, I'm sorry, but unless the passage is ''specifically on'' fonts or art, it isn't how things are done on Wikipedia, and the other editors were correct.  We don't have ''[[Kulturkampf]]'' in Fraktur despite it being the contemporary font in 1870s Germany.  Maybe we need an explicit passage in [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting]] forbidding this but I think this just has never come up before.  On the very long Miller quote, it's very, very common chest-thumping that thanks to its language only gets seen by its intended community.  You could find near-identical statements in Norwegian in 1903 Minnesota, or in Yiddish in 1903 New York, or in Guarani in 1903 Paraguay, talking about how wonderful a local group is and how people look down on them but they're totally wrong and we're actually awesome.  It's ''all'' standard cheerleading written a million times before, not just the wild claim on agriculture.  But this is more a vanilla content dispute.  Suffice to say you haven't made the case that this is really a worthy quote to include both the translation AND the original text.
* Your final comment on demanding "proof" ownership is occurring is very strange.  What do you think the purpose of this AN thread is?  [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 10:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
*:I agree that German nationalism was a just swept comment, and if it needs to be corrected, it should be. The focus of the reversion wasn't about when German nationalism took place.
*:As for the quotes I added, I simply added four extra web pages (in total 5 with the Forbes quote already present on the article, and the next four web pages after it) to demonstrate that it was easy to make a Google Search to find the information.
*:On the Fraktur point, the literary Fraktur Pennsylvania Dutch should be given consideration due to its history and unique circumstances, and should be treated in the same way other languages are uniquely written for their circumstances (I mentioned Yiddish and Coptic Greek for example). Nevertheless, the whole paragraph on prejudice against the Pennsylvania Dutch is unnecessary on the article and can be removed; the removal of content so far has been about how the language information was presented.
*:As for the final point, I asked for proof of ownership, because the only points Vlaemink provided are my passion for the quality of the article, how much of the article i've contributed, and who I am as a person. [[User:Aearthrise|Aearthrise]] ([[User talk:Aearthrise|talk]]) 10:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
*::For your Musk quotes: AN is a little tense for a "learning experience", but you still don't seem to be engaging with the problem here.  It doesn't have to be a big deal, exactly, but you seem to think that more quotes is better and the other person was very lazy (your words, not mine) for asking the question.  Did you read what I wrote above that "you made your case seem ''worse'' by linking some truly awful sources like random websites"?  If someone asks what the capital of Illinois is and you link a terrible AI-generated source, it makes it look like you don't know what you're talking about, ''even if the source is accurate''.  If you couldn't be bothered to critically examine the websites at all and were literally just pasting Google links, maybe don't do that?  To back up a little here, your enthusiasm in researching the Pennsylvania Dutch article is a good thing.  But learning what sources are reliable and what aren't is a key Wikipedia skill - one that frankly most of the world is ''bad'' at (most people believe memes shared on Facebook uncritically).  Please click on your own links.  Discarding sites like that are the basics of learning how to source.  If you agree that those non-Forbes sites weren't useful, then great, we can move on to tougher questions like when to trust old sources from 1878 or whatever.  But if you still don't see the problem, then nobody is going to believe on your judgment anywhere else.  
*::On that note, you didn't answer my C1 question above.  If someone asks an in-your-view "easy" question in the future, how would you respond?
*::It's moot, but for future reference, you will want to distinguish [[font]]s and [[language script]]s.  Yiddish and Coptic are written in non-Latin scripts.  Pennsylvania Dutch, like German and English, is written in the Latin script, of which Fraktur is one font.  Varying up the ''script'' to match a language is fine; varying up fonts within a script is very unusual and not done just because it would have been contemporary without a very good reason.
*::On ownership: I think Vlaemink has made his case.  I think you have two ways you can defend yourself: A) Actually, everyone else IS really wrong, and you were just performing good stewardship by stopping these wrong editors.  But given some of errors so far in your preferred versions, you're not making this approach the easy one. B) You commit to accepting feedback and not reverting and working with others.  If you commit to B, and then actually follow through, that'll actually be the happy case - but you have to understand that you will sometimes "lose" and other editors will put in the "wrong" stuff and you'll need to develop a consensus on the talk page otherwise, politely, and without bludgeoning.  Are one of these doable? [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 11:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

'''Adding:'''
Since the first post on the Administrators noticeboard, it has come to light that a very large amount of the references and sources added to Pennsylvania Dutch, almost exclusively by Aearthrise and within the past two years, have  '''[[Talk:Pennsylvania_Dutch#Very_serious_problems_with_the_reliability_and_validity_of_the_sources_used|very serious issues]]'''. It appears many of these references are in fact personal, family or travel websites, self-published (family history/genealogical) books and a very large number of hopelessly outdated publications all over a 100 or even 150, years old, some of them containing false dates of publication which made them appear much more recent than they really were. Some references were simply copy-pasted from other Wikipedias without even changing the language in the citation. This is only based on the first 50 references given out of a total of 130, and it is very probable that the other 80 references will yield similar results. The Pennsylvania Dutch article seems to be in a truly terrible state and will need much improvement. [[User:Vlaemink|Vlaemink]] ([[User talk:Vlaemink|talk]]) 21:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

:Vlaemink, you claim that there are very serious issues, but show very little to make the claim about severity; your whole argument is about time period and a nitpick of a six sources, but don't point out any flaws of the information they corroborate. 
:Dealing with the topic of Pennsylvania Dutch, Pennnsylvania Germans, the height of information about this culture was written between before the American Revolution and World War 2, with the period between World War 1 and World War 2 being heavily obscured and marginalized.
:I've spent a lot of time researching this topic to bring light to facets of this culture, corroborated by many different sources, because prior to my additions, there was almost no history mentioned, only information on the Amish.
:If you see something that you find questionable, then bring it up, and it can be discussed, but without better evidence you're just inventing claims about "very serious issues" based around only [[Talk:Pennsylvania_Dutch#Very_serious_problems_with_the_reliability_and_validity_of_the_sources_used|6/130 sources you claim are questionable]] and fifteen sources from dates before World War 2. I have made a response to your claim on the discussion page. 
:This addition is still part of your tactic of character assassination to win your argument on the discussion page, this whole post being because I reverted your deletion of my arguments, which you deleted three times; trying to silence me, [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pennsylvania_Dutch&oldid=1230111750 you threatened to complain to administration] only because I restored my arguments. [[User:Aearthrise|Aearthrise]] ([[User talk:Aearthrise|talk]]) 15:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
::{{u|Aearthrise}}, please try to keep consecutive edits down to two or three, by using the "show preview" button. It's hard enough to read all of these walls of text without watchlists being flooded too. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 18:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
::::It's time for you (Aearthrise) to stop doubling down, to stop pretending to be a victim, to stop twisting words and to stop defending what cannot be defended and to get back to reality.   

::::At no point, did I ever threaten you. I asked you to stop making significant changes to your comments well after they'd been responded to and after asking  multiple times I told you I would seek assistance from the admins if you continued [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pennsylvania_Dutch&oldid=1230111750], which you did without any hesitation — so I did what I explicitly told you before. 
 
::::You also cannot bluff your way out of the serious sourcing issues described above: I've very clearly stated that of the 130 sources in the article, I've only been able to take a look at the first 50. Discounting sources used multiple times, effectively half of these references were unacceptable by Wikipedia's standards with regard to valid and reliable sources. You're now actively trying to misrepresent the facts by speaking of ″fifteen sources published before World War II″ — which is absurd and extremely misleading, given the fact that these invalid sources include material published over a decade before the start of the American Civil War and leaves out untrustworthy (personal) websites, self-published books, falsified publication dates and copy-pasted references from other Wikipedias! 

::::This is not the first time your sources have been questioned and found to be totally unsuitable for a serious and reliable encyclopedic article. Take for example your 240 word by Daniel Miller from 1903 — for which you still, despite unanimous pushback from all users involved so far, refused to accept that the Fraktur font is unwanted — which was shown to be both outdated and incredibly biased; or in the words of {{Ping|SnowFire}} ″the good professor was deluded″.

::::You need to take a critical introspective look at both your attitude towards sources and other editors. You constantly talk about ″winning″ arguments, unilaterally declare that others ″have failed to convince you″ and are downright rude towards others. The sources you spam every time you are questioned look AI-generated and often have little or nothing to do with the issues being discussed. You say that prior to your additions, there was almost no history mentioned? I'm here to tell you that barely any history is to be preferred over an extensive history section with flawed, biased and hopelessly outdated information. 

::::There are a great many recent and reliable academic sources on just about every aspect of Pennsylvania Dutch culture, past and present, and these can be found and used by just about any editor. The proposition that you had to use thoroughly antiquated material because nothing of note has been published since 1945 is simply not true and frankly ridiculous. [[User:Vlaemink|Vlaemink]] ([[User talk:Vlaemink|talk]]) 20:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::You're bouncing around between discussions on this page and the article's page, and this is just another character attack. You're copying this argument from the article's talk page under [[Talk:Pennsylvania Dutch#Very serious problems with the reliability and validity of the sources used]]. There, I pointed out a lot of the problems with the routes you're taking to get your way; you don't use evidence, and make statements based on nothing but your word. [[User:Aearthrise|Aearthrise]] ([[User talk:Aearthrise|talk]]) 09:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::[[Wikipedia:Reliable Sources]] is extremely clear on  [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source|what constitutes a reliable source]] and  [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility_for_providing_citations|with whom the burden of proof rests]] and I'm not going to debate these community standards with you. You are not in any position to make any demands: you've added a huge amount of unreliable, questionable and/or outdated sources, in several cases even falsifying their dates of publication or misquoting the source material, and it is highly likely that most if not all will be removed from this article within the next couple of weeks because of this. The quality standards apply to all and to all equally. [[User:Vlaemink|Vlaemink]] ([[User talk:Vlaemink|talk]]) 10:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::You made a claim on that page of what is "unreliable", and you didn't back up your claims. I addressed your claims, but you ignore them and show that you would rather make a character attack than directly argue with evidence and well-reasoned arguments. [[User:Aearthrise|Aearthrise]] ([[User talk:Aearthrise|talk]]) 16:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

*'''Holy wall of text, Batman!''' Gents. Please endeavor to be more concise. {{ping|Vlaemink}}, please point out 2-3 sentences and the associated sources you believe to be incorrect, incomplete, misleading, or inappropriate. {{ping|Aearthrise}} I understand your frustration and find comments here to be less-than-collegial. Let him present his evidence and then we can address them. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 14:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
** '''Comment'''.  Wouldn't normally try to backseat a report, but since Vlaemink isn't very experienced with AN and also said English is not their first language, I'll just note that Vlaemink's original post '''did''' include lots of diffs showing uncollegial behavior from Aearthrise, since collapsed after told it was way too long.  (Then they spent a bunch of time holding their content dispute here anyway...).  While since then there's been uncollegial behavior on both sides, the accusation is OWN, and an even casual inspection of the talk page & page history shows that Aearthrise has indeed been defending their "turf", at least in the past (although did say a few good things above on easing off some matters).  However they seem to have backed off the article at the moment and are letting Vlaemink make some changes, so maybe the problem is moot?  [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 15:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
**:You're saying "defending their turf" and "backed off on the article", like that was the point of the arguments I had with Vlaemink. This is a complete mischaraterization on your side. 
**:This whole discussion was about Vlaemink adding content that was untrue (writing High Dutch was a calque invented by Americans of Hochdeutsch, which is false and didn't have any sources), and making an argument had a little weight beyond anecdote equal to one that there is consensus and is backed by an abundance of hard evidence. 
**:I reverted his edits because he refused to revise them after being addressed why his addition was misleading. Now Vlaemink is trying many different ways to make his earlier work seem legitimate, but it's not true. His newer edits having nothing to do with that argument, so bringing them up here and stating how I'm allowing them is not needed to be said, because it's completely irrelevant. [[User:Aearthrise|Aearthrise]] ([[User talk:Aearthrise|talk]]) 16:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
**::This is why I asked him for clearer evidence. I'm not suggesting anyone here is as pure as the driven snow...I mean MAYBE fire ON snow might be ok...I'll have to see the diffs. :-) [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 20:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
* '''Outside observer's summary of the WoT and best steps forward'''.  Since I suffered through reading some of the above already, might as well chip in as someone who's never edited the Pennsylvania Dutch article.  There's two issues here: a content dispute (that ideally isn't resolved at AN, but it's here, so I guess it might as well be acknowledged) and behavior woes.
** '''On content''': While I can't be sure that Vlaemink's "version" is better, I do think that they are correct that Aearthrise's old version was very...  credulous...  of old and dated sources, or stuff like genealogy websites.  Old sources have their place, but in moderation, and maybe more for a "History of the Pennsylvania Dutch" article when desiring a contemporary report's details.  This would normally be No Big Deal, Normal Editing, but Aearthrise initially responded hostiley to attempts to bring in alternate perspectives rather than saying "great, let's expand the sourcing."  (And per above, I do not really have confidence in Aearthrise's current ability to pick out what is a good source and what isn't on their own, which is not meant as an insult - this is a fixable problem, just please accept advice with good grace rather than defensiveness).  For the record, someone like Aearthrise being willing to dig up old sources like Aearthrise can be a ''tremendous asset'' to research on the article, just as long as you work with others to figure out which sources are usable and which aren't, and apply them in [[WP:DUEWEIGHT]].  I hope that you two can actually work together in the future.
** '''On behavior''': Vlaemink's depiction of Aearthrise's behavior as being uncollegial and OWN-y are correct per the diffs in his original report.  Simply peruse [[Talk:Pennsylvania_Dutch]], or [[Talk:Pennsylvania_Dutch#Family_of_Elon_Musk?]] for one obvious example to an IP address - Aearthrise tends to paste some text that supports his position and assumes that denying the printed word is obviously perverse, as if there was one established truth and people don't disagree.  Before, he also "defended" his version of the article with salty reverts rather than working collegially toward a better article or as a compromise.  (Which would be one thing if Aearthrise was clearly "right" and Vlaemink was a passing crank, but see above on content, I don't believe that was accurate.).
** '''Suggestion:''' If Aearthrise is satisfied that they can do better and is willing to commit to working collegially forward, and understands that not every random old source they find is necessarily that usable for Wikipedia, there's nothing that needs to be done other than perhaps a warning.  If Aearthrise plans on just restarting the edit war, and plans on snidely replying to newbie questions while being wrong himself, then a page ban from Pennsylvania Dutch & Pennsylvania Dutch language may be in order.  But I'm ''hoping'' that isn't necessary.  [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 15:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
::::I couldn't agree more with the SnowFire's assessment and also support his suggestions (a warning now, a page ban if the previous MO is continued) concerning the use of sources and incivility displayed.[[User:Vlaemink|Vlaemink]] ([[User talk:Vlaemink|talk]]) 16:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
::SnowFire, you've said your piece four times already and repeating it doesn't make a more compelling argument. You first tried to make a "gotcha" with my sources by making a whole argument around Elon Musk (I simply added the first five sources that corroborated the same point, to show how easy and quickly the evidence could have been found through a Google search) and you nitpicked one while ignoring the others, and presenting it here like the whole post was wrong saying "given Musk's reality distortion field, it wouldn't shock me if it was at least possible that someone just made it up in the past, so there is an interesting question here". I pointed out the other sources, and you back pedaled. 
::You tried making a completely different tangent about the page by starting an argument about German nationalism, and I pointed out that it had nothing to do with the reversion of Vlaemink's edit.
::You say I tend "to paste some text that supports my position"; that's called providing evidence, which is how you prove arguments. Again, those weren't "salty reverts," they were made to stop misleading information from being added. The lack of cooperation is not from my side; if Vlaemink wanted, he could have made well-reasoned arguments and discussed the evidence. Instead, he is going this route of character attack and avoiding addressing points that I made against his argument rather than directly supporting his position. [[User:Aearthrise|Aearthrise]] ([[User talk:Aearthrise|talk]]) 16:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
:::I've been trying to avoid the wall of text, but for the record: this was never a "gotcha", Aearthrise.  It was a sign of a problem and a genuine attempt to get you to understand that A) Your petty reply to that IP address isn't how we do things on Wikipedia, and B) How to improve in the future.  You can choose to take that advice or not.  [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 02:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
::::I understand your sentiments, but I felt I needed to defend against mischaracterization. The crux of this argument, is that it's important to maintain civility, and I agree. I got frustrated with the situation with Vlaemink, and I took it out on the IP address, and that was wrong.
::::Wikipedia should be a place of civility, and one without character attacks. If we can maintain peace, then the experience on the site is more congenial, especially for cooperation. [[User:Aearthrise|Aearthrise]] ([[User talk:Aearthrise|talk]]) 06:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
:::I support [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire's]] assessment of the situation and this response only serves to show [[User:Aearthrise|Aearthrise's]] [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] behaviour. It is quickly getting to being beyond the point that a warning would be sufficient. [[User:Adam Black|<span style="color:coral">Adam Black</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Adam Black|<span style="color:goldenrod">talk</span>]] &bull; [[Special:Contributions/Adam_Black|<span style="color:gold">contribs</span>]]</sup> 04:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
::::The response was just a defense of some the claims that SnowFire made in his assessment. But beyond that, I agree with the background sentiment. This whole muddy post is the result of bringing an ego into the editing process, and clearly chaos is the result. I don't want chaos, I want peace and harmony, and I want the best articles available, like any good Wikipedian. 
::::On a side note, Vlaemink has made the [[Talk:Pennsylvania Dutch#RfC about the portrayal of multiple views in the %22Etymology%22 section|revision that I asked for initially]], so that point is out the way; this the fruit of cooperation. [[User:Aearthrise|Aearthrise]] ([[User talk:Aearthrise|talk]]) 06:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::It seems I spoke too soon [[Talk:Pennsylvania Dutch#Adding of bias to revised autonym section|I spoke too soon]] about Vlaemink's revision. [[User:Aearthrise|Aearthrise]] ([[User talk:Aearthrise|talk]]) 07:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
:Both Vlaemink and Aearthrise have posted ''far'' too much here, and Aearthrise seems to have ignored my previous post. ''Please'' stop posting and let independent editors decide things. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 22:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
::I see your post Phil Bridger; I understand your point of keeping consecutive edits down to two or three, and I understand that it's to help editors read the history of this thread. 
::I have made a habit of continuously editing my words for small phrases and grammar mistakes, and I forgot it when writing my response to Vlaemink's most recent charge. I thank you for reminding me, and I ensure it won't happen again. [[User:Aearthrise|Aearthrise]] ([[User talk:Aearthrise|talk]]) 23:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
* I am making one more short comment here so that this thread isn't archived without action.  Vlaemink was not very concise in raising the problem, but that doesn't mean it isn't a real problem, IMO.  I've posted my own tl;dr analysis above and would encourage at least ''some'' admin to wade through the mud to provide some semblance of a way forward for these feuding editors, even the "bad" kind of a-curse-on-both-your-houses.  [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 02:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
*:Thank you SnowFire; I don't want to be cursed, and I don't want Vlaemink to be cursed either: we've had a discussion with very heavy emotions, and lot of mudslinging- the only result of that kind of behavior being a big mess. 
*:A good Wikipedian should be able to edit without bringing in such strong emotion; in my final words, this whole experience has been a lesson on why it's important to manage frustration and anger. [[User:Aearthrise|Aearthrise]] ([[User talk:Aearthrise|talk]]) 07:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

== Potential Canvassing on Talk Page for San Bernardino County, California ==

A Twitter user has posted [https://x.com/MikeMcLean00/status/1805690401938096150]
about [[Talk:San Bernardino County, California#Election results gone.]]
and seems to have a lot of people saying they are going to participate in the discussion. Just wanted to give a heads up. [[User:LakesideMiners|<b><span style="color:#6E4600">LakesideMiners</span></b>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:LakesideMiners|Come Talk To Me!]] </sup> 19:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
: Discussion was held, piling on was ocuring. Nothing more to be gained by the debate so I've collapsed it. Lets all move on as any other issues that need discussing should be done separately to that debate. [[User:Amortias|Amortias]] ([[User talk:Amortias|T]])([[Special:Contributions/Amortias|C]]) 20:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

== Block review [[User:Jamiesonandy]] ==
{{atop
| status = 
| result = There is a consensus that the block was not ideal, although not necessarily incorrect. Those taking part in the discussion mostly agreed that {{u|Orangemike}} should take a bit more time determining if a block is necessary before hitting the button. Jamiesonandy has been unblocked by Floquenbeam, and there is no consensus that the other blocks were not within the acceptable range of admin discretion. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 15:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
}}



{{userlinks|Jamiesonandy}}

Blocking admin: {{adminlinks|Orangemike}}

The blocked user is clearly an elderly person who misunderstands what Wikipedia is. It was explained to him at the help desk, and he stopped editing. '''Ten hours later''', Mike indef blocked him. I feel like this is far from the first time I have seen Mike come late to a situation and substitute his own judgement for that of others who already adressed the situation. [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|<sup>from this world ..... today</sup>]] 21:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
:'''Egregiously bad block''' What the hell? Not a single warning on the user's talk page, not a note from the admin prior to jumping to a block, and an indef block at that? For a newbie who seems confused and needs some direction? Have we forgotten [[WP:BITE]] and [[WP:BLOCKP]]? I daresay I hope {{u|Orangemike}} is able to defend their actions, because I'm not seeing any reason they should be blocked indefinitely for a few questions on the Teahouse and Help Desk (two places designed for people to ask for..wait for it...help!). Not to mention, Orangemike mentions the editor being "belligerent" in the block reason, which I see absolutely zero evidence of, and the rest of their block reason of [[WP:NOTHERE]] seems to be a ''very'' unsubstantiated position to take. [[User:EggRoll97|EggRoll97]] <sup>([[User_talk:EggRoll97|talk]]) </sup> 22:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
::The belligerency was when he '''demanded''', ''I asked a question; '''where is your answer?''''' The guy was just not getting it, was using both the Teahouse and Help Desk as general information sources for UK banking questions, and clearly was not going to accept that this was not the place to seek help on this question. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Orangemike|Orangemike]] ([[User talk:Orangemike#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Orangemike|contribs]]) </small>
: It wasn't just one out of place question.  It was several on both the Teahouse and the Help Desk, and it didn't seem like the user was ready to give up asking.  [[User:RudolfRed|RudolfRed]] ([[User talk:RudolfRed|talk]]) 23:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
:Definitely not a good block. I've taken a look at a number of Orangemike's NOTHERE blocks (I didn't look at others), and there were a number of very bad blocks:
:* [[Special:Contributions/Studio_Atinati]], one-edit no warning block
:* [[Special:Contributions/Caroline.j.ashleyy]], another one-edit no warning block
:* [[Special:Contributions/Mrpoopbenji]], user who stopped editing after warning, blocked more than a day later
:* [[Special:Contributions/Wilburthewigga]], no warnings whatsoever; [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=161922478 this] is not a good deletion either
:Nearly half of the blocks I looked at were like this. Orangemike ''really'' needs to stop doing these no-to-little-warning blocks. —[[User:Ingenuity|Ingenuity]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Ingenuity#top|t]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[Special:Contribs/Ingenuity|c]]) 23:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
:::If my colleagues really feel that I'm being quick on the trigger, I will accept your collective judgement and take my trouting like a ''mensch''; but I genuinely doubt that any one of these accounts had any intention of contributing to our project in the way that somebody like Sideways [nee Beeble] does every day. Two spamming accounts with spammy usernames, one poop joke, one racial epithet username, and our confused British gentleman who thinks we can put him in contact with a bank account dead for over half a century...... --[[User:Orangemike|<span style="color:#F80">Orange Mike</span>]] &#124; [[User talk:Orangemike|<span style="color:#FA0">Talk</span>]] 00:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
::::I haven't looked into any of your blocks and so have no opinion whether or not you have acted appropriately, but I would say that the fact that you {{tq|genuinely doubt that any one of these accounts had any intention of contributing to our project}} does not override Wikipedia policy, specifically the policy on blocking. The intention behind Wikipedia was to create an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. Policies which temporarily (even indefinite blocks shouldn't be considered permanent) remove an individual's ability to contribute to the project exist only to limit damage and disruption to the project and should generally be considered a last resort, not the first tool you pull out. I am not and have never been an administrator on this or any other Wikimedia project, but I have been an administrator or bureaucrat on multiple MediaWiki installations through my work and can tell you from experience that biting the newcomers in such a way may temporarily put a stop to vandalism or disruption but long-term only harms the project. [[User:Adam Black|<span style="color:red">Adam</span> <span style="color:blue">Black</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Adam Black|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]] &bull; [[Special:Contributions/Adam_Black|<span style="color:orange">contribs</span>]]</sup> 02:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
::None of these 4 blocks make any sense, and while I think Mike's explanations are genuine, this is a base breach of the blocking policy, and at least a couple of those user's blocks are concerning. The first, for [[User:Studio Atinati]], based on the contributions looks like they need to be redirected to a different language content project (Google tells me it's Georgian?). The second user, [[User:Caroline.j.ashleyy]], just needs an extra dose of the introduction to Wikipedia, not a block for heaven's sake. The third user, [[User:Mrpoopbenji]], based on their contributions just seems like they need some help getting started, something the Growth Tools like mentorship are supposed to help with. Finally, the fourth user, [[User:Wilburthewigga]], is the only one I'll say should probably be blocked, but not for [[WP:NOTHERE]]. If anything they should have been blocked for a UPOL violation, but not for their contributions or whether they are HERE or not. To be quite honest though, their edits are just to their user page then a question to their mentor. Of those edits to their userpage, they didn't seem to have any malicious intent either. In ''addition'', they appear to have responded to the block notice, stating they would {{tqq|learn from it}}, which isn't typically a trait associated with blocks for [[WP:NOTHERE]]. On just a closing note as well, the deletion, unless something else had been added that was horridly obscene other than the page creation with "Woo!", I would say that's a violation of [[WP:DELTALK]] and the deletion policy in general. Based on the API result [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/api.php?action=query&prop=deletedrevisions&titles=User%3AWilburthewigga&drvprop=user%7Ctimestamp%7Ctags%7Csize&drvlimit=max&formatversion=2 here], there doesn't appear to be any other edits to the page, though. Just out of curiosity, {{u|Ingenuity}}, would you (or of course any other administrator) be able to confirm if there's still a deleted revision on [[User talk:Wilburthewigga]]? If there is, I wonder if it would be possible to restore that revision, as it doesn't appear to be a proper use of the deletion tool. [[User:EggRoll97|EggRoll97]] <sup>([[User_talk:EggRoll97|talk]]) </sup> 01:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
:::I remember encountering {{user|Mrpoopbenji}} through [[WP:UAA]], and discovered that all of their edits were created by a [[large language model]]. Ther sandbox was deleted for this reason. –[[User:LaundryPizza03|<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b>]] ([[User talk:LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0d0">d</span>]][[Special:Contribs/LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0bf">c̄</span>]]) 17:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
:::Someone with a username that's slang for "white nigger" needs only a swift kick in the ass out the door. I'd have blocked on sight as well. As to the others: one is an obvious username violation, with another the text being in Georgian is the least of the problems given it was an obvious attempt to hijack an article with blatant spam about an entirely unrelated subject, and the last was as flagrant a case of [[WP:NOBLE|noble cause syndrome]] as it gets. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights#top|<span style="font-family: MS Mincho; color: black;">話して下さい</span>]]) 06:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

* Just wanted to point out that the blocked editor did not stop editing once it was pointed out (not only on [[Wikipedia:TWA/Teahouse#Unclaimed_Moneys_in_Banks_in_the_U_K|May 14th]], which they may have not seen, but also on Jun 14th at [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&diff=prev&oldid=1229075755 18:34], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&diff=prev&oldid=1229075765 again at 18:34], at [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&diff=prev&oldid=1229075922 18:35], and at [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&diff=prev&oldid=1229077026 at 18:44]) that wikipedia, including the Help desk and Teahouse, was not an appropriate place for their query. Rather, 20 minutes after that last response, the editor reposted the question asking for legal/financial advice [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=User%3AJamiesonandy&timestamp=20240614190448 on the userpage]. Secondly, while the editor said that they had "[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&diff=prev&oldid=1229076538 contributed to Wikipedia for a number of years]" at least this account seemed to be dedicated to a single purpose that was not that of [[WP:END|building an encyclopedia]]. Finally, as {{u|Girth Summit}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1229103211 eloquently explained] on this page a short while back, albeit in a different context, one motivation for applying an indef block is to get assurance from the blocked editor that the problematic behavior will not be repeated.
:Hence, while I understand that the Jamiesonandy block was still a judgement call, and that it is natural to feel sympathy for a senior citizen in distress, I can also see Orangemike's thinking in applying the NOTHERE block. Cheers. [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] ([[User talk:Abecedare|talk]]) 01:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I've noticed for years that Orangemike is quick to block, often without any talk page warnings but I generally have trusted their judgment. I'd ask them to ease up on the trigger finger and try communicating with an editor before laying down the ban hammer first. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 03:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

:Generally speaking, in my view, a NOTHERE indef block is admissible (although not necessary) if none of the user's edits indicate an ability or intent to improve our articles. This seems to be the case here. It's then up to the user to convince us, in an unblock request, that they are indeed able and willing to edit constructively. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 08:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
:A quick show of hands: y'all ''do'' realize that the "reason" you fill in at [[Special:Block]] isn't just for the entry in the block log, but is ''shown to the user every time they try to edit'', yes? [[User:Suffusion of Yellow|Suffusion of Yellow]] ([[User talk:Suffusion of Yellow|talk]]) 22:22, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

*The thing here for me is that the Teahouse and the Help Desk are exactly where we want users to go when they are lost or confused as to the purpose of Wikipedia. I don't think anyone is defending this users actual edits, but he hadn't posted anything in many hours and the situation seemed to have settled itself when Mike just indef blocked out of nowhere. Mike, like myself, has contributed for many years at [[WP:UAA]] Personally, I don't even think most of the thousands of accounts I've blocked at UAA were here in bad faith, they, like this person, just didn't get it and tried to use Wikipedia in ways it isn't intended to be used. So, they use an [[WP:ORGNAME]] and write upa  draft article on said organization, and the usual response is that we delete the draft and ''soft'' block the user, explicitly allowing them to just start a new account and try to edit within the rules. Looking at some of Mike's blocks, he treats "being lost and confused on help forums" the same way most admins treat "actively disrupting article space." I just don't think being clueless in WP space is what NOTHERE hard indef blocks are for, it is for people who come here to push the ''content'' to suit their own needs, not for people who ask deeply misguided questions. [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|<sup>from this world ..... today</sup>]] 18:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
*:I'd add that if you look at the language at [[WP:NOTHERE]] there's a lot of wording like "''long-term history...Extreme lack of interest in working constructively...Major conflicts of attitude, concerning Wikipedia-related activity...''" and so on. It doesn't say anything aboout "asks clueless questions at help forums, because help forums are there, at least in part, to help clueless users get some clue. [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|<sup>from this world ..... today</sup>]] 20:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
*::I get that in general, but this particular account was going well beyond that. I count 4 separate instances of being told, in various ways, that Wikipedia is not a forum for handling personal bank squabbles that date back to something from 1950s British probate court (!); to respond to said warnings with [[Special:Diff/1229075513|this]] tells me that, in a very literal sense, this user was not here to ''build an encyclopedia''. I'm American and even ''I'' could point out that a solicitor, not an online community devoted to building an encyclopedia, would be who to ask these questions. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights#top|<span style="font-family: MS Mincho; color: black;">話して下さい</span>]]) 06:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
*I've brought this back from the archive because this is still relevant. [[User:EggRoll97|EggRoll97]] <sup>([[User_talk:EggRoll97|talk]]) </sup> 03:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
**Should've let it stay archived.  I get the sense of injustice, but I don't see anything useful this user can contribute to the encyclopedia.  And that's the benchmark - the project is what's important.  I'm not going to undo the block, myself, and I'm not sure any other admin would, either.  This isn't an endorsement of the block, I probably wouldn't have made it myself, but I can't see how unblocking makes the project better.--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 14:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
*:I think we all agree here that although Orangemike is too quick to block users, all of the blocks in question except Wilburthewigga were sound. It is evident that all of the users except Mrpoopbenji and Wilburthewigga were [[WP:NOTHERE]], and Mrpoopbenji was a good block because they misused a [[large language model]].
*:As for Wilburthewigga, they were unambiguously asking for help because they were new to the project, and the deletions of the userpage and user talk were clearly wrong, but they should have been soft-blocked for an offensive username (the word ''[[wigga]]''). –[[User:LaundryPizza03|<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b>]] ([[User talk:LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0d0">d</span>]][[Special:Contribs/LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0bf">c̄</span>]]) 20:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
*::The closest analog I could think of is [[User:Black people are monkeys|a racist username]] ''[partial redaction]'' from 2012, who received the soft usernameblock notice because despite the offensive username, none of their edits were obviously unconstructive (though they were preemptively reverted by {{user|The Mark of the Beast}}). –[[User:LaundryPizza03|<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b>]] ([[User talk:LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0d0">d</span>]][[Special:Contribs/LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0bf">c̄</span>]]) 20:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
*:::Or you could have just held that thought in your head and not reposted racist hate speech here. That would be fine, too. [[User:Indignant Flamingo|Indignant Flamingo]] ([[User talk:Indignant Flamingo|talk]]) 03:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
*::::[[WP:NOTCENSORED]], you might not like it but Wikipedia is not censored and sometimes we have to discuss unpleasant speech in order to effectively maintain the project. [[User:Adam Black|<span style="color:red">Adam</span> <span style="color:blue">Black</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Adam Black|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]] &bull; [[Special:Contributions/Adam_Black|<span style="color:orange">contribs</span>]]</sup> 11:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
*:::::This sort of abstract defense is incredibly stupid: if you think the inclusion here can be defended on its own merits (I am skeptical but it seems like a minor point) then do so, otherwise why are you wasting the time of everyone who reads your comment? [[Special:Contributions/100.36.106.199|100.36.106.199]] ([[User talk:100.36.106.199|talk]]) 16:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
*::::::When we have to put up with people making unpleasant, unhelpful comments like yours ({{tq|incredibly stupid}} and {{tq|wasting the time of everyone who reads your comment}} specifically were unnecessary) in all corners of the encyclopedia, I think it's perfectly acceptable to use a blocked username as an example of how an editor thinks blocks of problematic usernames could or should be done. [[User:Adam Black|<span style="color:red">Adam</span> <span style="color:blue">Black</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Adam Black|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]] &bull; [[Special:Contributions/Adam_Black|<span style="color:orange">contribs</span>]]</sup> 16:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::Yes, the example is a fine example; and anyone who thought about it for 2 seconds would come up with ways that use it effectively as an example without needing to include the actual offensive username here. What is unpleasant and unhelpful is dropping of [[WP:NOTCENSORED]] without any evidence of having thought about how it applies to the situation under consideration. (Both the policy and the guideline [[WP:Offensive material]] recommended by it are thoughtful and are very clear about the ''context-dependent'' nature of their application.) [[Special:Contributions/100.36.106.199|100.36.106.199]] ([[User talk:100.36.106.199|talk]]) 21:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
*{{ping|Orangemike}}, you say you'll "take the trout like a mensch" if the community disagrees, so while I don't think there's agreement among commenters on all 5 of the blocks discussed here, there does seem to be an agreement that your blocks, in general, are a little too quick.  So if you could dial it back, like, 10-15%, I think some of us will be satisfied, and others will at least be happier. In this particular case, I think the block was good if we're confident this is a troll of some kind, and too aggressive if we think it really is a semi-confused person. It seems too quick to just assume the former.  Do you mind if I unblock, as a gesture more than anything else (there's a 90% chance it's too late anyway), and as a way to shut down this zombie thread?  I'll keep an eye on their talk page and edits.  It would make me feel better. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 12:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
**[[User:Jamiesonandy]] was totally astray, like an angry ratespayer demanding a VAT refund from a Beefeater at the Tower; but I certainly wouldn't object to an unblock, especially if you attempt to get clear to the guy that he's not just in the wrong pew or the wrong queue, but in the wrong universe. --[[User:Orangemike|<span style="color:#F80">Orange Mike</span>]] &#124; [[User talk:Orangemike|<span style="color:#FA0">Talk</span>]] 20:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
**:Great, thanks, I've done so. We'll see what happens.  By commenting and then unblocking here, I probably shouldn't close this thread myself, but IMHO it's ripe for closure. [[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 21:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Help creating a redirect ==
{{atop
| status = 
| result = Admin assistance provided. Necessary technical elements to the issue being discussed [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Not_getting_the_curly_apostrophe_message_at_page_creation|at VPT]]. Please follow the discussion there. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 16:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
}}



Hello, I hit a title blacklist trying to create [[Muñoa’s Pampas cat]] as "<nowiki>REDIRECT [[Pampas cat#Taxonomy]] {{R to section}}</nowiki>". I can't figure out why it is blacklisted, there is nothing in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Mu%C3%B1oa%E2%80%99s_Pampas_cat deletion log]. If there is no significant issue, perhaps the redirect could be created, or the blacklist could be removed to allow for a [[WP:REDLINK]] page creation prompt? (Seems a viable topic.) Best, [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 04:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
:It's because because the title has <code>’</code> instead of <code>'</code>.  The contents of [[MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-custom-curly-quote]] should have been shown to you, explaining this, when you tried to create it; did it not? —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 05:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
::It does not. Here is the text I see when I click that red link:
::{{quote|Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for Muñoa’s Pampas cat in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings.<br>This page is on the title blacklist, so only administrators, template editors, and page movers can create it.<br>Search for "Muñoa’s Pampas cat" in existing articles.<br>Look for pages within Wikipedia that link to this title.<br>Other reasons this message may be displayed:<br>If a page was recently created here, it may not be visible yet because of a delay in updating the database; wait a few minutes or try the purge function.<br>Titles on Wikipedia are case sensitive except for the first character; please check alternative capitalizations and consider adding a redirect here to the correct title.<br>If the page has been deleted, check the deletion log, and see Why was the page I created deleted?}}
::I was also getting the same message with [[Muñoa's Pampas cat]], but I refreshed that a couple of times and managed to get it to work. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 05:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
:::Are you perchance editing on mobile?  It works properly for me while logged out (at [[Draft:Muñoa’s Pampas cat]], because as an IP I can't create in mainspace anyway) on desktop, but mobile view seems to throw away the blacklist custom message. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 05:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
::::Afraid not, windows 11. Checking both the original redlink and that draft redlink in an incognito window on Chrome, as well as unlogged-in instances of Firefox and Edge yield the same text I'm afraid. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 06:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::Yes, I click on that red link and get this message in pink:
:::::*"Warning: This page can only be created and/or edited by administrators, template editors, and page movers because it matches an entry on the local or global title blacklist:
:::::::.*’.* <errmsg=titleblacklist-custom-curly-quote> # [[right single quotation mark]] with [[MediaWiki:titleblacklist-custom-curly-quote|custom error message]]"
:::::So, does that mean that an admin or page mover can create this page? As an admin, I've never been allowed to override a blacklisted title or weblink (which can happen when fixing old archive talk pages) so I was suprised to see this message implying that we could. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 18:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::[[Wikipedia:User access levels#tboverride]] says that the right to override the title blacklist is granted to admins and bureaucrats and additionally to template editors, page movers and interface editors. Looking at your last edit filter log, you do indeed have that right. Per [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive309#c-JJMC89-2019-05-19T00:45:00.000Z-DoRD-2019-05-18T16:20:00.000Z|this old AN comment]] you get that warning because you have the override right.
::::::Perhaps one of you user scripts changes the default behaviour? &ndash; [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:80BA:C801:C509:A2FC:B835:42BC|2804:F1...35:42BC]] ([[User talk:2804:F14:80BA:C801:C509:A2FC:B835:42BC|talk]]) 20:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I've opened this at [[Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Not getting the curly apostrophe message at page creation]] as it is apparently more technical than administrative. Thanks all, [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 11:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== SilverLocust appointed trainee clerk ==

The arbitration clerks are pleased to welcome {{user|SilverLocust}} to the clerk team as a trainee!

The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by email to {{email|clerks-l|lists.wikimedia.org}}.

For the Arbitration Committee, [[User:Dreamy Jazz|Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">'''Jazz'''</i>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Dreamy Jazz|talk to me]]'' &#124; ''[[Special:Contribs/Dreamy Jazz|my contributions]]''</sup> 18:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
: Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|SilverLocust appointed trainee clerk}}'''<!-- [[User:ArbClerkBot|ArbClerkBot]] ([[User talk:ArbClerkBot|talk]]) 18:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes-->

== Birdienest81 ==
{{Atop|This doesn't belong here.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 23:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)}}
I don't know if this is the good place to notice this and if I'm allowed to do it, but I just want to notice something. I was involved in an edit war with {{u|Birdienest81}} about keeping and removing [[WP:red link]]s. The red links were at the [[96th Academy Awards]] page untill Birdienest81 reomved them from 07:30, 26 June 2024.  We received a justified  warning by {{u|Cinemaniac86}} on 21:33, 26 June 2024 and an ongoing discussion started at [[Talk:96th Academy Awards]]. The warning included {{tq|1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.}} However after the warning, ''and'' taking part in the discussion the user continued removing the red links [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=96th_Academy_Awards&diff=prev&oldid=1231184872 here for example] and within his edit also [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=96th_Academy_Awards&diff=prev&oldid=1231184413 here]. While it seems like an experienced editor, I think it doesn't allow the user to [[Wikipedia:Ownership of content|own the control of the page]]. [[Special:Contributions/46.44.158.42|46.44.158.42]] ([[User talk:46.44.158.42|talk]]) 11:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
:This is a content dispute that is being discussed on the article Talk page. Nor has Birdienest81 violated [[WP:3RR]].--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 13:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
::The user ingnores the warning at the users talk page and continued with the edit war. Apart from that I think the user violated the [[WP:3RR]].
::[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=96th_Academy_Awards&diff=prev&oldid=1231063120 26 June (7:30)] - The user reverted for the first time a previous edit where the red links were added, as part of this edit
:: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=96th_Academy_Awards&diff=prev&oldid=1231131578 26 June (17:03)] User reverted the edit
:: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=96th_Academy_Awards&diff=prev&oldid=1231131764 26 June (17:04)] User reverted the edit
::<small>(The user was warned on [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Birdienest81&diff=prev&oldid=1231171569 26 June (21:33)] including “Do not edit war even if you believe you are right…. …If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.”)</small>
::[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=96th_Academy_Awards&diff=prev&oldid=1231184413 26 June (23:12)] user reverted the edit
::[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=96th_Academy_Awards&diff=prev&oldid=1231184872 26 June 23:16] - user reverted the edit. [[Special:Contributions/46.44.158.42|46.44.158.42]] ([[User talk:46.44.158.42|talk]]) 09:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
{{Abot}}

== Unexplained decline of CSD on several TimedText pages ==
{{Atop|Resolved.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 23:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)}}
I nominated several [[WP:TimedText|TimedText]] pages for speedy deletion per [[WP:G8|G8]] because they were associated with deleted files, but all but one were declined by the same user without any explanation. The admin who declined, {{user3|Liz}}, didn't respond when I asked on their talk page.
* [[TimedText:Heaven circa 2016.ogg.en.srt]]
* [[TimedText:Pe-al nostru steag e scris Unire.ogg.ro.srt]]
* [[TimedText:Pambansang Martsa ng PDP–Laban.ogg.tl.srt]]
* [[TimedText:My Favourite Mistake (Sheryl Crow song - sample).ogg.en.srt]]
* [[TimedText:Avicii - Wake Me Up.ogg.en.srt]]
* [[TimedText:Avicii - Wake Me Up.ogg.vi.srt]]
* [[TimedText:Test.mp3.en.srt]] (also per [[WP:G2|G2]])
* [[TimedText:Cass Elliot - Dream a Little Dream of Me.ogg.en.srt]]
* [[TimedText:Pambansang Martsa ng PDP-Laban.ogg.tl.srt]]
They also declined an attempted CSD on [[TimedText:File:Title_(Meghan_Trainor_song_-_sample).ogg.en.srt]] per [[WP:R3|R3]] and [[WP:G6|G6]], after I moved that TimedText page to the correct location. –[[User:LaundryPizza03|<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b>]] ([[User talk:LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0d0">d</span>]][[Special:Contribs/LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0bf">c̄</span>]]) 00:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
:These aren't the typical pages we see tagged for CSD G8 which are orphaned talk pages. I haven't encountered many "Timed Text" pages except for some vandals who create Timed Text talk pages which are deleted as CSD G8. I'm sorry that I haven't been prompt in responding to User talk page messages lately but for the past two months I've been taking care of a relative on hospice care who died over the weekend and honestly, sometimes the last thing I want to do when I come to Wikipedia is respond to talk page complaints. That's my failing, I'll admit, I need to improve. I'm sorry that you felt the need to come to a noticeboard about this, if I had responded in a timely manner, I probably would have suggested that you retag them and I'd let another admin who is more familiar with Timed Text pages deal with them. They are not a namespace we encounter much patrolling CSD categories so I probably should have just left them for someone else to deal with instead of untagging them. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 06:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
::Deleted all of them. Take care of yourself, Liz. [[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 12:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
::All the best, [[User:Liz|Liz]]. Sorry to hear that. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 09:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
{{Abot}}

== Remove pv-magazine from spam-blacklist ==
{{Atop|Continued elsewhere.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 23:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)}}

This source has been blacklisted since 2011 [[MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/June 2024#pv-magazine.com]]. Several requests have been made to allow it but no action has been taken. Could an admin please review the request? Thanks!  <span style="color:#AAA"><small><nowiki>&#123;{u&#124;</nowiki></small>[[User:Gtoffoletto|<span style="color:darkGreen;font-weight:bold">Gtoffoletto</span>]]<small><nowiki>&#125;}</nowiki></small></span>  <sup>[[User talk:Gtoffoletto|'''talk''']]</sup> 18:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

:It seems you restored the request from the archive... back into the archive - I don't think that's what you meant to do. &ndash; [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:80BA:C801:C509:A2FC:B835:42BC|2804:F1...35:42BC]] ([[User talk:2804:F14:80BA:C801:C509:A2FC:B835:42BC|talk]]) 21:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks. Let's try this... one... more... time... can someone please fix this? [[MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#pv-magazine.com]]  <span style="color:#AAA"><small><nowiki>&#123;{u&#124;</nowiki></small>[[User:Gtoffoletto|<span style="color:darkGreen;font-weight:bold">Gtoffoletto</span>]]<small><nowiki>&#125;}</nowiki></small></span>  <sup>[[User talk:Gtoffoletto|'''talk''']]</sup> 15:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
:It was added by [[User:Hu12|Hu12]] on [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist&diff=prev&oldid=421651736 31 March 2011] as a result of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/April_2011#pv-magazine.com this complaint]. The reasoning was that editors -- possibly socks or [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?oldid=420136597#User:Paulzubrinich someone with COI] -- were adding cites. That is, it wasn't about whether the publication was spam, it was whether spammers publicized it in Wikipedia. I've seen (and made) fruitless complaints about similar situations to the blacklist/whitelist folks and believe the proper solution would be to allow only confirmed users to add such cites, though I don't know if that's technically possible. [[User:Peter Gulutzan|Peter Gulutzan]] ([[User talk:Peter Gulutzan|talk]]) 16:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
::It was a long way back. So I think it is safe at this point to remove it and if the problem resumes the spam list is just one click away. The site is a legitimate and reliable source. I guess at the time someone from pv-magazine thought they had a "great idea to grow the site quickly"  <span style="color:#AAA"><small><nowiki>&#123;{u&#124;</nowiki></small>[[User:Gtoffoletto|<span style="color:darkGreen;font-weight:bold">Gtoffoletto</span>]]<small><nowiki>&#125;}</nowiki></small></span>  <sup>[[User talk:Gtoffoletto|'''talk''']]</sup> 18:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
:::Also: why was the source/website blacklisted and not simply the individual spammers blocked? I think the wrong tool was used here to fix this (old) issue and we are now stuck with it 20 years later. Time to fix this especially since multiple editors have raised this issue several times already.  <span style="color:#AAA"><small><nowiki>&#123;{u&#124;</nowiki></small>[[User:Gtoffoletto|<span style="color:darkGreen;font-weight:bold">Gtoffoletto</span>]]<small><nowiki>&#125;}</nowiki></small></span>  <sup>[[User talk:Gtoffoletto|'''talk''']]</sup> 11:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
::::When sock account after sock account is registered to evade attention while spamming links, the right thing to do is to address the root of the problem (the spamming) rather than playing whack-a-mole with socks. PV Magazine's staff shows up from time to time to complain about the blacklisting, so it is reasonable to assume that they are paying attention and would resume linking if they could. [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 12:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
:Should probably continue this at [[MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#pv-magazine.com]]. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 16:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
::Agree, thanks. Several editors have raised this issue on that page multiple times (definitely unaffiliated with PV magazine) so if @[[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] could provide links in that discussion it would be helpful. Thanks!  <span style="color:#AAA"><small><nowiki>&#123;{u&#124;</nowiki></small>[[User:Gtoffoletto|<span style="color:darkGreen;font-weight:bold">Gtoffoletto</span>]]<small><nowiki>&#125;}</nowiki></small></span>  <sup>[[User talk:Gtoffoletto|'''talk''']]</sup> 18:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
{{Abot}}

== Continuous disruption  ==
{{Atop|non-admin closure. Seems to be resolved/moderated with communication.[[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 21:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC) }}

[[User:Malik256]] spamming everywhere "Kashmir" with an edit summary "Added links". [[User:NXcrypto|<span style="color:#004400;">'''Nxcrypto'''</span>]] <small><small>[[User talk:NXcrypto|Message]]</small></small> 03:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

:They’ve also created categories with spelling errors, such as Category:Kashmiri Philosphers [[Special:Contributions/173.22.12.194|173.22.12.194]] ([[User talk:173.22.12.194|talk]]) 03:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
:This seems to be an exuberant and misdirected new editor. Have you tried explaining [[WP:REDNOT]] (with respect to adding categories that don't exist) to them? [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 03:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
::I left them a note [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Malik256&diff=prev&oldid=1231218772]. Hopefully that helps remedy any misunderstanding on their part. [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 04:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
:::Seems to be remedied. Simple typos are an easy fix. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 21:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
{{Abot}}

== Spam blocking warning templates ==

I've just discovered that {{tl|Spamblock}} and {{tl|Uw-spamblock}} are redirects to different templates: the first to {{tl|Uw-soablock}}, for an indefinite block of a spam-only account, and the second to {{tl|Uw-sblock}}, for a temporary block.  I'd like to file an RFD, asking that they both be targeted to the same place, but I don't want to mess up everyone who uses one or the other, and as a substitution of a redirect, I can't figure out how to track usage of the redirects.  Can anyone help me know if both are used significantly, or if one is used more widely than the other?  [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 11:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

:There is no mechanism for tracking substitution, but {{tl|spamblock}} is linked to from [[Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Blocking]], which suggests to me that it may be widely used.  Retargeting {{tl|uw-spamblock}} might result in confusion, since, as you point out, it is short for {{tl|uw-sblock}}. [[User:Jake Wartenberg|Jake Wartenberg]] ([[User talk:Jake Wartenberg|talk]]) 18:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
:Someone at [[WT:UW]] might be familiar with this sort of issue, since it should apply to non-administrator user warnings as well. [[User:Jlwoodwa|jlwoodwa]] ([[User talk:Jlwoodwa|talk]]) 03:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
:{{courtesy link|Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace#Spamblock redirects}} [[User:Jlwoodwa|jlwoodwa]] ([[User talk:Jlwoodwa|talk]]) 23:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

== Correction on list ==

My daughter's age is listed wrong on the following list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Teen_USA_2024 (says 19)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_New_Jersey_Teen_USA (on this one it's just listed as TBA)
Julia Livolsi Miss New Jersey Teen USA 2024
It should be 18, not 19.  Her birthday is February 21, 2006.
Thank you. [[User:Glnrcker|Glnrcker]] ([[User talk:Glnrcker|talk]]) 12:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

:There needs to be a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] that states her birthday. If it doesn't exist then her birthday and age shouldn't be included in the article. [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 12:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
::Fwiw, at the time of your comment, the source in the article was a profile of last year's Miss Teen New Jersey, who is a different person. I have removed that source and added a CN tag, but the article needs further attention from editors who are familiar with the subject matter. I've been trying not to be my usual ornery self, but it's not great that this report sat here for 16 hours before anyone actually looked into it. [[User:Lepricavark|L<small>EPRICAVARK</small>]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|<small>talk</small>]]) 05:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
:{{ping|Glnrcker}} What that means is that you need to provide a citation from a reliable published source which mentions her date of birth.  Read [[WP:RS]] for the Wikipedia definition of what kind of sources are considered reliable.  Once a reliable source confirms the information, the articles can be corrected. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 21:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
:I have no idea what constitutes an RS in this space, but through a few quick searches I found 2 instances reporting 19[https://www.tapinto.net/towns/fair-lawn-slash-glen-rock/sections/arts-and-entertainment/articles/glen-rock-high-school-2024-graduate-crowned-miss-new-jersey-teen-usa#:~:text=Livolsi%20plans%20to%20pursue%20a,USA%202024%20in%20Hollywood%2C%20California.][https://www.pageantupdate.info/profiles/miss-new-jersey-teen-usa-2024/] and haven't found one saying otherwise (or any with a specific birthday). [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 05:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
*Her birthday is February 21, 2006, according to her birth announcement in the [https://www.newspapers.com/article/glen-rock-gazette-julia-livoisi/150503684/ Glen Rock Gazette, April 7, 2006 Page A7], and apparently she is from Glen Rock. Including her birth announcement, there were five mentions/photos of her in that newspaper.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 18:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

== new page ==

i want to create new page for minecolonies but it say you cant [[User:Denizprof|Denizprof]] ([[User talk:Denizprof|talk]]) 05:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

:Hi [[User:Denizprof|Denizprof]]. Brand new users are limited in their ability to directly create articles. But you can work on a [[WP:DRAFT]] and submit it for review. Please see the template I left on your talk page. If you have any additional questions, I suggest dropping a note at the [[WP:HELPDESK]]. It's extremely late where I live, and I am about to go to bed. But you you can also drop me a line on my talk page. Just be aware I may not get to it right away. Happy editing. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 05:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
:Hey @[[User:Denizprof|Denizprof]], you'll want to check out Wikipedia's [[WP:GNG|general notability guideline]] and [[WP:NVG|guideline for video game notability]] and make sure Minecolonies warrants an article before putting effort into creating one. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>[[User:Zanahary|Zanahary]]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 01:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
:A minecraft mod is unlikely to meet our notability guidelines, sorry. [[User:Secretlondon|Secretlondon]] ([[User talk:Secretlondon|talk]]) 18:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

== Problems on a family article's tp ==
There is a discussion with an IP on the talk page of the page [[Du Quesnoy]] which would need some clarifications by an administrator, as I'm personnaly not sure I'm fully aware of how to interpret certain rules on the english wikipedia, although it seems clear to me that there are several problems on that talk page.<br>
Mostly, it's suggested that I'm libeling living people.<br>
[[User:Kontributor 2K|Kontributor 2K]] ([[User talk:Kontributor 2K|talk]]) 01:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

== Undo a move on a page with a title blacklist ==

I moved [[Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateaturipukakapikimaungahoronukupokaiwhenuakitanatahu]] to [[Taumata Hill]] to be more concise. I didn't believe a reasonable person would oppose the shortening of such a lengthy title to a common name, but it is clear from the talk page (which I should looked at first) that this is controversial.

I cannot move it on my own due to a title blacklist, apologies. [[User:Traumnovelle|Traumnovelle]] ([[User talk:Traumnovelle|talk]]) 06:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

:I tried but failed thanks to weirdness involving long names. Thanks [[User:Gadfium|Gadfium]] for the help. '''''[[User:LilianaUwU|<span style="font-family:default;color:#246BCE;">Liliana</span><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#FF1493;">UwU</span>]]''''' <sup>([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contributions]])</sup> 07:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
::Well now I think I screwed it up. I had reverted my own move because of the soft hyphens in the title, so now it's at [[Taumata Hill]] again. '''''[[User:LilianaUwU|<span style="font-family:default;color:#246BCE;">Liliana</span><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#FF1493;">UwU</span>]]''''' <sup>([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contributions]])</sup> 07:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

== Requesting removal of perm ==
{{Atop|Removed.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 13:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)}}
Hi, can my pending changes reviewer permission be removed? I requested it with the intention that I was going to use it, but I hardly ever did and is essentially useless for me at this point. Thank you! <span style="border-radius:3em;padding:5px;background:#483D8B;">‍'''[[User:Relativity|<span style="color:white">Rela</span>]]'''[[User talk:Relativity|<span style="color:white">tivity ⚡️</span>]]</span> 11:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

:{{done}} by {{np|Jo-Jo Eumerus}} —[[User:Ingenuity|Ingenuity]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Ingenuity#top|t]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[Special:Contribs/Ingenuity|c]]) 13:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
{{Abot}}

== why isnt this page move closed? it was opned a month ago ==

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Allegations_of_genocide_in_the_2023_Israeli_attack_on_Gaza [[User:Gsgdd|Gsgdd]] ([[User talk:Gsgdd|talk]]) 08:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
:I suspect that the reason it hasn't been closed is that very few uninvolved editors have the time, ability and inclination to read and understand what people have said in that discussion. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 08:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
::Yah - its too big. I think we need another page move with only the top titles from that discussion and ask people only to vote for one of them. what do you think? [[User:Gsgdd|Gsgdd]] ([[User talk:Gsgdd|talk]]) 08:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Anyway we need to close it asap [[User:Gsgdd|Gsgdd]] ([[User talk:Gsgdd|talk]]) 08:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
::::looks like these are the titles suggested
::::	1.	Allegations of genocide in the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip
::::	2.	Genocide accusations in the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip
::::	3.	Gaza genocide question
::::	4.	Gaza genocide
::::	5.	Gaza genocide accusations
::::	6.	Accusations of genocide in Gaza by Israel
::::	7.	Accusations of genocide in Gaza
::::	8.	Gaza genocide accusation
::::	9.	Allegations of 2023–2024 genocide in Gaza
::::	10.	Allegations of genocide in Gaza (2023–2024)
::::	11.	Allegations of Israeli genocide in Gaza
::::	12.	Allegations of genocide perpetrated by Israel in the Israel–Hamas war
::::	13.	Allegations of genocide in Gaza in the Israel–Hamas war
::::	14.	Accusations of genocide by Israel in Gaza
::::	15.	Accusations of genocide by Israel against Palestinians
::::	16.	Allegations of genocide by Israel against Palestinians [[User:Gsgdd|Gsgdd]] ([[User talk:Gsgdd|talk]]) 08:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::I'll take a look. It will take some time to read and close. &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 08:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::thanks for closing it [[User:Gsgdd|Gsgdd]] ([[User talk:Gsgdd|talk]]) 22:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

== Subject  ==

The page [[Casablanca derby]]  is every time vandalized by one person who deletes the table information absolutely need protection [[User:Ji Soôo97|Ji Soôo97]] ([[User talk:Ji Soôo97|talk]]) 15:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

:[[WP:RFPP|Have you tried requesting it here?]] (non-administrator comment) [[User:AlphaBetaGamma|ABG]] <small> ([[User talk:AlphaBetaGamma|Talk/Report any mistakes here]]) </small> 00:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
:You're both edit warring, and now it's locked. Please use the Talk page to establish consensus. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 01:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

== edit on [[Gaza genocide]] ==
{{archive top|result=Some [[WP:LEGITSOCK|Legitimate disclosed alternate accounts]], such as {{no ping|Kinsio}}, have been granted extended confirmed rights with less than 500 edits because their master was already extended confirmed. — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 02:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)}}
A user with 225 edit is making edits on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide
How is this possible. since its extended protection. User in question is [[User:Kinsio]] [[User:Gsgdd|Gsgdd]] ([[User talk:Gsgdd|talk]]) 02:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

:Please notify users on their talk page when you discuss them at this noticeboard. {{np2|Kinsio}} is a declared (and permitted) alternate account of {{np2|Gawaxay}}, so they were manually granted extended-confirmed status. [[User:DanCherek|DanCherek]] ([[User talk:DanCherek|talk]]) 02:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

== Suspected sockpuppet? ==
{{Atop|Another Coop gone.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 15:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)}}
I’ve just come across a user, [[User:Coop443535454]], whom I suspect is a sockpuppet. I don’t know if what I suspect is true, however I am saying this could be true because of two very similar sounding users, [[User:Coop40493]] & [[User:Coop2017]]. The edit patterns of these users appear to be very similar. [[User:Dipper Dalmatian|Dipper Dalmatian]] ([[User talk:Dipper Dalmatian|talk]]) 04:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

:This is what [[WP:SPI]] is for. [[Special:Contributions/100.36.106.199|100.36.106.199]] ([[User talk:100.36.106.199|talk]]) 14:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
:{{U|Drmies}}, I know it's a long time ago, but the Coops belong to you. Beside the Coops, is there a master?--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 15:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
::No, I didn't see anything, but I don't doubt it's them. No point in writing up at SPI. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 15:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
{{Abot}}

== Sockpuppet page moves ==

I just blocked {{np|Leithiani}} as a sock of LTA [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SheryOfficial]]. They performed a bunch of page moves prior to the block, if anyone is looking for a [[Independence Day (United States)|4th of July]] /[[2024 United Kingdom general election|election day]] project.-- [[User:Ponyo|<span style="color: Navy;">'''Ponyo'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ponyo|<span style="color: Navy;">''bons mots''</span>]]</sup> 17:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
:There's also {{np|Normanhunter2}}, a confirmed sock who participated in a bunch of AfDs; their votes should be struck.-- [[User:Ponyo|<span style="color: Navy;">'''Ponyo'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ponyo|<span style="color: Navy;">''bons mots''</span>]]</sup> 22:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

== Resigning rollbacker/PCR ==

Won't have a use for them anymore.
See ya later, space cowboys. [[User:DarmaniLink|DarmaniLink]] ([[User talk:DarmaniLink|talk]]) 01:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

:{{done}} I've removed those two permissions from your account as requested. [[User:DanCherek|DanCherek]] ([[User talk:DanCherek|talk]]) 01:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks. [[User:DarmaniLink|DarmaniLink]] ([[User talk:DarmaniLink|talk]]) 01:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

==Archiving AN==
It seems like AN is archiving awfully fast so I looked at this page and found instructions for two different bots to archive this noticeboard. One states that discussions are archived after three days but they are obviously being archived sooner than that and they are not being archived manually. Could someone who is knowledgeable about archiving make sure that the instructions are clear and not confusing and only one bot is archiving this page? Thank you. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 08:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
:One of the instructions is commented out; I changed the other to seven days. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 08:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks,  [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]]. I appreciate you checking on this. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 07:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

== Admin Misconduct ==
{{atop
| status = 
| result = There is no misconduct, just misunderstanding of range blocks and sourcing. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 16:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
}}



I am a new user so apologies if this is not the correct way to go about it, but it is an issue that undoubtedly needs attention and with the structure of Wikipedia on mobile it has taken me forever to at least find somewhere suitable enough for this.

Prior to creating an account, I had received a year long IP block by Graham87. This has since been lifted, I do not know how, who did it, or whether how up-in-arms I was about it helped bring that along. But it has given me the ability to do something about it and I will take that ability.

I have been very active on the Queensland Fire Department Wikipedia article recently, undoubtedly providing the most information and putting in the most work to ensure that the article reflected the recent rebranding and complete overhaul/transition from Queensland Fire and Emergency Services to QFD.

Recently, however, I was IP banned by Graham87 for alleged “vandalism”. However I can happily provide sources for my information, they are just information I have found presented in a format that cannot be cited (such as ArcGIS maps). Following this, an unknown IP editor came in and completely destroyed a lot of my hard work, making the article extremely difficult to read and removing the neutrality. They even chucked promotional content in it. This user has not been warned or blocked at all, but I was blocked by a guy half way across the country who has numerous complaints online (search ‘graham87 block’ or ‘graham87 ban’ on google and you will find that half of the USA would be able to back me up at the very least).

I feel that action needs to be taken against this user as he fails to follow the etiquette and guidelines of the website he is an administrator for and silences people editing in good faith while letting people while letting the true “miscreants” as he calls them slip by undetected. It’s not something anyone should stand for and is against the very thing Wikipedia seeks to provide and protect. [[User:VollyFiremedic|VollyFiremedic]] ([[User talk:VollyFiremedic|talk]]) 08:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

:We can't look into the details without knowing what the IP is (but you aren't obligated to say, and please be aware that doing so may expose personal information such as your location). However, in general, it is very possible that the IP block you experienced was not targeted at you. IP ranges are usually shared between different people who have the same internet service provider, mobile provider, institution, etc. When we have persistent and long-term vandals (and I know {{u|Graham87}} deals with a lot of these), we sometimes have to block the entire range knowing that there will be 'collateral damage' to others who share that range with the vandal, but haven't done anything wrong themselves. It's unfortunate but necessary. The way around it is to create an account of your own, as you have done – and not take it personally. &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 08:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

: Unfortunately, if you add material to an article without sourcing it - as you appear to have been doing - it is likely to be removed again.  Editors ''are'' regularly blocked for persisting to add unsourced text.   If your sources are "in a format that cannot be cited", then you need to find alternative sources. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 08:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
::Indeed. Yeah I've never edited that article and you may well have been affected by one of my rangeblocks. [[User:Graham87|Graham87]] ([[User talk:Graham87|talk]]) 09:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
:::This is probably [[Special:Contributions/2001:8003:EC74:DD00::/64|2001:8003:EC74:DD00::/64]], who made [[Special:Diff/1232695879|this edit]]. [[User:Graham87|Graham87]] ([[User talk:Graham87|talk]]) 09:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
::::Correct that is the IP (and another one as well which for some reason was given to me when I added over 1000 additional words). An IP block itself would not have been as worrying to me if it was not then followed by another guy completely messing up the article and adding a whole bunch of stuff that sounds like an advertisement and also removing a lot of my work which resulted in the article not making any sense at some points. I would love for someone to review that as well while we are here if possible.
::::As for the citing, I am still very new to Wikipedia and the format leaves a lot to be desired for me so citing does not make sense. I was hopeful that other editors could come along and take part in some teamwork to get citations for what I wrote but perhaps I should not have been so helpful. Regardless, I do not see how lack of citations constitutes vandalism. I’m getting a lot of my information from QFD resources and brigade training and adding it in. I understand the need to cite, but my priority remains giving people access to information on topics I am passionate about. And I feel a warning prior to a year long IP ban would have been much more warranted and stand by what I have said previously. [[User:VollyFiremedic|VollyFiremedic]] ([[User talk:VollyFiremedic|talk]]) 11:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::We try to warn users before blocking them but sometimes it's just not practical, especially for wide rangeblocks that affect hundreds or thousands of innocent users as collateral damage, as this one probably is. I can't find any evidence that the IP you're using has ever been blocked. As for citing, it should be a very high priority, given [[WP:MF|how often Wikipedia content is copied]]; it can turn up in rather unexpected places. Please see [[Help:Referencing for beginners]]. [[User:Graham87|Graham87]] ([[User talk:Graham87|talk]]) 12:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::[[WP:TUTORIAL]] may be of help to you. If you want to make WP edits that can "stick", learning how to add refs correctly is ''essential'', I can't stress this enough. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 14:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

==More admin misconduct==
{{archive top|status=no action needed|result=I see a pretty clear consensus that the assertion that having ECP on an admin's talk page invalidates their admin actions is strongly rejected, and with some light being shed on the overall situation, the offending comment has been struck by OwenX from the DRV in question. Therefore this matter appears concluded, and the discussion seems to be headed toward sprawling into a policy discussion, which isn't what this board is for. [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|<sup>from this world ..... today</sup>]] 18:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)}}
Please see [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 July 5]]: it seems [[User:OwenX]] thinks that I am not an administrator [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2024_July_5&diff=prev&oldid=1232742764 "in good standing"], and says that my status compares to that of someone with a compromised account. I don't know, maybe the racist and sexist trolls have found dates and jobs, and my talk page can be unprotected. Still, if OwenX had looked they could have seen that there was plenty of interaction between me and that editor in other places. But who knows, maybe OwenX can start a procedure to get me desysopped, and we'll see how that goes. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 14:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

:The title is appropriate. Failure to communicate is indeed admin misconduct per [[WP:ADMINACCT]]. By XC-protecting his Talk page, Drmies knowingly and willingly shuts down the primary means of communicating with him for an entire class of editors. This isn't an isolated out-of-process deletion or something we can wash over with IAR and get back to our daily business. It is a effectively a declaration that any editor with fewer than 500 edits under their belt doesn't deserve to have a voice. DRV is an editorial venue, not a disciplinary one, but the kind of dismissive tone expressed by him above is one I'm sure ARBCOM would have something to say about. [[User:OwenX|Owen&times;]] [[User talk:OwenX|<big>&#9742;</big>]] 15:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
::There are ways to communicate that don't involve going on a user's talk page.  You have no right to the time, attention, or talk page space of anyone else, even an admin.  Yes, failure to communicate can be an issue, but if you refer to [[WP:ADMINACCT]] you'll see that "protecting a talk page" is not among the examples of infractions.  That said, Happy Friday to one and all. [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 15:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
::And your use of such an argument at deletion review is inappropriate; the protection level of an admin's talkpage has nothing at all to do with deletion review. However, I gather you're fortunate enough to have never seen the threats and harassment aimed at Drmies and his ''family'' from LTAs. If you have a complaint about it, take it up with the arbitration committee, not as a specious argument in a tangential forum. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: black;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 15:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
:::OwenX, you are so wrong on so many different levels. It is ''because'' of Drmies commitment to the project as an admin that their talk page is EC protected. Calling for Drmies admin actions to be vacated and positing that they should be desysoped by ARBCOM for protecting their own talk page from persistent trolling and death threats against themselves and their family, that they receive as a result of the volunteer work they do here for '''you''' and other editors, is beyond the pale.-- [[User:Ponyo|<span style="color: Navy;">'''Ponyo'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ponyo|<span style="color: Navy;">''bons mots''</span>]]</sup> 15:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
:::{{u|Acroterion}}, over the years, I have received many threats and much harassment on my Talk page and my User page, including a recent death threat against me and my family. I reported the recent death threat on AN/I, and it was handled by an uninvolved admin. I don't remember if it was revdel'd or oversighted, you may be able to still see it. It never even crossed my mind to block access to my Talk page. I did eventually, many years ago, semi-protect my ''User'' page after 160+ vandalism edits, but that doesn't prevent anyone from contacting me, and it's still open to non-XC registered accounts. Our deletion review policy highlights communication with the deleting admin as a key requirement. A deletion by an admin who prevents communication with him is very much relevant to a DRV appeal. If the only way an admin can deal with harassment is to shut down commincation, then he should hang up the mop until the situation allows him to reopen the main communication channel. Drmies has my sympathy for all the harassment and threats, but that does not exempt him from accountability for his actions. [[User:OwenX|Owen&times;]] [[User talk:OwenX|<big>&#9742;</big>]] 15:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
::::Talk page protection ''is not'' equivalent to 'preventing communication.'  This is nothing more than a petulant complaint that <s>you cannot</s> not everyone can communicate in the way <s>you</s> they desire.  With all due respect, grow up. [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 15:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::OwenX is an admin and extended confirmed. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: black;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 16:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
::::Perhaps you need to review both [[WP:ADMINACCT]] and [[WP:DRV]] then. I too have received threats, but nothing approaching the volume, virulence and specificity that Drmies has: do you think that should be grounds for desysopping? DRV is not a forum for arguing about technicalities or complaints about other editors in order to gain the upper hand. Take it up with Arbcom if you have a policy-based argument. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: black;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 16:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::I think Drmies should step away from any activity that requires him to be available for contact by non-XC editors until such time as he is ready to reopen his Talk page to all. That includes blocking, deleting, protecting, and most admin functions, with the possible exception of checkuser. Deleting from behind a protected Talk page is an abuse of admin rights, and grounds for automatic vacating when contested in good faith at DRV. [[User:OwenX|Owen&times;]] [[User talk:OwenX|<big>&#9742;</big>]] 16:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::This is so asinine, I'm beginning to wonder if your account is compromised. <b>[[User:Jauerback|Jauerback]]</b><sup>[[User talk:Jauerback|dude?]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jauerback|dude.]]</sub> 16:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::(edit conflict) I don't agree with your proposal at all as I don't think Drmies has done anything wrong. I'm honestly more concerned you're calling for that AfD to be vacated for this than about anything Drmies has done. [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]</span>'' 16:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{ec}} Are you seriously suggesting that an admin should refrain from acting as as an admin on the project while their talk page is protected due to abuse? Do you have any idea how easy that would be to game from a trolling standpoint? It's a ludicrous suggestion. And your comment ''"Deleting from behind a protected Talk page is an abuse of admin rights"'' is equally absurd. I can't take anything you say from this point forward seriously.-- [[User:Ponyo|<span style="color: Navy;">'''Ponyo'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ponyo|<span style="color: Navy;">''bons mots''</span>]]</sup> 16:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::One can argue that you, an admin of many years' standing, should have a better understanding of policy before making such accusations. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: black;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 16:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I take your views, {{u|Acroterion}}, very seriously. I'm not one of those who dismisses accusations with a, "Haha good luck trying to get me desysopped". Yet I still don't see how we can simply waive a policy requirement of accountability simply because an admin found no better way to handle harassment than to shut down the main communication channel to anyone with fewer than 500 edits. We used to deny promotion at RfA to candidates who didn't enable email contact. Remember those days?  If the situation doesn't allow you to fulfil your admin duties in an accountable way, hang up the mop until you can do the job as required by policy. There is no other way to ensure accountability. [[User:OwenX|Owen&times;]] [[User talk:OwenX|<big>&#9742;</big>]] 16:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Reading the trail on Rocky's page, Drmies has email enabled and that's how he contacted him. Drmies was accountable and accessible, just not in one specific channel so not sure your analogy fits there, @[[User:OwenX|OwenX]] (and I don't think email is required at RfA anymore, although I may be wrong) [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 16:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Thank you, {{u|Star Mississippi}}, for addressing the actual issue at hand. Having reviewed Rockycape's exchange with Drmies following Rockycape's email to Drmies, I struck out my comment at the DRV. {{u|Drmies}}, please accept my apologies for the inappropriate comment. I still wish you would reduce the protection level on your Talk page to just semi, and handle harassers who have a registered account by banning, which would benefit the rest of us too. [[User:OwenX|Owen&times;]] [[User talk:OwenX|<big>&#9742;</big>]] 17:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::We already do that. How many prolific abusive sockpuppeteers do you thing we see every day? There are some who've been harassing individual edits, posting threats, and wasting everybody's time, for decades, with hundreds of accounts. Admins who take action against them become targets. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: black;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 18:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::You are simultaneously complaining about a perceived IAR and then making up a new policy that an admin who has been abused to a sufficient degree can be driven away, rather than dealing with it in a manner that doesn't conflict with policy. The net result is that trolls can target people and win, according to your interpretation. "There is no other way to ensure accountability" is hyperbolic." And I agree that no action is required, except to ask that you remember to confine your comments at DRV to matters pertaining to the request, not to your perception of the justification for the closer's level of talkpage protection. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: black;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 16:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::(edit conflict) OwenX, I think you are wrong here. '''Mandating''' that all admins allow anyone to post sexist and racist attacks and death threats, and worse, on their talk pages is a non-starter. I ''know'' that's not explicitly your goal, but it is the ''natural consequence'' if admins must always leave their talk pages unprotected. Good-faith users can easily contact Drmies, such as by leaving a ping on their own talk page. Or by reaching out to a third party. Or, heck, taking it to one of the admin noticeboards. You say, "If the only way an admin can deal with harassment is to shut down commincation, then he should hang up the mop until the situation allows him to reopen the main communication channel." I'm not sure you are aware of the seriousness of some of our LTAs. I get multiple daily death threats, as do several other admins, and I consider myself lucky that I'm currently not targeted for far worse abuse, as I know Drmies has been. I think it's entirely reasonable to protect user talk pages to deal with such attacks. Disclaimer: my talk page is currently restricted to autoconfirmed and confirmed editors, protection applied by me. It was previously protected by Ponyo in a similar manner. I will note this helps but most certainly doesn't prevent the daily death threats I receive. I strongly believe your approach would, very quickly, result in many admins handing in their mop while LTAs would celebrate their substantial win. I think the balance is wrong. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 16:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Agree. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 17:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::I think that admins should receive the same protections afforded to all users. The rules do not and should not allow that admins have to take any abuse from troll accounts. I would expect that the community would want all editors respected and protected from threat and harassment. --[[User:ARoseWolf|<span style="color:#b76e79">'''A'''</span><span style="color:#be4f60">'''Rose'''</span>]][[User talk:ARoseWolf|<span style="color:#b87333">'''Wolf'''</span>]] 17:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

*This is entirely overblown and absolutely no action needed. I've worked with and highly respect both Drmies and OwenX so I don't think I'm Involved in that sense. This is all because an SPA had their personal project deleted and has spent a week bludgeoning and badgering rather than looking for sources. (Disclosure, endorsed the close at DRV but did not !vote in the AfD). Rocky had two means of communicating with Drmies, which they made use of and Drmies responded, which is all that's required of an Admin. Drmies has always been more than responsive, and self protection is not a reason for de-sysop (self or ArbComm). We are not required to be at the beck and call of users or abuse of trolls.[[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 16:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
*If I'm reading [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=138017948 this correctly], Drmies' Talk has been protected since October 2022. That makes it even more unlikely that this is an admin conduct/contact ability issue or it would have been raised sooner. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 17:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
*:If it's been a year and a half, the protection should be lifted, as maybe the disruption won't continue. All editors, admins or not, should be equally eligible to have their user talk pages protected, eg with a request at RFPP. If anything, an admin's request for UTP protection should be held to a higher standard than non-admins because of adminacct (and because protecting an admin's page can cause problems like what happened at DRV where a non-XC editor was erroneously called out for not discussing with the admin first, which they couldn't do because of protection). Admins shouldn't protect their own pages because they're involved; another admin should review the request. In this case, if it's been a year and a half, the protection should be lifted and Drmies should make an RFPP request for re-protection if/when necessary. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 17:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
*::{{tq| where a non-XC editor was erroneously called out for not discussing with the admin first}} that was me, and I apologised for it when I got online this morning. The discussion happened via email and on the requestor's Talk, which was just fine. Let's not conflate the two. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 17:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::I also made the same mistake when replying to the editor's enquiry on my talk page, for what it's worth. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 17:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
*::If it was proven that Drmies was difficult to contact and unresponsive to editors concerns I would be the first to side with this position. But there are other avenues available to communicate with them and those avenues were used. Drmies was responsive to editors concerns and a discussion was had so I don't see a conduct issue. --[[User:ARoseWolf|<span style="color:#b76e79">'''A'''</span><span style="color:#be4f60">'''Rose'''</span>]][[User talk:ARoseWolf|<span style="color:#b87333">'''Wolf'''</span>]] 17:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
*From a purely 'policy' perspective and without any context, I tend to agree with Levivich above. But I am also cognisant that Drmies is one of the most targetted administrators we have for abuse, for all the hard work they do with LTAs etc. Ultimately we are all people, human beings, and it is impossible to ignore the human element of this issue — which is that Drmies needs this protection to reduce the impact of their editing on themselves and their family. I think that requires sympathy and understanding, and insofar as I noted my agreement with Levivich as a general statement, I feel like it may be appropriate to [[WP:IAR|ignore this view]] in this situation. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 17:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
*:If Drmies had requested protection at RFPP, it's likely it would have been granted, so we end up at the same place anyway. Conversely, anyone who thinks it shouldn't be protected can request reduction of protection at RFPP as with any other page. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 17:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
*:[[WP:INVOLVED]] does not apply when dealing with vandalism.  ⇌ [[User talk:Jake Wartenberg|Jake Wartenberg]] 18:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
*::{{tqq|Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor}} and I think having your user talk page vandalized or receiving death threats counts as "conflicts with an editor." (I know some admins strongly disagree with this interpretation because they think it would allow editors to "conflict out" admins by picking fights with them.) [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 18:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::Editors and admins who confront people who make graphic threats of violence against them, their families, and others are in no way "involved," as the policy makes amply clear. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: black;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 18:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
::::The policy also says that {{tqq|an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role [...] is not involved}}.  Interpretation of "conflicts" as it is used here to encompass efforts to prevent long-term abuse of the platform strains credulity. ⇌ [[User talk:Jake Wartenberg|Jake Wartenberg]] 18:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

== Administrators' newsletter – July 2024 ==

[[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter|News and updates for administrators]] from the past month (June 2024).

[[File:ANEWSicon.png|right|150px]]

[[File:Wikipedia Administrator.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Administrator changes'''
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-add.svg|20px|alt=added|Added]] {{Hlist|class=inline
|[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elli|Elli]]
|[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HouseBlaster|HouseBlaster]]
|[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pickersgill-Cunliffe|Pickersgill-Cunliffe]]
}}
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] {{Hlist|class=inline
|[[Special:Permalink/1226644195#Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2024#June 2024|Brianga]]
|[[Special:Permalink/1226644195#Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2024#June 2024|De728631]]
|[[Special:Permalink/1226644195#Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2024#June 2024|Georgewilliamherbert]]
|[[Special:Permalink/1231804712#Deceased admin (Hyacinth)|Hyacinth]] ([[Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/2023#Mikhail Lewis (Hyacinth)|deceased]])
|[[Special:Permalink/1226644195#Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2024#June 2024|ProveIt]]
|[[Special:Permalink/1229769776#Desysop request (The Night Watch)| The Night Watch]]
}}

[[File:Octicons-tools.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Technical news'''
* Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. [[mw:Manual:Interface/Sidebar|Documentation is available]] on  MediaWiki. ({{phab|T6086}})

[[File:Info Simple bw.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Miscellaneous'''
* The [[:m:Community Wishlist Survey|Community Wishlist]] is re-opening on 15 July 2024. [[:m:Community_Wishlist_Survey/Future_Of_The_Wishlist/Preview_of_the_New_Wishlist#July_1,_2024:_The_Community_Wishlist_is_re-opening_Jul_15,_2024._Here's_what_to_expect,_and_how_to_prepare.|Read more]]

----
{{center|{{flatlist|
* [[Wikipedia talk:Administrators' newsletter|Discuss this newsletter]]
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Subscribe|Subscribe]]
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Archive|Archive]]
}}}}
<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 07:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:EN-Jungwon@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1231927808 -->

== Advice needed re request to unprotect a draft ==
{{atop
| status = 
| result = Draft accepted and moved as requested. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 01:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
}}



Article [[Hera Pheri 3]] has a long history of deletions, un-deletions and moves. I added protection to it on April 28, 2017. Not all editors/admins involved are still active.  {{u|SafariScribe}} has requested on my talk page to un-protect [[Draft:Hera Pheri 3]] created Feb 21, 2023.  Guidance on this would be helpful.  Thank you. [[User:Maile66|— Maile ]] ([[User talk:Maile66|talk]]) 15:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

:Is there any reason they cant create in their sandbox and move it subject it to review there? [[User:Amortias|Amortias]] ([[User talk:Amortias|T]])([[Special:Contributions/Amortias|C]]) 15:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
:Scratch that, just realised you mean to unprotect the article not the draft page. Its been submitted for review by AFC, if its approved then an admin could unprotect at that point if it has now managed to reach a suitable style/substance of article. [[User:Amortias|Amortias]] ([[User talk:Amortias|T]])([[Special:Contributions/Amortias|C]]) 15:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

::Thank you.  That was the guidance I was looking for.  {{u|SafariScribe}} it looks like you will have to wait until that review process has been completed. [[User:Maile66|— Maile ]] ([[User talk:Maile66|talk]]) 15:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:Maile66|Maile66]], @[[User:Amortias|Amortias]],  thank you for your words. However, I don't believe this situation will escalate to the notice board. The draft after reviewing it as part of AFC work meets [[WP:NFILM]], and the principal photography has already started–[[WP:NFF]]. I was about to accept the draft when a pop-up message indicated that the target page is admin-protected, hence my request for unprotection of the target page so that the draft can be moved. I think there may have been a misunderstanding of my intentions. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:SafariScribe|Safari Scribe]]</span><sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/SafariScribe|'''''Edits!''''']] [[User talk:SafariScribe|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 19:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
::I think things got muddled here. @[[User:SafariScribe|SafariScribe]] is a longtime editor and AfC reviewer in good standing looking to complete that review that was asked for. I do not have the on wiki time today to process the AfC move but I've dropped protection to E/C so Safari or any other AfC reviewer can accept and move the article. If folks feel as if it's still not notable (haven't reviewed, taking no position), a new AfD to reflect current consensus would be more helpful than a 7 year old one. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 17:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Thank you @[[User:Star Mississippi|Star Mississippi]] for the clear understanding. I have move the article as meeting [[WP:NF]] or any required policy. I doubt it won't survive AFD if it is taken there. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:SafariScribe|Safari Scribe]]</span><sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/SafariScribe|'''''Edits!''''']] [[User talk:SafariScribe|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 07:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Self-requested block of my old account ==

I would like to request a block on my old account {{User|M14325}}, which I no longer have access to. The account has already been blocked in de- and metawiki and now I would like to request a block here as well. Regards, [[User:Wüstenspringmaus|<span style="color:grey;font-family:Comic Sans MS">Wüstenspringmaus</span>]] <sub>[[User talk:Wüstenspringmaus|''talk'']]</sub> 07:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
:{{u|Wüstenspringmaus}}, rather than do it piecemeal, you should probably request a global lock at [[:meta:Steward_requests/Global#Requests_for_global_(un)lock_and_(un)hiding]]. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 12:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
::By the way, {{u|Primefac}}, they appear to have requested a lock at Meta [[meta:Special:Diff/27073349|here]], though it was declined and they were re-directed to local admins. [[User:EggRoll97|EggRoll97]] <sup>([[User_talk:EggRoll97|talk]]) </sup> 15:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Good to know, I did wonder if they might disallow self-locking. I don't really see much point in blocking an account that has zero edits and was created two years ago, but... ''meh''. {{done}}. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 15:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

== Vanished user returned ==

If a user vanishes and then returns, should pages about that user, eg RfC's that the vanished user deleted, be undeleted, or signatures that they altered after vanishing be restored? [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 09:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

:So per [[WP:VANISH]], {{tq|If the user returns, the "vanishing" will likely be fully reversed, the old and new accounts will be linked, and any outstanding sanctions or restrictions will be resumed}}. Though as neither deleting pages (except for user pages) or altering signatures is part of the vanishing process in the first place, they shouldn't have happened and therefore shouldn't need to be reversed. &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 09:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
::Among the deleted pages are Arbcom candidate statements, an MfD, their own contributions on other users' talk pages, and '''their own talk page'''. They also renamed an RfC, altered their own sigs on various pages. Then they returned and now edit under the same name, but I can't see any linking of the old account (which has a generic vanished name) and its edits and logs to the new one. This was all done some years ago, but the editor is active now. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 09:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
:::That sounds pretty exceptional, though the policy does allow for exceptions. Maybe you should email ArbCom about it? &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 09:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
::::Sounds more like scorched earth than vanishing, but if you do have specific concerns about this issue and do not want to divulge here (which I totally understand) I agree that contacting an Arb (or even an Oversighter) is probably the best bet. I also agree, in general, that deleted pages should not be restored ''purely'' because they have returned; it's not like the U1 becomes invalid. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 16:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::Most of them wouldn't qualify for U1 in the first place. [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 17:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

== Removal of perms ==

Can an admin please remove the perms associated with this account? I tried to come back, but have decided to scramble my passwords and leave this account for good. All the best, [[User:Schminnte|<b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; color:#0645AD">Schminnte</b>]]<sup class="nowrap">&nbsp;&#91;[[User talk:Schminnte|<i style="color:#0645AD">talk to me</i>]]&#93;</sup> 18:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
: I've removed you extra permissions. Let me know if you change your mind. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 18:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
::@[[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] you missed autoreviewer I think. [[User:The Night Watch|<span style="color:black;"><span style="font-size:110%">''The Night Watch''</span></span>]] [[User talk:The Night Watch|<span style="color:brown;"><span style="font-size:85%;">(talk)</span></span>]] 18:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
::: Thanks. Now done. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 19:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

== Looking to fix  a defaced wiki page. ==

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Itzler
I am a live streamer and is being harrased by multiple trolls, im looking to get this page reverted back to a previous state, and lock the page from further edits. I am the owner of this wiki.

you can see there is trolls by checking the name of the image they provided, and a brief reading [[User:Gasnobrakes10|Gasnobrakes10]] ([[User talk:Gasnobrakes10|talk]]) 18:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

:While there are grounds for protection on BLP grounds which I plan to enact and potential blocks, please read [[WP:OWN]]. You have no specific role when the content is compliant with guidelines here. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 18:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
::I have reverted to a version on June 22, right before the recent wave of disruptive editing began. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 18:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
:::and I think I got all of the offending content. If I missed any, @[[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] or any admin please feel free to continue. I'm about to hop offline. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 18:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
:::ETA, I have just semi'ed it. Found BLP violations going back to 2017. Have to hop offline but if someone else has time and can eyeball, that would be helpful. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 19:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

== personal attack, spreading rumors ==
{{atop|Procedural close. This is already at ANI. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 19:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)}}

User:Michalis1994  accuses me without any proof that I am the same person as a blocked user on Greek Wikipedia. These kinds of accusations, on matters unrelated to editing, besides insulting my person, spread insidious rumors that may cause other users to view me with suspicion.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Voice_of_Reason_-_Afroditi_Latinopoulou#Why_do_the_party_leader's_personal_controversies_take_up_the_majority_of_an_article_about_her_party? ''Extra careful, because you got blocked - who knows what could happen next? Removing cited content is not a great idea, Στρουμπούκη.'' and ''You're obviously trolling. Your account has been blocked completely from Greek Wikipedia for abusing multiple accounts, whilst your name is... Dora? Yikes''] [[User:D.S. Lioness|D.S. Lioness]] ([[User talk:D.S. Lioness|talk]]) 18:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Voice_of_Reason_-_Afroditi_Latinopoulou&diff=prev&oldid=1233180463 <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:D.S. Lioness|D.S. Lioness]] ([[User talk:D.S. Lioness#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/D.S. Lioness|contribs]]) 18:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)</small><sup>[[Special:Diff/1233183972|<diff>]]</sup>
:Once again, this is exasperating. [[User:D.S. Lioness|D.S. Lioness]] has been [[:el:Χρήστης:D.S._Lioness|blocked]] on Greek Wikipedia for being identified as the person behind the indefinitely banned account [[:el:Ειδικό:Συνεισφορές/ΔώραΣτρουμπούκη|ΔώραΣτρουμπούκη]]. According to Meta, this individual has created over 50 sockpuppets in the past two years [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Checkuser/2023-12#%CE%94%CF%8E%CF%81%CE%B1%CE%A3%CF%84%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%85%CE%BC%CF%80%CE%BF%CF%8D%CE%BA%CE%B7@el.wikipedia] [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Checkuser/2023-04#%CE%94%CF%8E%CF%81%CE%B1%CE%A3%CF%84%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%85%CE%BC%CF%80%CE%BF%CF%8D%CE%BA%CE%B7@el.wikipedia] [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Checkuser/2023-03#%CE%94%CF%8E%CF%81%CE%B1%CE%A3%CF%84%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%85%CE%BC%CF%80%CE%BF%CF%8D%CE%BA%CE%B7@el.wikipedia_2]. D.S. stands for Dora Stroumpouki, and she even refers to herself as [[User:D.S. Lioness|Dora]] on her talk page. Despite being previously blocked, she has returned with no sign of self-reflection or a willingness to change her behaviour and adopt a more diplomatic approach. What is it that you hope to accomplish here?? [[User:Michalis1994|Michalis1994]] ([[User talk:Michalis1994|talk]]) 18:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
::what does this have to do with my contribution to english wikipedia? [[User:D.S. Lioness|D.S. Lioness]] ([[User talk:D.S. Lioness|talk]]) 18:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Just stop removing cited content. Also, your previous behavioural patterns have been moved to the English Wiki, which is not really a great idea. You have been warned. [[User:Michalis1994|Michalis1994]] ([[User talk:Michalis1994|talk]]) 18:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
::::What are you talking about? what are you doing here? how can you talk like that to another user? [[User:D.S. Lioness|D.S. Lioness]] ([[User talk:D.S. Lioness|talk]]) 18:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
::I am not the same person! [[User:D.S. Lioness|D.S. Lioness]] ([[User talk:D.S. Lioness|talk]]) 18:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
:::I'm going to stop here. You are the same person and that's why you got blocked on Greek WP. [[User:Michalis1994|Michalis1994]] ([[User talk:Michalis1994|talk]]) 18:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
::::'''[[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D.S. Lioness/Archive]]'''<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:D.S. Lioness|D.S. Lioness]] ([[User talk:D.S. Lioness#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/D.S. Lioness|contribs]]) 19:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)</small><sup>[[Special:Diff/1233186447|<diff>]]</sup>
::::: I would suggest not continuing this discussion. Michalis1994 can file a [[WP:SPI]] if they want. It isn't an actionable personal attack. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 19:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

:spreading rumors about a user's previous activity it is a serious personal attack and hurts my credibility. [[User:D.S. Lioness|D.S. Lioness]] ([[User talk:D.S. Lioness|talk]]) 19:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
:: Let's be clear here.  You clearly ''are'' the same person as is blocked on el.wikipedia, because your global contributions are [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ACentralAuth%2FD.S._Lioness here] for anyone to see.  So saying "I'm not the same person" is a lie, and doesn't do you any credit. ''However'' your misdeeds, whatever they were, on that Wikipedia do not affect your existence here, as long as the same edit practices do not re-occur.  If they do, you can - and probably ''will'' - be blocked here as well. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 19:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

*My question is how the original poster thought it would be a good idea to open yet another noticeboard thread, when [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#No_cooperation,_no_good_faith]] (also started by them about the same editor) is still open? This is now the third thread started by the original poster about the same editor in a couple of weeks, if you included [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1230962941 this miguided attempt] that was eventually merged with the existing thread. I suspected there were some significant competence issues last week based on the ANI, and I am not being dissuaded in my view by subsequent developments. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 19:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
*:There is also [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1232771849#User:Michalis1994_reported_by_User:D.S._Lioness_(Result:_Nominator_blocked_24_hours,_reportee_warned) an AN3 report] too, which I just found. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 19:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

It is clearly a [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Michalis1994 stalking case here. 90 out of 100 edits from Michalis are related with my contributions. I wait for check user results to clear the case, but the offensives are in daily basis. I don't know what to do..[[User:D.S. Lioness|D.S. Lioness]] ([[User talk:D.S. Lioness|talk]]) 19:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Conflict of interest VRT consultations, July 2024 ==

The Arbitration Committee has received applications for [[WP:COIVRT|conflict of interest VRT queue]] access and has reviewed them in consultation with the [[Wikipedia:Functionaries|functionaries team]]. The Community is invited to evaluate the candidacies and comment [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Conflict of interest reports/July 2024 appointments|here]] until the end of 17 July 2024 (UTC).

On behalf of the Committee, [[User:Sdrqaz|Sdrqaz]] ([[User talk:Sdrqaz|talk]]) 00:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
: Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Conflict of interest VRT consultations, July 2024}}'''<!-- [[User:ArbClerkBot|ArbClerkBot]] ([[User talk:ArbClerkBot|talk]]) 00:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes-->

== https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-hant/蔡瑞月 ==
{{Atop|The OP is username soft-blocked on zh.wiki, but there's nothing we can - or will - do on en.wiki.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 12:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)}}

Hi Administrators,

Someone upload a wrong portrait of Madam Tsai Jui-yueh on the Traditional Chinese Wikipedia page. 
https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-hant/蔡瑞月

Someone uploaded using the reference below, Madam was tagged in that News article photo album, but photo is someone else in a group photo
https://ahonline.drnh.gov.tw/index.php?act=Display/image/4359360wg9foOB#d6C


The same news article and album you can see Madam Tsai Jui-yueh is in this photo
https://ahonline.drnh.gov.tw/index.php?act=Display/image/4359360wg9foOB#0Osa

Can someone please check the reference and correct this page.

該封禁的查封ID是#560409。--Tjyfoundation（留言） 2024年7月8日 (一) 11:27 (UTC) [[User:Tjyfoundation|Tjyfoundation]] ([[User talk:Tjyfoundation|talk]]) 12:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
:zh.wikipedia.org is a different project. There's nothing that en.wikipedia.org can do for you, you need to raise your concern on that project. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 12:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
::How to raise my concern on that project? [[User:Tjyfoundation|Tjyfoundation]] ([[User talk:Tjyfoundation|talk]]) 12:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
{{Abot}}

== Multiple reverts ==
{{Atop|OP now indefinitely blocked.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 12:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)}}

A user has reverted my edits two times each in [[First Dutch Military Aggression]] and [[Second Dutch Military Aggression]]. Can someone please prevent him from reverting it. I'm trying to avoid violating [[WP:3RR]]. [[User:Desertasad|Desertasad]] ([[User talk:Desertasad|talk]]) 01:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
:I've blocked the OP for 72 hours for their [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NFSreloaded&diff=1233239407&oldid=1233238905&direction=prev homophobic comments] they posted at {{U|NFSreloaded}}'s Talk page, whom they failed to notify of this complaint. Any administrator is free to block Desertasad for longer.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 01:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
::I can tell you that if I were an admin, I'd indef. Saying that the {{tq|legalisation of LGBTQIA+}} is {{tq|a bad thing}} is extremely disruptive. I've seen users indeffed for less. '''''[[User:LilianaUwU|<span style="font-family:default;color:#246BCE;">Liliana</span><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#FF1493;">UwU</span>]]''''' <sup>([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contributions]])</sup> 01:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
:::I agree and have made it an indef. &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 10:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Appreciate the tag. In response to this complaint: the manual reverts in question are [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Operation_Product&diff=1233183496&oldid=1231196159 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Operation_Product&diff=1233237421&oldid=1233226610 there] on [[Operation Product]], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Operation_Kraai&diff=prev&oldid=1233183935 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Operation_Kraai&diff=prev&oldid=1233237466 there] on [[Operation Kraai]]. On the former article OP duplicated information already present in the lead section, on the latter article they moved the informal non-English terms for the military operation up to the first sentence. I considered both contributions redundant and undid them, ultimately resulting in the exchange on my talk page. That said, I don't feel I was pushing any kind of nationalist narrative in this situation or elsewhere. --[[User:NFSreloaded|NFSreloaded]] ([[User talk:NFSreloaded|talk]]) 02:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
{{Abot}}

== Withdrawing deletion nomination ==

I have withdrawn the deletion nomination of a page, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marshal_of_the_Sri_Lanka_Air_Force this], an administrator must talk. [[User:Hamwal|Hamwal]] ([[User talk:Hamwal|talk]]) 10:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

:Given that two people have weighed in on the discussion with something other than a keep !vote, the nomination [[WP:CLOSEAFD|is no longer eligible for withdrawal]]. --[[User:Blablubbs|Blablubbs]] ([[User talk:Blablubbs|talk]]) 11:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
:Well you can add a keep vote with reason and state that you are withdrawing your delete nomination. But that will not trigger close in this case. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 12:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

== Opinion sought ==

A small edit war [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=LGB_Alliance&action=history occurred] at [[LGB Alliance]] leading directly from the closure of The Telegraph reliability RFC. While no intervention is, at present, required, as parties appear to have stopped warring, two editors are under the impression that it is other editors who were edit warring, not them. There has been discussion of this, with diffs, at [[Talk:LGB Alliance#Dubious source]] and at [[User talk:Amanda A. Brant#Talk:LGB Alliance#Dubious source]]. As you can see from these pages, both I, [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] and [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] have offered our opinions and all of us have been rebuffed. Both Amanda and BilledMammal have thrown [[WP:EDITWAR]] at each other during the article talk page discussion. I'm including BilledMammal as among the participants of the edit war, as their edit was warring back to "status quo". Furthermore that "status quo" includes text sourced to The Telegraph, and therefore aligned with BilledMammal's position being very upset about the Telegraph RFC closure, and they had not previously edited this article or talk page.

I would appreciate an admin/admins who will be respected as neutral by all participants (i.e. not those whose position wrt trans/GCF topics is well known and can therefore be rebuffed as biased by one party) to briefly describe what occurred in terms of our [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|Edit warring]] policy. No editor even remotely reached 3RR. This is simply about what edit warring is, what constitutes participation in that war, not whether their edit warring needed sanctions or whether the content or absence of content was correct. I'm hoping for enlightenment and better future behaviour as a result, rather than anyone to get into trouble. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 13:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

:{{nonadmin}} Whatever the result of the review above that's a misinterpretation of [[WP:MREL]]. Marginal or disputed reliability is not the same as [[WP:Generally unreliable]].
:This was edit warring, reverting reverts of other reverts, even multipole editors only each reverting once could still constitute edit warring. After [[WP:3RR]] editors may very well get blocked, but that's not a reasont to get right up to that point. 
:As with most issue more discussion on the talk page, and less in edit summaries, would likely solve the problem. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 14:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
:Small correction; I didn't say that Amanda was edit warring - while if they had reverted again I think they would have crossed the line, as it was I don't think that was one of the issues with their conduct there. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 19:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
::You're comment {{tq|"I’m just here because people are misusing RSP. I’m not interested in joining the discussion beyond objecting to that."}} might as well have read "I'm only here to join the edit war". [[User:CommunityNotesContributor|CNC]] ([[User talk:CommunityNotesContributor|talk]]) 20:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
:::I disagreed with the specified reason for removal - you can't remove a source on the grounds of unreliability if you're not actually claiming that its reporting is incorrect. Editors later raised other reasons for removal, and I wasn't interested in getting more involved in the discussion.
:::This isn't an unreasonable position, per [[WP:SATISFY]] and [[WP:VOLUNTARY]]. Editors are allowed to address one issue without becoming permanently involved in a dispute. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 20:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
::::Your argument has helped to confirm my suggestion as now you are trying to justify your reason for edit warring, rather than any acknowledgement that is was the wrong action: you made no attempt to [[WP:AVOIDEDITWAR|avoid edit warring]] and [[WP:ROWN|your revert wasn't necessary]].  On 9 July, you joined the edit war with Amanda A. Brant, reverting at 15:18 [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=LGB_Alliance&diff=prev&oldid=1233528867], making your first comment on the topic 5 minutes later.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:LGB_Alliance&diff=prev&oldid=1233529636] This is a clear case of "revert first, ask questions later". Then at 16:50 after stating {{tq|"I’m just here because people are misusing RSP. I’m not interested in joining the discussion beyond objecting to that.}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:LGB_Alliance&diff=prev&oldid=1233542651], failed to revert your edit. I say "failed" because once you no longer claimed to have an issue with the removed content based on the argument presented by YFNS, you let your revert stand. It seems you've ignored the concerns Colin has raised in this topic. [[User:CommunityNotesContributor|CNC]] ([[User talk:CommunityNotesContributor|talk]]) 11:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
:Where's the problem? Someone removed an unreliable source from a page. Fairly reasonable thing to do. '''''[[User:LilianaUwU|<span style="font-family:default;color:#246BCE;">Liliana</span><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#FF1493;">UwU</span>]]''''' <sup>([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contributions]])</sup> 19:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
::[[WP:MREL]] is not [[WP:GUNREL]], I'm shocked you haven't understood this yet. Likewise regarding edit warring and [[WP:BRD]]. It's unfortunately got to the point where an admin needs to explain to you the basics. [[User:CommunityNotesContributor|CNC]] ([[User talk:CommunityNotesContributor|talk]]) 20:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Fair enough, MREL is not GUNREL. But if a source isn't appropriate (as in here), it shouldn't be used. '''''[[User:LilianaUwU|<span style="font-family:default;color:#246BCE;">Liliana</span><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#FF1493;">UwU</span>]]''''' <sup>([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contributions]])</sup> 20:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
::::Even if the source isn't appropriate, editors shouldn't be edit warring over whether it should be used (in that place, in that way).  The dispute involves the repeated removal and restoration of this sentence:
::::* "The organisation has said that lesbians are facing "extinction" because of the "disproportionate" focus on transgender identities in schools."
::::along with one out of the seven uses of this source in the [[LGB Alliance]] article:
::::* {{cite news |last=Tominey |first=Camilla |date=25 December 2020 |title=Lesbians facing 'extinction' as transgenderism becomes pervasive, campaigners warn |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/12/25/lesbians-facing-extinction-transgenderism-becomes-pervasive/ |url-access=subscription |access-date=4 January 2021 |work=The Daily Telegraph |location=London}}
::::The first sentence of the source says:
::::* "Lesbian are facing “extinction” because of the “disproportionate” focus on [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/30/niche-transgender-ideology-corrosive-society-says-report/ transgenderism] in schools, a controversial campaign group for gay rights has claimed."
::::which could perhaps be faulted on grounds of [[Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing]], but I think it is inarguable that the cited source [[WP:Directly supports]] the statement which it was being cited for.  
::::I think this ought to proceed as an ordinary content dispute over whether the organization in question actually did espouse this POV, and (if so) whether that fact is DUE for the lead or should only be placed lower in the article.  I don't think this should be considered a dispute solely about whether a source that is still used six other times in the article is inappropriate for citing a seventh time.  
::::Also, I don't think that we should be thinking about this in terms of "sides".  An editor who seems to oppose everything this organization stands for has removed damaging information about that org from the lead.  Their PR team is probably very happy with her right now.   [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
:This is not just about the fact that The Daily Telegraph is no longer considered "generally reliable" on transgender issues and gender-critical views, and was listed as yellow on [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources]]. There is a nuanced discussion of whether it is appropriate in the ''specific context'' (which I addressed) and whether it is [[WP:DUE]] in the first paragraph (whether the source is good ''enough'' in the specific context is part of that discussion). As I explain on [[Talk:LGB Alliance]], I have reverted exactly ''once'', and only after offering a detailed rationale on the talk page that the other party did not respond to, after being given an opportunity to do so. That is not edit-warring. That is normal editing. Pretty much ''all'' the other participants in the discussion routinely do the same thing. I don't think the most recent edit by User:Barnards.tar.gz that basically reinstated my edit with some tweaks is edit-warring either. There now seems to be general agreement to remove the material in question. The only really unacceptable behavior in relation to this minor incident was the abuse of templates and personal attacks by one editor. --[[User:Amanda A. Brant|Amanda A. Brant]] ([[User talk:Amanda A. Brant|talk]]) 20:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
::Depending on where one chooses to start counting, you have reverted either once or twice.  The question here isn't really "Did User:_____, personally and individually, do anything that should be punished?"  The question is more like "Do we have one of those situations in which editors [note the plural] keep flipping back and forth between the same two versions of the article?"
::If you click through the relevant diffs ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=LGB_Alliance&oldid=1000622763 <nowiki>[12]</nowiki>] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=LGB_Alliance&diff=prev&oldid=1122895893 <nowiki>[13]</nowiki>] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=LGB_Alliance&diff=prev&oldid=1233402380 <nowiki>[14]</nowiki>] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=LGB_Alliance&diff=prev&oldid=1233405925 <nowiki>[15]</nowiki>] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=LGB_Alliance&diff=prev&oldid=1233432855 <nowiki>[16]</nowiki>] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=LGB_Alliance&diff=prev&oldid=1233528867 <nowiki>[17]</nowiki>] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=LGB_Alliance&diff=prev&oldid=1233544098 <nowiki>[18]</nowiki>]), then I'd say we have an edit war, even if no single individual has broken any bright-line rules.   [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
-
Just to say that I did ask for neutral admin (or experienced user) to comment as a third opinion, not for existing participants to continue to argue whether they did or did not edit war, or for folk to offer their opinions about which warring edit was the right one.  I think such a wise authoritative voice would still be very welcome, as editors are continuing to argue they were not edit warring because they were Right and everyone else was Wrong, on the article talk page. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 21:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

:It does look like an edit war, at least the early stages of one. Unofficially, I'd encourage all parties to stop reverting and discuss on the talk page. That's exactly what happened, so I don't think it needs to go any further at this point. The rest seems like a content dispute which isn't really suitable for [[WP:AN]]. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 21:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
* I would be more concerned about the reliability of anything written by Camilla Tominey (stick "Camilla Tominey trans" into Google and have a look at that - don't bother looking at the hagiography that is [[Camilla Tominey]]) rather than the fact she happened to write it in the ''Telegraph''.  And as far as I can see, regardless of its source, it certainly isn't [[WP:DUE]] in a lead paragraph.  As a second point, articles such as [[LGB Alliance]] are covered by [[WP:GENSEX]] so I'd suggest that editors who are pushing their POV consistently across multiple noticeboards and articles have a think about where pushing too hard ''ad nauseam'' might lead. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 07:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
*:Can we please not have comments on the content/sources. Go to the article talk page if you want to do that. The concern here is some editors are unaware (or unwilling to accept) what constitutes edit warring. The actual topic is irrelevant. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 11:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
*::No, the issue here is the material, that was dubious from the start (dubious in the sense that its use in the first paragraph unduly promoted a biased narrative), and that has in fact been removed from the article by various editors. This harping on a supposed "edit war" after a couple of editors "reverted" exactly once each – in my case with a detailed justification and rationale that the other party had been given an opportunity to respond to, and in Barnards.tar.gz's case to attempt some sort of compromise, that now seems to be widely accepted by everyone – is not productive use of our time. --[[User:Amanda A. Brant|Amanda A. Brant]] ([[User talk:Amanda A. Brant|talk]]) 16:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::I appreciate the uninvolved parties offering opinions, so I don't want to rehash all this and I won't add any more than this, but as "the other party" I would like to offer context as I saw it.
*:::* The page in question is exceptionally hard to attain consensus on for any changes, due to the divisive nature of the subject
*:::* The content we're talking about has been in the lede unchanged for (I believe) couple of years
*:::* The change you wanted, you justified based on an updated note on The Telegraph on Perennial Sources that was barely 2 hours old at this point, after a lengthy and polarising RFC we were both involved in, on opposite sides
*:::* You used this very recent change not only to argue in talk for this removal, wrongly claiming that the Telegraph was [[WP:GUNREL]] and should not be used, but also [[Talk:LGB Alliance#c-Amanda A. Brant-20240708194700-Void if removed-20240708193400|elsewhere on that talk]] that it should not be usable WRT other disputed neutral wording in the lede
*:::* Your rationale, aside from being a misreading of the note, cast aspersions about essentially the entire UK media
*:::* When I pointed out you were overstating things, you replied with what was a restatement of the same claim. At this point, my impression was we were at loggerheads, so wait and see if someone else weighs in. I don't see the point in repeating myself ad nauseum.
*:::* When you then reverted my revert, it was 2:30am my time. I'm sorry but I don't keep tabs on this 24/7, nor do I see the desperate urgency to remove ancient content such that it cannot be discussed by more editors first.
*:::* When your change was reverted to restore the status quo ante, I was personally glad of an uninvolved intervention and considered it a call to actually discuss the change per BRD, which I felt your revert had not been in the spirit of. However, with the issue subsequently being raised here as an edit war, I now see things like [[WP:DONTREVERT]] say {{tq | Wikipedia does not have a bias toward the status quo}} so I guess my understanding of norms about this sort of thing are not correct. Every day is a school day, and I'll certainly bear this in mind in future.
*:::* FWIW, I have since chucked my 2p in on talk after the fact and endorsed the actual change as subsequently performed by Barnards, for the rationale that emerged on talk which I agree with, but I do understand the concerns about the process.
*:::At this point I think, despite how it was arrived at, there is actual unanimity about the content, which on that page is a cause for either celebration or to check its not April 1st. [[User:Void if removed|Void if removed]] ([[User talk:Void if removed|talk]]) 21:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

== 98.115.164.53's Numerous Minor Edits ==

{{ip|98.115.164.53}}

This editor has made numerous minor edits to articles. Most of them seem innocuous, but others, particularly the ones that remove terms like "to date," seem problematic for contextual POV. There seem to be hundreds of account-less edits, despite the suggestion to create an account already being made, but what do I know.

This user made a personal attack [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:98.115.164.53#July_2024] after I reverted their edit on a page I had watchlisted. And then they put their edit back [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Bureau_of_Land_Management&diff=1234133403&oldid=1234120953].

So far, they seem to have stopped editing for now, after being warned. I've gone through some edits to see what edits can go or stay, but they're just too numerous. Anyone have thoughts on what to do next?⸺[[User talk:Randomstaplers|RandomStaplers]] 19:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

:You could ignore the user and move on. If the edit is truly problematic, you could revert it anyway, and/or you could ask an administrator to protect the page. [[Special:Contributions/98.115.164.53|98.115.164.53]] ([[User talk:98.115.164.53|talk]]) 20:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
::What of the middle line in the report, the one where they say that they did revert one of your edits and you personally attacked them back and restored your edit?
::Also, are you saying that the way to stop you from making problematic edits is to protect the pages you're being problematic in? Are you unwilling to change or discuss your behaviour?
::&ndash; [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:8081:3201:9827:3072:74BC:2770|2804:F14:8081:3201:9827:3072:74BC:2770]] ([[User talk:2804:F14:8081:3201:9827:3072:74BC:2770|talk]]) 20:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
* 98.115.164.53, what account or accounts have you used here and are any of those accounts currently blocked? --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 20:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] I've opened a checkuser request. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/98.115.164.53] ⸺[[User talk:Randomstaplers|RandomStaplers]] 20:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
*::98.115.164.53 is CU-blocked by {{np|Ponyo}}. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 20:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::@[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] IP 2804:F14:8081:3201:9827:3072:74BC:2770 has responded to the CU request.⸺[[User talk:Randomstaplers|RandomStaplers]] 20:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

:* @[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] I'm looking through the edit filter log... this person was tripping rate warnings left and right. It's amazing this person wasn't caught sooner.⸺[[User talk:Randomstaplers|RandomStaplers]] 21:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
== Arbitration motion regarding Durova ==

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by [[Special:Permalink/1234165816#Motion: Durova|motion]] that:
{{ivmbox|Principle 2 of [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova]], ''Private correspondence'', is changed from<br>{{tqq|2) In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence) <s>or their lapse into public domain</s>, the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki. <s>See Wikipedia:Copyrights.</s>}}<br>to<br>{{tqq|2) In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence), the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki.}}}}
For the Arbitration Committee,
[[User:SilverLocust|SilverLocust]]&nbsp;[[User talk:SilverLocust|💬]] 23:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

:Poggies. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contribs/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 06:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

: Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Arbitration motion regarding Durova}}'''<!-- [[User:ArbClerkBot|ArbClerkBot]] ([[User talk:ArbClerkBot|talk]]) 23:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes-->

== Some Help with Bot-Like Editing ==

I ran into {{U|OpalYosutebito}} with [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Fail_Mary&diff=1234090991&oldid=1231585108 this edit]. They were trying to address a citation error by removing {{parameter|agency}} from {{tl|Cite journal}}, but also removed all other {{parameter|agency}} parameters from the other citation templates (which are valid parameters in those templates). I reverted and left a message, but then looked at the user's edits and saw what appears to be an abuse of AWB with bot-like editing. Over a recent 40 minute period, they completed 499 edits making AWB changes to unsupported parameters (about 12 edits a minute). However, looking at these edits, they are either making mistakes (like the one I noted above or [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=List_of_Florida_hurricanes_(2000%E2%80%93present)&diff=prev&oldid=1234091579 this one]) or are removing valid reference material from the citation template that should be fixed, not outright deleted. As an example [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Antony_Flew&diff=prev&oldid=1234091553 this edit], the template should be changed to {{tl|Cite news}}, which would correct the issue while retaining the correct parameter. There appears to be hundreds, if not thousands of recent edits that could be introducing issues like this. My gut says they all just need to be outright reverted. I removed the user's AWB privileges for now and was close to blocking for running an unapproved bot, but just don't have the time to dive into this anymore today. Can another admin take a look and review my actions so far, and take additional ad warranted? Thank you!<span style="white-space:nowrap; font-family:Harlow Solid Italic;"><span style="font-size:small; color:teal;"> « Gonzo fan2007</span> [[User talk:Gonzo_fan2007|<small style="color:#2A2722">(talk)</small>]] @ </span> 15:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

:{{Nacc}} Checking {{u|OpalYosutebito}}'s contribs, they appear to have begun self-reverting, which is certainly called for. Unsupported parameters in citation templates almost always contain valid bibliographic information, and are usually the result of bot action, template updates, or translations from a sister project. Just removing them rather than attempting to incorporate the information properly into the citations is incredibly destructive.{{pb}}I'll keep looking, if I can remember, since an AWB run this ill-conceived and deleterious may require a mass rollback while the edits are still fresh. [[User:Folly Mox|Folly Mox]] ([[User talk:Folly Mox|talk]]) 23:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

:: {{Nacc}} I'm about halfway done with fixing the mistakes I made. They're my errors, my responsibility - [[User:OpalYosutebito|OpalYosutebito]] ([[User talk:OpalYosutebito|talk]]) 22:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

== Scott's use of revision deletion ==
{{atop
| status = Resolved

| result = Scott has committed to not revdel routine vandalism. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 15:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC) 
}}

{{admin|Scott}}

Hello. Following [[Special:Permalink/1233879407#Deleting ancient revisions at WP:CSD|discussion on Scott's talk page]], I am asking for review of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=delete&user=scott&page=&wpdate=&tagfilter=&subtype=revision&wpFormIdentifier=logeventslist Scott's revision deletions]. Despite another administrator and I attempting to explain that RD3 should not be used for all vandalism, Scott has [[Special:Diff/1233876652|misrepresented previous consensus]] (the [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Clarification of RD3|discussion]] specifically stated that {{tq|"it was also generally agreed that {{em|most}} vandalism was out of scope for RevDel"}}), [[Special:Diff/1233879253|changed the text of policy to suit their interpretation of it]], and responded to the other administrator's concerns with {{tq|"[[Special:Diff/1233332081/1233336176|my God, stop being so melodramatic{{nbsp}}... This is absolutely pathetic]]"}}.

Much of Scott's revision deletions have been of run-of-the-mill instances of vandalism from years ago, such as '[[Special:Diff/1154514153|When people eat Pringles, it is very yummy according to the people who eat/ate it]]', '[[Special:Diff/213660409|WORST WEB PAGE ON THE WEB "LULZ!"]]{{-'}}, and [[Special:Diff/431418902|keysmashing]]. As revision deletion should not be used for such "basic" instances of vandalism, they should be undone. I would also point out that the [[WP:ADMINACCT|tone of responses have been deeply disappointing]]. Thank you, [[User:Sdrqaz|Sdrqaz]] ([[User talk:Sdrqaz|talk]]) 21:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

:Accusing me of "spamming the logs" by deleting (hiding) 3 revisions ''is'' melodramatic and doing so as a transparent attempt to get me in trouble (based on an idiosyncratic personal interpretation of long-established policy) ''is'' pathetic. 
:I already responded to your concern on my user talk page where you raised it, to remind you that "purely disruptive material" is the definition of [[WP:RD3]] as established community practice, and the last RfC on the topic ([[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Clarification of RD3]] in 2011) failed to establish otherwise. 
:You accuse me of "changing the text of policy to suit my interpretation" when in fact, I simply corrected a contradictory statement in the preamble (which you highlighted) which had been sitting there invalidating every RevDel criterion except RD2 since 2009. Obviously, nobody interpreted it literally enough to prevent them from using any of the other criteria, but it does seem to have been sufficiently confusing to cause you to think that it should.
:As I said to you before, if you disagree with the definition of RD3 then the appropriate place to gain consensus for a change is [[WT:Revision deletion]]. &nbsp;— [[User:Scott|'''<span class="tmp-color" style="color:#000">Scott</span>''']] <span class="tmp-color" style="color:#900">•</span> [[User talk:Scott|''<span class="tmp-color" style="color:#000">talk</span>'']] 21:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
:'''Do not endorse'''. Those are definitely not suitable uses for revision deletion. There's a reason why "vandalism" isn't one of the examples provided for RD3: {{tq|includes harassment, grossly inappropriate threats or attacks, browser-crashing or malicious HTML or CSS, shock pages, phishing pages, known virus-proliferating pages, and links to any of these or to web pages that disparage or threaten some person or entity and serve no valid purpose}}. More concerning, though, is Scott's attitude towards this. When someone asks on your talk page why you decided to take admin actions, calling their concern "absolutely pathetic" is not acceptable. —[[User:Ingenuity|Ingenuity]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Ingenuity#top|t]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[Special:Contribs/Ingenuity|c]]) 21:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
::Perhaps you could explain how the diffs provided above are not describable as "purely disruptive material"? 
::Also I'll thank you not to misrepresent my words - aggressively accusing me of "spamming the logs" is what's pathetic, rather than civilly opening a talk page conversation over the interpretation of RevDel criteria. I choose not to be bullied, thanks. &nbsp;— [[User:Scott|'''<span class="tmp-color" style="color:#000">Scott</span>''']] <span class="tmp-color" style="color:#900">•</span> [[User talk:Scott|''<span class="tmp-color" style="color:#000">talk</span>'']] 22:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
:::The only person who was aggressive in that conversation was you. And you think that this is ''bullying''? Wow. —[[User:Ingenuity|Ingenuity]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Ingenuity#top|t]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[Special:Contribs/Ingenuity|c]]) 22:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
::::What kind of topsy-turvy world is it where someone comes into your talk page yelling about at you that you're "spamming" and standing up for yourself in the face of that makes you aggressive?
::::Anyway, I guess you're choosing not to answer my question. &nbsp;— [[User:Scott|'''<span class="tmp-color" style="color:#000">Scott</span>''']] <span class="tmp-color" style="color:#900">•</span> [[User talk:Scott|''<span class="tmp-color" style="color:#000">talk</span>'']] 22:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::Until you changed it earlier today, the revdel policy also stated that "material must be grossly offensive". Maybe RD3 should now be renamed to "purely and grossly disruptive material". —[[User:Ingenuity|Ingenuity]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Ingenuity#top|t]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[Special:Contribs/Ingenuity|c]]) 22:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::The "misuse" section of the preamble, ''not'' the criteria themselves which define the use of revision deletion, said that for revision deletion to be used, the "material must be grossly offensive". As I have pointed out multiple times now, that invalidates every single criterion except RD2. Somehow nobody noticed that since 2009 the revision deletion policy has been contradicting itself. &nbsp;— [[User:Scott|'''<span class="tmp-color" style="color:#000">Scott</span>''']] <span class="tmp-color" style="color:#900">•</span> [[User talk:Scott|''<span class="tmp-color" style="color:#000">talk</span>'']] 22:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
:From a review of his last 10 revdel's, Scott seems to understand RD2, but doesn't seem to understand RD3.  We have never revdel'd run of the mill vandalism, and we certainly don't revdel 20 year old run of the mill vandalism.  Contrary to Scott's claim, doing so is '''not''' long-established standard practice. I also agree with Ingenuity above that Scott's snarky attitude in response to a very reasonable request is unjustified.  If he's just having a shitty day, then it's not a big deal; I've acted like a jerk when I'm having a bad day too.  But it should stop, as should the RD3 revdels. [[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 22:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
::Hello Floq. If you're going to make a sweeping statement like "we have never... and we certainly don't..." then perhaps you could contribute some evidence towards that, perhaps in the form of a written policy which explicitly supports your interpretation, or a discussion which established consensus? 
::Regarding snark, if someone comes onto my user talk page with a shitty attitude then what do you expect? Come on now. &nbsp;— [[User:Scott|'''<span class="tmp-color" style="color:#000">Scott</span>''']] <span class="tmp-color" style="color:#900">•</span> [[User talk:Scott|''<span class="tmp-color" style="color:#000">talk</span>'']] 22:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
:Per above. RD3 is not for regular vandalism. These deletions should be reversed. – [[User talk:Bradv|<span style="color:#333">'''brad''v'''''</span>]] 22:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
:{{ec}} Scott, I think you're the admin with the idiosyncratic view of what RevDel covers. Run-of-the-mill vandalism is reverted, not revdeleted. I don't believe the community has or ever would explicitly agree for it to be used this way, especially on lame throw away edits from years ago.-- [[User:Ponyo|<span style="color: Navy;">'''Ponyo'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ponyo|<span style="color: Navy;">''bons mots''</span>]]</sup> 22:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
::Hi Ponyo. If you look at the RfC I linked to above, it was noted in the closing summary that "The overriding agreement appears that admin discretion still has strong support in these cases. But it was also generally agreed that ''most'' vandalism was out of scope for RevDel." [Emphasis in original.] Most vandalism certainly is out of scope, and I've used my discretion to hide a minority of purely disruptive rubbish that has no place on public view. This is in keeping with both the written policy and consensus as previously established. &nbsp;— [[User:Scott|'''<span class="tmp-color" style="color:#000">Scott</span>''']] <span class="tmp-color" style="color:#900">•</span> [[User talk:Scott|''<span class="tmp-color" style="color:#000">talk</span>'']] 22:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
:::I don't see how the deletions highlighted by Sdrqaz cross the line between basic vandalism and "purely disruptive rubbish". It's just childish scrawling in comparison to the grossly inappropriate edits REVDEL is meant to cover. I think you have it wrong in this specific instance.-- [[User:Ponyo|<span style="color: Navy;">'''Ponyo'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ponyo|<span style="color: Navy;">''bons mots''</span>]]</sup> 22:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
::::Are you saying that basic vandalism isn't purely disruptive? Then what is it? Genuine question. &nbsp;— [[User:Scott|'''<span class="tmp-color" style="color:#000">Scott</span>''']] <span class="tmp-color" style="color:#900">•</span> [[User talk:Scott|''<span class="tmp-color" style="color:#000">talk</span>'']] 22:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::If the community had as broad an interpretation as you as to what is purely disruptive, the policy would simply state that any vandalism is fair game for revision deletion. I repeat what I said above, the community would never approve such a liberal use of the tool. You appear to have dug in here; I'm not sure if there is any point in debating further. You are using an admin tool in a way that is not approved by the community and, based on your replies here, don't appear open to considering you may be incorrectly applying RD3. I really hope I'm wrong. You don't have to agree, but please consider that you might have it wrong.-- [[User:Ponyo|<span style="color: Navy;">'''Ponyo'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ponyo|<span style="color: Navy;">''bons mots''</span>]]</sup> 22:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::I'm open to considering it - that's exactly why we have collective discussions to elaborate upon and refine policies. You say "the community would never approve" - to add to what I've just said below to Floquenbeam, policy is set by what the community ''did'' approve. This seems like the perfect opportunity for another RfC on the topic to get the current consensus formalized, and ideally reflected in a well-written and unambiguous criterion to be understood and followed by all. &nbsp;— [[User:Scott|'''<span class="tmp-color" style="color:#000">Scott</span>''']] <span class="tmp-color" style="color:#900">•</span> [[User talk:Scott|''<span class="tmp-color" style="color:#000">talk</span>'']] 23:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Discretion is for borderline cases, it is not limitless.  Just because you're an admin does not mean that you can do whatever you want because you have "discretion".  '''Every''' admin who comments here is going to say they don't routinely revdel this stuff.  That needs to mean something to you.  If people revdel'd only stuff 10 times as bad as that, our revdel logs would still increase by several orders of magnitude.  There are easily 100 more vandal edits on that page just as bad, and that's only one page.  Among other reasons, we limit the use of revdel because non-admins can't tell what's going on, and that's a bad thing.  We should only do it when removing the material being revdel'd is a bigger benefit than the cost of hiding revisions.  More importantly, "Scott vs. All You Insane People" is not an appropriate approach. Consider the possibility that you drastically mistook the tone of the original message.  I can assure you, for what it's worth, that you are the one who appears unreasonably aggressive there, not Sdrqaz. [[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 22:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
::::Try reading what I wrote again. Sdrqaz's message to me was absolutely fine. I was talking about Thryduulf. 
::::Anyway, regarding your comments - you've just illustrated how our admin corps aren't doing enough to suppress vandalism. I doubt that you could quantify "the cost" as it's entirely nebulous. Your argument also doesn't hold up - regular admins can't see what the higher level ones with oversight have hidden, and that's not a "bad thing" even though it's far less accountable. &nbsp;— [[User:Scott|'''<span class="tmp-color" style="color:#000">Scott</span>''']] <span class="tmp-color" style="color:#900">•</span> [[User talk:Scott|''<span class="tmp-color" style="color:#000">talk</span>'']] 22:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::Ah, my mistake, I thought Sdrqaz started the thread on your talk page, his was just the last comment there.  It is starting to make more sense why you assumed Thrydulf's initial comment was an attack, you had a recent run-in elsewhere.  Anyway, you started out saying Thyrdulf was out of touch with long established procedures.  Now the whole admin corps is out of touch with long established procedures?  That's kind of impossible by definition.  I will never understand why people can't just say "OK, my thoughts on this are apparently different than the consensus, so I'll suck it up and change what I do." [[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 22:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::What can I say here? There are apparently loads and loads of people who seem determined to interpret one of our policies in their own way rather than following it to the letter as written, and their response to that is to do everything ''except'' take to the policy venues to clarify what exactly an ambiguous policy really means and establish a firm consensus. You say "long established procedures" and "the consensus", but so far nobody has managed to produce a single written record of these that trumps [[WP:RD3]], which itself would be different as a result of such a consensus, by definition. 🤷🏼‍♂️ &nbsp;— [[User:Scott|'''<span class="tmp-color" style="color:#000">Scott</span>''']] <span class="tmp-color" style="color:#900">•</span> [[User talk:Scott|''<span class="tmp-color" style="color:#000">talk</span>'']] 23:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I think we're probably done here, we're just going around in circles.  Ingenuity answered your question.  There is more to RD3 than the initial wording; the followup clarification counts too.  Ponyo answered your question. And you don't need policy to determine "long established procedure", instead you look at what all the other admins have been doing long term.  By definition.  A bunch of non-Thryduulf admins have told you that no one interprets this the way you do.  I don't think anyone is asking for grovelling, but if you continue to misuse RD3, someone is probably going to take you to ArbCom for misuse of the tool.  You don't have to agree, but you should be aware. [[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 23:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I am aware, and I'm waiting for the one single person who actually cares about procedure enough to fix this weak criterion by kicking off the process which establishes consensus to narrow the wording. Until then, everything is just "well I think it means". &nbsp;— [[User:Scott|'''<span class="tmp-color" style="color:#000">Scott</span>''']] <span class="tmp-color" style="color:#900">•</span> [[User talk:Scott|''<span class="tmp-color" style="color:#000">talk</span>'']] 23:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::If you decide to do this, please let me know. [[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 23:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
:I closed [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 June 28]] recently and was struck by both Scott's tone (e.g., {{tq|In summary, get stuffed.}}) and the fact that the deletion was unanimously overturned. I'm concerned that this is more than just a one-time issue. [[User:Extraordinary Writ|Extraordinary Writ]] ([[User talk:Extraordinary Writ|talk]]) 22:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
::Ah yes, when {{u|Thryduulf}} chose to call me a liar in public with absolutely zero consequences. I guess having been on ArbCom gives you a free pass exempting you from [[WP:AGF]] right? I can think of a whole bunch of people here who'd have responded with something far more fruity than "get stuffed". &nbsp;— [[User:Scott|'''<span class="tmp-color" style="color:#000">Scott</span>''']] <span class="tmp-color" style="color:#900">•</span> [[User talk:Scott|''<span class="tmp-color" style="color:#000">talk</span>'']] 22:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Perhaps the fact that not a single other person has taken issue with my describing intentionally leaving incorrect deletion summaries as "lying" should cause you to reflect that it actually is? [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 22:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
::::Now that I see it, I take issue with it.  For what it's worth. But Let's stay on track here. [[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 22:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::If it isn't lying, what is it? [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 23:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::Oh stop it.  "Lying" has connotations that do not apply to every instance of "intentionally leaving incorrect deletion summaries" (note that I have no idea if even that is true, but assuming it is for the sake of argument), and you know it.  You've been around long enough to know that calling someone a liar basically shuts down future legit discussion.  Case in point: if anyone else had left an identically worded initial message on Scott's page, Scott possibly would have interpreted it differently, and maybe we wouldn't even be here. [[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 23:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Thank you. &nbsp;— [[User:Scott|'''<span class="tmp-color" style="color:#000">Scott</span>''']] <span class="tmp-color" style="color:#900">•</span> [[User talk:Scott|''<span class="tmp-color" style="color:#000">talk</span>'']] 23:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
::::That's your response? Just doubling down? Absolutely incredible. Well, at least everyone can see your true colours. &nbsp;— [[User:Scott|'''<span class="tmp-color" style="color:#000">Scott</span>''']] <span class="tmp-color" style="color:#900">•</span> [[User talk:Scott|''<span class="tmp-color" style="color:#000">talk</span>'']] 22:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
*I do hope that we're not going to spend volunteer time on undeleting blatant vandalism for procedural reasons.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 22:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
*:Yes, that would be silly.  I'd be satisfied if the unnecessary RD3 revdel's just stop. [[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 22:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
*:{{ec}} I certainly wouldn't want to mandate that (or even recommend that), but if someone chooses to spend their time reversing out-of-process deletions I'm not going to spend my time complaining about it. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 22:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
*I'm glad it's not just me who feels that these RD3 deletions were incorrect, in isolation not badly enough to merit more than a note that they have misinterpreted the deletion policy. However the tone of their responses here, on their talk page and in the recent DRV are grossly inappropriate. If they don't start listening then we'll have no choice but to go to arbcom and that would be a real shame as most of their admin work is correct and good, but the communication is that big a deal. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 22:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
*This sort of revdel, if it were to become commonplace, would be ''highly'' disruptive to those of us who create edit filters, and for that matter, to the thousands and thousands of people who patrol recent changes. We need to see the ''big picture''. We need to see ''patterns'' of vandalism. What's common enough to warrant a filter? What are the "tells" of that sneaky LTA? If everything disappears behind a struck-out diff, then we're just left reacting to what's in front of our nose. Now revdel is, sometimes, a necessary evil. The libeled BLP subject doesn't care about any of this, nor should they. But if you can't answer the question "what harm will come if J Random User views this diff?" the diff probably should remain visible. [[User:Suffusion of Yellow|Suffusion of Yellow]] ([[User talk:Suffusion of Yellow|talk]]) 23:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
*:Thank you for making a contribution to this debate based upon actual, quantifiable reasons. Although the instances of RD3 under discussion here were in application to 20-year-old vandalism, I'll commit to cease using it in such a fashion specifically on the basis of your demonstrated need, rather than that of the kind of unprovable assertions about the "true meaning" of a policy we've been seeing until now.
*:As a side note, your comment completely demonstrates that the permissions you have are insufficient for the job. Filter managers should be able to see deleted revisions. Yes, I know the WMF's position on who gets that permission and I don't agree with it. &nbsp;— [[User:Scott|'''<span class="tmp-color" style="color:#000">Scott</span>''']] <span class="tmp-color" style="color:#900">•</span> [[User talk:Scott|''<span class="tmp-color" style="color:#000">talk</span>'']] 23:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
*::{{ping|Suffusion of Yellow|Scott}} On just the strict idea of what the WMF requires for access to deleted revisions, filter managers already arguably go through an election process (2 in fact, usually, since most filter managers have gone through an EFH consensus process as well). Now, I expect the idea of adding viewdeleted to EFM would likely end up mired in debate since it isn't necessarily RfA-level given there's usually only 10 people who actually follow the notice links that get posted to noticeboards whenever someone puts a candidacy up as a non-admin, but as a theoretical I somewhat wonder about the practicality of whether an RfC to add the rights would succeed. I guess that's a bit off-topic for this AN thread, though it would certainly help given that RevDelling revisions essentially roadblock any non-admin from building a filter regarding it. [[User:EggRoll97|EggRoll97]] <sup>([[User_talk:EggRoll97|talk]]) </sup> 04:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
*::For a long time there was a bug where ''even admins'' couldn't see filter logs corresponding to revdelled edits! <s>Not sure if that's been fixed.</s> [[User:Suffusion of Yellow|Suffusion of Yellow]] ([[User talk:Suffusion of Yellow|talk]]) 00:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::Yikes. Well... I have minor feature requests for our admin tools on Phabricator which are old enough to go to secondary school now, so the pace of development in that area really isn't helping. &nbsp;— [[User:Scott|'''<span class="tmp-color" style="color:#000">Scott</span>''']] <span class="tmp-color" style="color:#900">•</span> [[User talk:Scott|''<span class="tmp-color" style="color:#000">talk</span>'']] 00:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
*::::Hmmm, seems fixed now [[testwiki:Special:AbuseLog/102232|at least on testwiki]]. [[User:Suffusion of Yellow|Suffusion of Yellow]] ([[User talk:Suffusion of Yellow|talk]]) 00:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
:'''Do not endorse'''. 61 edit summaries in a row of all caps FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU.... maxing out the edit summary length is purely disruptive. Changing a redirect to HAGGER???? is normal vandalism. --[[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|<span class="gfSarekSig">SarekOfVulcan (talk)</span>]] 23:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
* What I'm seeing here is an administrator who's not interested in using the tools on behalf of the community, but instead based on their own whims, and responds by attacking anyone who challenges their actions. Seems like a case of "would not be trusted with the tools if their RfA were today", but that's the nature of lifetime appointments. Even in [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hex 3|the 2007 RfA]], the support/oppose ratio dropped significantly based on temperament concerns. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#324717">The</span><span style="color:#45631f">big</span><span style="color:#547826">ugly</span><span style="color:#68942f">alien</span>]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:sienna">talk</span>]]) 00:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
*:Cool attacks on my character! 👍🏻 &nbsp;— [[User:Scott|'''<span class="tmp-color" style="color:#000">Scott</span>''']] <span class="tmp-color" style="color:#900">•</span> [[User talk:Scott|''<span class="tmp-color" style="color:#000">talk</span>'']] 00:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
* Quite apart from any questions about (mis)interpretations of RD3, I'm just perplexed why anyone would be concerned about vandalism from 20 years ago. Editors can focus on what they want--it's their time, after all--but why was this considered a priority over vandalism from, say, 20 minutes ago? That's by far the oddest part of all of this to me. Is it deliberately to make a [[WP:POINT|point]] about the RD3 wording? I'm genuinely mystified. [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 00:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
*:"Why was this considered a priority over vandalism from, say, 20 minutes ago?" It wasn't. You do know that not everyone is patrolling things, right? I use tools exclusively in the areas that I'm working in. &nbsp;— [[User:Scott|'''<span class="tmp-color" style="color:#000">Scott</span>''']] <span class="tmp-color" style="color:#900">•</span> [[User talk:Scott|''<span class="tmp-color" style="color:#000">talk</span>'']] 00:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC) P.S. I'll choose to ignore that intimation of bad faith on my part. &nbsp;— [[User:Scott|'''<span class="tmp-color" style="color:#000">Scott</span>''']] <span class="tmp-color" style="color:#900">•</span> [[User talk:Scott|''<span class="tmp-color" style="color:#000">talk</span>'']] 00:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
*::There was no intimation of bad faith; there was genuine puzzlement about why you would be concerned about something that is, by internet standards, ancient. What was the purpose? You didn't actually answer that question, you just responded with more snark. Whatever, I guess. [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 02:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::That wasn't snark. And regarding bad faith, you literally suggested the possibility that I was purposefully making a point violation. So yeah, whatever. &nbsp;— [[User:Scott|'''<span class="tmp-color" style="color:#000">Scott</span>''']] <span class="tmp-color" style="color:#900">•</span> [[User talk:Scott|''<span class="tmp-color" style="color:#000">talk</span>'']] 10:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
*::::{{tq|You do know that not everyone is patrolling things, right?}} is unambiguous snark. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 18:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::::No, it isn't. Maybe spend less time on the angry noticeboards so they don't color your reading ability so much. &nbsp;— [[User:Scott|'''<span class="tmp-color" style="color:#000">Scott</span>''']] <span class="tmp-color" style="color:#900">•</span> [[User talk:Scott|''<span class="tmp-color" style="color:#000">talk</span>'']] 18:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
*::::::With all due respect, I think you may be dealing with a different definition of 'snark' than some of us.  Cheers. [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 18:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Astonishing.  --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 18:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

:I noticed one of the revdels on a page I worked on and it was a completely disproportionate reaction to juvenile harmless vandalism that took .2 seconds to revert. I don't get ''why'', that's very clearly not what RD3 is written to mean (or else why would it except "most vandalism??"), so I have no idea what the motive even is here. What is the point of this except needlessly cutting parts out of the page history?
:Of course if it's harassment-based vandalism that's a different thing, but I really don't think this is what RD3 is used for or meant to be used for. I prefer when page history is intact unless there is a dire need for revdel. [[User:PARAKANYAA|PARAKANYAA]] ([[User talk:PARAKANYAA|talk]]) 00:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I think all we're looking for from Scott is an acknowledgement that their interpretation of RD3 is out of step with current practice and that they'll change their approach going forward. This shouldn't escalate, and shouldn't have gotten this far in the first place. It's okay to be wrong and it's okay to admit it. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 00:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

:Kindly read my response to Suffusion of Yellow. Thanks. &nbsp;— [[User:Scott|'''<span class="tmp-color" style="color:#000">Scott</span>''']] <span class="tmp-color" style="color:#900">•</span> [[User talk:Scott|''<span class="tmp-color" style="color:#000">talk</span>'']] 00:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
:I have to agree with Mackensen here, I think we just need a small change of perspective and maybe a little more time to do some calm learning. The defensiveness is a bit too far, but I'll hope that Scott is a little less aggressive in the case that a similar case occurs in the future. We all could take to heart a commitment to take things slower and more-open mindedly, myself included. [[User:The Night Watch|<span style="color:black;"><span style="font-size:110%">''The Night Watch''</span></span>]] [[User talk:The Night Watch|<span style="color:brown;"><span style="font-size:85%;">(talk)</span></span>]] 17:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

{{ping|Scott}} Perhaps this will help clarify the issue: how do you decide which vandalism (recent or old) warrants rev-deletion and which does not? Thanks, [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 00:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

:Short answer: vibes. Longer answer: gut feeling on on a combination of the questions "is there more than a fractional chance that this vandal would be motivated to return later to see the mess they made?" and "how annoying was the vandalism?" and "how jarring to the experience of someone looking through page history would it it to see the vandalism?" 
:Anyway, per my response to Suffusion of Yellow, this is now moot. &nbsp;— [[User:Scott|'''<span class="tmp-color" style="color:#000">Scott</span>''']] <span class="tmp-color" style="color:#900">•</span> [[User talk:Scott|''<span class="tmp-color" style="color:#000">talk</span>'']] 00:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
::Thank you for the quick response. I agree that Suffusion of Yellow made an important contribution to this discussion. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 01:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
:::No worries. It's 2am here (which to be fair is when I sleep a lot of the time anyway), so I hope that by the time when I check back in tomorrow there won't be lots more people who piled on without having read that. &nbsp;— [[User:Scott|'''<span class="tmp-color" style="color:#000">Scott</span>''']] <span class="tmp-color" style="color:#900">•</span> [[User talk:Scott|''<span class="tmp-color" style="color:#000">talk</span>'']] 01:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm hopeful that Scott's comment, {{tqd|"I'll commit to cease using it in such a fashion"}} will be enough for those who were looking for just such a commitment. After the dust settles a bit, we should have a discussion about the wording of our RD policy, as the "must be grossly offensive" line that Scott changed does in fact need some changing. If someone starts that up before me, I'd appreciate a ping. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 01:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

:My hope for settled dust was too optimistic, and the discussion has started already. Anyone interested should pop on over to [[WT:REVDEL#"Material must be grossly offensive"]]. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 02:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I suggest we close this.  As noted above, {{u|Scott}} has said he'll stop doing this.  Editing [[WP:REVDEL]] to support his position was probably a troutable offense, but let's all just take a deep breath and move on to something productive.  If Scott is true to his word, then no more need be said.  If not, then we can take things from there.  I would close this myself but the close script I use was thursday'ed a while back and I've long since forgotten how to close these things the manual way.  If people want to get hot and bothered, breaking essential scripts might be a place to start.  [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 01:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
:That's what I would have said a week ago [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 June 28|at DRV]], when there was the same level of aggressiveness/incivility in defending an action everyone agreed was well out of bounds. But now the same thing has happened again, just with a different policy. I guess it's good that Scott is going to defer to Suffusion of Yellow's {{tq|demonstrated need}}, but I'm far from convinced that we're not just going to end up back here soon with a different form of the same problem. Hopefully I'm wrong. [[User:Extraordinary Writ|Extraordinary Writ]] ([[User talk:Extraordinary Writ|talk]]) 03:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I just came upon this thread during my daily skim-reading of these boards. I have a fairly unusual perspective here. Scott and I have talked about wiki-archaeology many times over the years and I actually had a discussion with him about this very issue [[User talk:Graham87/Archive 54#Archaeology challenge|back in 2022]] (search for "That's actually led me to something else"). We were talking about the page [[Wikipedia:Deletion log/28 February – 19 July 2002]] (then at the title Wikipedia:Old deletion log); here's the [[Special:Diff/24962411|relevant diff]] and the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=delete&user=&page=Wikipedia%3AOld+deletion+log&wpdate=&tagfilter=&subtype=revision&wpFormIdentifier=logeventslist log of revision deletion/undeletion]. I'm relatively extreme about trying to preserve edits where possible and 100% agree with [[User:Suffusion of Yellow|Suffusion of Yellow]] here, for slightly different reasons, and am glad that Scott has agreed to change his practices here. [[User:Graham87|Graham87]] ([[User talk:Graham87|talk]]) 04:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

:Yeah. I mean setting aside the discussion about the letter and spirit of the law, you can boil down the whole issue to one of our software not being good enough. I think that vandalism should be hidden away (not "deleted" - the fact of the system being called "revision deletion" is just one of many issues with it) for two reasons: to [[WP:deny recognition|deny recognition]] to vandals, and to minimize disruption to people reading page history. RevDel as it exists today is a crude and blunt tool with almost no nuance whatsoever. You have two options for a given unit of data (actor, revision text, edit summary) - leave it on public view, or punt it into the [[Phantom Zone]] where only admins can read it. There's no gradation that can be applied when hiding revisions.
:By contrast, consider a system where applying, for example, RD2 would make an item inaccessible to anyone without elevated privileges, but RD3 would hide it behind an additional interface element until a button is clicked. Minimal visibility for disruptive material without presenting any barrier to edit filter managers, recent changes patrollers, etc. This isn't a new idea at all: various social media apps have had it for a long time in the form of "hidden replies". Even in the current system, we could unbundle the right to see hidden revisions and give it to reasonable interested users so that staying tidy doesn't impede research. I believe this actually was the case with the "researcher" user group until the WMF nixed it for some reason? I didn't hear about it until afterwards.
:Similarly, other objections raised above included noise in the logs... once again utterly trivial to resolve technically. But the WMF has chosen to spend its giant budget on "increasing engagement" features, and leave our tools languishing pretty much exactly where they were fifteen years ago. The sheer amount of precious human time wasted by having to both use our incredibly out of date tools and debate extensively about the ''way'' to use them because of how crude they are is heartbreaking.
:By the way, it's "them" now rather than "him". 😊 &nbsp;— [[User:Scott|'''<span class="tmp-color" style="color:#000">Scott</span>''']] <span class="tmp-color" style="color:#900">•</span> [[User talk:Scott|''<span class="tmp-color" style="color:#000">talk</span>'']] 10:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
::Sorry about the misgendering. Revision deletion is a great improvement on what was previously the only option, [[Wikipedia:selective deletion|selective deletion]]. You were editing Wikipedia (but not yet an admin) when [[Wikipedia talk:Undeletion policy/Archive 1#Undeleting selected revisions|even that wasn't an option]]. This is the wrong place to debate the merits of hypothetical revision hiding options, but I don't really see the use of such gradation; I'd maintain that most people don't even look at page history and many readers understand that minor vandalism is often part of the life-cycle of Wikipedia pages (we even have a [[Vandalism on Wikipedia|main namespace article on the topic]]). [[User:Graham87|Graham87]] ([[User talk:Graham87|talk]]) 14:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
:::No need at all to apologize. Yeah, I'm sure there's a better venue to talk about it than here. But you're quite right in that selective deletion was a massive pain in the neck and RD's arrival in 2009 really helped. Just now that we're 15 years down the line, I personally reckon it's overdue for a rethink based on lessons learned. &nbsp;— [[User:Scott|'''<span class="tmp-color" style="color:#000">Scott</span>''']] <span class="tmp-color" style="color:#900">•</span> [[User talk:Scott|''<span class="tmp-color" style="color:#000">talk</span>'']] 18:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
IMO there was a problem of too broad of use of the tool and Scott has agreed to change accordingly.   I think we're done here. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 18:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== my discussion was deleted ==
{{atop|reason=Failure to find consensus isn't cause for action at AN. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: black;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 17:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)}}
@[[User:Antandrus|Antandrus]] closed my discussion because someone accused im a banned user. im not. please revert the closure
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September_11_attacks [[User:Gsgdd|Gsgdd]] ([[User talk:Gsgdd|talk]]) 06:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

:i have made valid arguments which merits discussion. it shouldn't be closed because of pure accusations. is there any proof im banned? can two people not have same idea? [[User:Gsgdd|Gsgdd]] ([[User talk:Gsgdd|talk]]) 06:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
::The discussion was closed, for reasons, none of which was anything to do with the allegation that you are a sock account. You made a proposal and virtually all the respondents disagreed with you. Therefore the closure was simply that your proposal did not gain a consensus.
::Please don't try and relitigate the same argument here, it won't get any traction. [[User:Nthep|Nthep]] ([[User talk:Nthep|talk]]) 06:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
:::There is one editor who didn't disagreed. I'm trying to build consensus. why are you trying to block it? [[User:Gsgdd|Gsgdd]] ([[User talk:Gsgdd|talk]]) 06:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
::::and one editor opposed. what are you talking about ? [[User:Gsgdd|Gsgdd]] ([[User talk:Gsgdd|talk]]) 06:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::also there is no Consensus to delete it. i accidentally put rfc tag - which i removed and it shoudnt be the cause of deletion. then another user accused of being a blocked account [[User:Gsgdd|Gsgdd]] ([[User talk:Gsgdd|talk]]) 06:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
:
::::::Thanks for raising this, but unfortunately this isn't the place to resolve your concern. The issue is a content dispute and the close was not an action requiring admin tools. It's not within the scope of this noticeboard to overturn content decisions. If you disagree with the consensus outcome please do feel free to seek a new consensus at the article talkpage in due course (ie not today or tomorrow or next month but eventually). Please note you will probably need to have new [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] that back your view, or an alternative set of words to propose which might gain more support than that available in this current RfC. -- [[User:Euryalus|Euryalus]] ([[User talk:Euryalus|talk]]) 06:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::see this is a controversial topic. obviously people who follow this page will be quick to disagree. i need more time. i made some mistakes in the arguments, but its a learning process. i need to know people objections so i can research how to refute them. where can i seek arbitration ? [[User:Gsgdd|Gsgdd]] ([[User talk:Gsgdd|talk]]) 07:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::also an admin blocked closed it. [[User:Gsgdd|Gsgdd]] ([[User talk:Gsgdd|talk]]) 07:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::You don't need to be an admin to close an RFC, so this close is really just by Antandrus in their capacity as an experienced regular editor. I get what you're saying re more time to prepare arguments, but ideally the argument is fully prepared before opening the RfC rather than during it. There really didn't seem to be much support for your proposal, but if you do have some additional arguments or sources to present than maybe put them together over time (say, a few months?)and feel free to re-test consensus for the word "Islamist" in a future talkpage discussion or RfC. -- [[User:Euryalus|Euryalus]] ([[User talk:Euryalus|talk]]) 07:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::why do i have to wait few months. i already have reliable sources https://www.brookings.edu/articles/rethinking-language-islamism-as-a-dirty-word/ and others to support my arguments... this is crazy - why my voices are being shut down and prevented from being heard [[User:Gsgdd|Gsgdd]] ([[User talk:Gsgdd|talk]]) 07:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Per [[WP:CCC|this policy section]], consensus can change but repeated or rapid attempts to relitigate the same issue can be a bit disruptive. As above I get that you hadn't fully assembled your arguments before posting the rfc. That's unfortunate as maybe it would have led to a different outcome. Or maybe not. Either way it's probably better to take some time putting those arguments together and then starting a new discussion in due course, versus starting a new RfC or discussion on the same topic immediately after the previous one has closed. -- [[User:Euryalus|Euryalus]] ([[User talk:Euryalus|talk]]) 07:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::I took part in the thread the OP is complaining about. They wanted the 9/11 hijackers to not be described as "Islamist". Around 6 or 7 editors were against the OP. One editor made a compromise suggestion which involved retaining the word but the OP rejected that. No one supported their proposal. They say above "one editor opposed". That is the same [[WP:IDHT]] we saw on display from them in that thread. I think they are best advised to follow [[WP:STICK]] rather than keep pursuing. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 08:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::The strength of arguments is crucial in the consensus process. no one other than you has made a strong case. so please stop that 6 or 7 editors against me argument [[User:Gsgdd|Gsgdd]] ([[User talk:Gsgdd|talk]]) 08:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Many people commented for sure, probably disapproved. but no valid reasoning imo [[User:Gsgdd|Gsgdd]] ([[User talk:Gsgdd|talk]]) 08:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::anayway... ill be back after sometime [[User:Gsgdd|Gsgdd]] ([[User talk:Gsgdd|talk]]) 08:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::You, as proposer, are not arbiter of what reasoning is valid or not. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: black;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 13:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::As Astropulse, to be clear. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 15:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Both those are ironic statements given that your argument in the thread was that we shouldn't be following the RS: "[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASeptember_11_attacks&diff=1233035751&oldid=1233032904 Just because RS promote hatred,racism etc.. does it mean wiki should do it as well?]" [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 10:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
:What makes you think the discussion was closed because someone accused you of being a banned user? There is nothing about that in the close. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 08:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
:One person wanted the word "Islamist" removed, no one agreed with them, but instead of letting it go it went on and on and on, and on, and I closed it. All in a day's work. And no, this had absolutely nothing to do with a suggestion this was a banned user (I personally don't think it is, but did not look into it). Also (as above) this was not an administrative action. [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus]] [[User_talk:Antandrus|(talk)]] 14:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Error on page - Cannot add topic ==

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Joshua_Guimond

I apologize if this is the wrong way to go about reporting this. I have never actually done this on Wikipedia before. On the page titled "Disappearance of Joshua Guimond" it states:

Around the time of the disappearance, there were two reports of a man driving an orange Pontiac Sunfire on campus, dropping off other men. Before the disappearance, when campus security approached the vehicle, one of the men who were dropped off ran away. After the disappearance, the driver was contacted, and he gave no more information than saying the car was destroyed.[30] 

However, the article that is linked as reference# 30  makes no mention of this at all. I have been unable to find the correct article that mentions this info about that car being destroyed.

I attempted to add a topic on the Talk page as recommended, however there is no topic button on the Talk page and it seems as if the Talk section is prohibited for some reason. [[Special:Contributions/71.251.236.155|71.251.236.155]] ([[User talk:71.251.236.155|talk]]) 22:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
:I'm sorry you were unable to start a conversation on the talk page, no idea what's up with that. The cited ref actually does support the content (open ref #30 and do a find for "orange") but it's badly worded in the article so I'm going to update that. [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 22:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

*{{edit conflict}} Hi, welcome to Wikipedia.  I'm sorry you couldn't add a topic to the talk page.  There's nothing the matter with the talk page.  The problem is that our mobile interface doesn't work properly.  Reference #30 (which is [https://www.bustle.com/entertainment/joshua-guimond-disappearance-new-leads-reddit-theories-unsolved-mysteries this article]) does say the driver gave no more information and the car was destroyed.  Both pieces of information are in the third paragraph from the bottom.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 23:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

== Problematic rollover text ==

On this page [[I can't breathe]]
The first hyperlinked instance of "George Floyd" in the section George Floyd shows text "George Floyd" when logged in, but an entirely different and problematic rollover preview when not logged in. I'm unable to figure out how to erase it myself. [[User:Eunoia666|Eunoia666]] ([[User talk:Eunoia666|talk]]) 22:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
:Are you still getting this?  (It was caused by vandalism to [[George Floyd]], now reverted and revdeleted.)  I'm properly seeing the preview of the unvandalized article both logged-in and -out. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 23:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

== Misuse of Revdel ==

Recently, several revisions were deleted using Revision Deletion (Revdel) by {{U|AirshipJungleman29}} in [[Draft:Gupta–Hunnic Wars]], which I humbly believe they were not justified properly as they only found close paraphrasing in "The Huna Volkerwanderung" section and "Rise of Kidara Kushans" sub-section [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Gupta–Hunnic_Wars#Huge_amounts_of_copyright_infringement]. I'd rewrite the whole contents in these section/subsection but kindly please restore the appropriate contents so that I do not need to spend a lot of time to re-write it for months all over again. Also the user has only found few scanty grammatical mistakes in such a massive article but it was still drafted by them which was quite harsh in my humble opinion. I would like to request any admin to help me in restoring this article, because I have earnestly worked a lot before and spent months for the article already. Thank you. [[User:Jonharojjashi|Jonharojjashi]] ([[User talk:Jonharojjashi|talk]]) 13:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

:AirshipJungleman29 is not an administrator and can not delete revisions. I have notified them of this report. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 14:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
::The revdeletions were performed by [[User:Robertsky|Robertsky]]. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 14:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
:{{reply|Jonharojjashi}}{{nao}} That will not happen. That—substantial—chunk of text was a verbatim copyright violation which is an absolute on Wikipedia. See [[Wp:COPYRIGHT]], which is a policy {{tq|policy with legal considerations}}. For why it will not be restored, see [[WP:UNDELETE]]: {{tq|Copyright violations and attack pages will not be provided}}. In any case, since the source and text were effectively the same, you only need access to the original to rewrite in your own words. But it cannot be hosted anywhere on Wikipedia—talk pages, draft, email—as the deleting admin—{{u|Robertsky}}—would have told you had you asked.{{pb}}In fact, instead of relitigating it now, at a noticeboard, it would be more productive to simply take AirshipJungleman29's [[Special:Diff/1232128282|original advice]] and "{{tq|take this issue seriously in the future}}". [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:red">——Serial Number 54129</span>]] 14:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
::@[[User:Serial Number 54129|Serial Number 54129]] Yes I know that the section "The Huna Volkerwanderung" and sub-section "Rise of Kidara Kushans" are highly identical and I'd rewrite it in my own words, but what about the rest of the article? Even the attributed contents from parent articles were not spared. The article was massive and it's possible that there would be some grammatical mistakes and copyright violation but instead of removing the particular concern they have deleted more than 120k bytes of contents. I am not asking for restoration of those closely paraphrased section/sub-section but the restoration of the fair contents, please look into this. Kind regards. [[User:Jonharojjashi|Jonharojjashi]] ([[User talk:Jonharojjashi|talk]]) 14:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
:::That's not possible.  Specific sections of a page can't be revision-deleted, only entire revisions. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 14:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
::::So I guess I have to manually restore non plagiarised contents? [[User:Jonharojjashi|Jonharojjashi]] ([[User talk:Jonharojjashi|talk]]) 15:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
::I have nothing further to add to Serial Number 54129's comment above. They have stated in a succinct manner what I would have conveyed. [[User:Robertsky|– robertsky]] ([[User talk:Robertsky|talk]]) 01:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
* The examples listed by AirshipJungleman29  at [[Draft_talk:Gupta–Hunnic_Wars#Huge_amounts_of_copyright_infringement|the talkpage]] are egregiously bad; essentially close-paraphrasing by (nonsensical) word-substitution. Given Jonharojjashi's poor record of content-creation in the IPA-history topic-area (see [[User talk:Jonharojjashi|their talkpage]], including several copyvio-related notices) and the amount of effort required to save their work on a notable topic from deletion (see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second Parthian–Kushan War|this AFD]]), I believe a topic-ban or block from mainspace should be considered. [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] ([[User talk:Abecedare|talk]]) 14:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
*:I agree, {{u|Abecedare}}. Unfortunately, a topic ban the simple way (=placed by one uninvolved admin) seems to be off the table, since Jonharojjashi has not been alerted to the contentious topics restrictions, or even to discretionary sanctions. A pity. A topic ban by the community (=placed by consensus at this board) would be an unreasonable hassle and waste of time, IMO — there has been enough waste of the community's time by this user, surely. Therefore, I recommend an indefinite block from article space, which can be appealed in the usual way on their page, or, no sooner than in six months, to the community at this board. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 18:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC).
*::Agree w/ {{u|Bishonen}}. Enough time has passed, and enough energy has been wasted. You can PB at will can't you? Carry on, captain.  [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:red">——Serial Number 54129</span>]] 18:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
*::{{reply|Bishonen}} Jonharojjashi was alerted of IPA DS [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jonharojjashi&diff=prev&oldid=1170439363 in Aug 2023], so a (non-community imposed) topic ban remains an option. [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] ([[User talk:Abecedare|talk]]) 18:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::Ah, I missed that. I've never seen such an alert not appear in the edit summary before - I thought that happened automatically. Well, in that case... do you think a t-ban or a mainspace block would be best and most relevant to the disruption, {{u|Abecedare}} and {{u|Serial Number 54129}}?  [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 19:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC).
*::::{{reply|Bishonen}} IMO a topic-ban would be preferable in order to not simply shift the burden of spotting copyright, paraphrasing, POVforking, source quality and source misrepresentation issues onto AFC reviewers. See [[Draft:Second_Huna_invasion_of_India|this]], [[Draft:Second_Huna_invasion_of_India|this]], [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Indian_colonisation_of_Khotan|this]] and the many abandoned drafts to get an idea of the concerns that have been previously raised. [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] ([[User talk:Abecedare|talk]]) 20:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::::I hear you, Abe. On the other side, blocks are conveniently self-enforcing, while the user has ample opportunity to violate a topic ban through (perhaps innocently) misunderstanding how it works. I'm going by the difficulties they have demonstrated in understanding our copyright and sourcing policies. But you're right, a mainspace block wouldn't be fair on AFC reviewers. I have topic banned Jonharojjashi from India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 21:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC).

==Global account with similar name==
{{Atop|Waste of time.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 13:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)}}
*{{userlinks|0xDeadBeef}}
This username resembles {{u|0xDeadbeef}}. I am not sure if there are others.[[Special:Contributions/102.158.175.24|102.158.175.24]] ([[User talk:102.158.175.24|talk]]) 11:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
:Well spotted, anon, although {{tq|A user with 0 edits. Account created on 30 January 2013.}}  :)   [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:red">——Serial Number 54129</span>]] 11:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
::They made a viable edit to frwiki at that time. But meh...this was all 11+ years ago. [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 11:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
: It's an ancient computing term; it is not unusual that two people would have thought of it for a username.  And given the old account hasn't made an edit to any wiki for over ten years, I think we can ignore it. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 11:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
:: And WHAAOE: [[0xDEADBEEF]]. [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 13:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
{{Abot}}

== Resignation of Barkeep49 from ArbCom ==

I resign as Arbitrator effective immediately. I will be retaining Oversight and giving up Checkuser. It's clear I am no longer at my best as an arbitrator and so rather than waiting for [[:m:U4C|U4C]] to achieve quorum before resigning - as I [[Special:Diff/1173982217|still believe]] we should have no rule against serving on both but that it would be foolish in the extreme for a person to do both - I have made the decision to step down from ArbCom now. I look forward to focusing all my energies on the U4C and the ways outside of ArbCom I am able to help Wikipedia. Thank you to the community for electing me, I hope those who supported me felt like I honored their trust and thanks to my current and former colleagues from whom I learned so much. It has truly been an honor to serve. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 02:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
: Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Resignation of Barkeep49 from ArbCom}}'''<!-- [[User:ArbClerkBot|ArbClerkBot]] ([[User talk:ArbClerkBot|talk]]) 02:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes-->

== Explanations about a block? ==

Hello,

As a sysop on frwiki, and global renamer, I came across the situation of [[user:Pelage de lézard|Pelage de lézard]]. This contributor was blocked in August 2023 by [[user:Materialscientist|Materialscientist]], apparently for sockpupetting according to a CU and his renaming requests were logically denied. However, I cannot find any mention of his username on enwiki, and he hasn't made any contribution. I wrote to Materialscientist but after almost a week haven't received any answer. Could any of you give an explanation to Pelage de lézard? Thank you! [[User:Litlok|Litlok]] ([[User talk:Litlok|talk]]) 14:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

:@[[User:Litlok|Litlok]] It's [[User talk:Pelage de lézard]], to edits to their talk page, both deleted so you can't see them. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 14:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
::I think we are expected to give an explanation to Pelage about the reasons for the block; also his 2 edits haven't been deleted afaics, they're still on his talk-page, asking about the reason for the block (in French). [[User:Lectonar|Lectonar]] ([[User talk:Lectonar|talk]]) 14:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
: From the CU log, Pelage de lézard was confirmed to {{noping|Flo ! Allez}}, who was blocked for petty vandalism. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 17:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
::{{ping|NinjaRobotPirate}} OK, thank you! [[User:Litlok|Litlok]] ([[User talk:Litlok|talk]]) 07:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

== More haste; less speed. ==
* {{On AFD|Trump raised fist photographs}}
We all know how this goes, do we not?
Let's let all timezones have a say before any administrator leaps in to close this.
We're not in some desperate hurry.
So for goodness' sake, ''please'' learn the lesson of ''not'' speedily closing these things after not even a full rotation of the planet.
{{On AFD|Thomas Matthew Crooks}} ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Matthew Crooks (2nd nomination)|and again]]) ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Matthew Crooks (3rd nomination)|and again]]) has been through ''three'' AFD discussions in a 15 hour period ''and'' [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 July 14|through Deletion Review]].
Please learn from that at least, event if not from the umpteen other times that this has happened at AFD over the decades.
[[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] ([[User talk:Uncle G|talk]]) 09:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
:How yet do we not have at least a 48 hour moratorium on current events? We say we're [[:WP:NOTNEWS|NOTNEWS]], and then we act like we are. Bewilders. [[User:Rotary Engine|Rotary Engine]] <sup>[[User talk:Rotary Engine|talk]]</sup> 10:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
::And [[Special:Diff/1234650279|closed]] within a day, because, of course it is. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Rotary Engine|Rotary Engine]] ([[User talk:Rotary Engine#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Rotary Engine|contribs]]) 13:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)</small><sup>[[Special:Diff/1234657552|<diff>]]</sup>
:::Well, {{u|Uncle G}} made the point that much of the commentary was {{tq|just noise and of no use to a closing administrator, because they do not show at all how Wikipedia deletion policy applies, one way or the other, to the question at hand. Some people have addressed sourcing and notability, though, which is exactly what a closing administrator needs}}, and I'm sure the [[User:Jauerback|closing admin]] took that fully into account, {{u|Rotary Engine}}  :)   [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:red">——Serial Number 54129</span>]] 13:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
::::Oh, Aye. Fully. :) But whatever the quality of argument, given that the article would be extant during the discussion, it's not a thing that needed closing early. {{small|<i>sotto voce:</I> and the [[:WP:NAC|closing "adm-what now?"]]}} [[User:Rotary Engine|Rotary Engine]] <sup>[[User talk:Rotary Engine|talk]]</sup> 15:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
:{{small|Seems to me it would be particularly difficult to maintain less speed in a climate of more haste. {{emoji|1F615}} }}<span id="Usedtobecool:1721042362281:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt">—&nbsp;'''[[User:Usedtobecool|Usedtobecool]]'''&nbsp;[[User talk:Usedtobecool|☎️]] 11:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)</span>
:Oh FFS. This is exactly the reason I wrote [[WP:EVENT]] years ago. And why it has both "Don't rush to create articles" ''and'' "Don't rush to delete articles". <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 17:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
:{{NACC}}Do you really expect deletion despite heavy ongoing media coverage and the resulting new editors? Perhaps it would be reasonable to renominate only after a week.
:Yes, I agree about {{tpq|Please learn from that at least}}. But it's not the closers that need to learn. The 2nd and 3rd nom for AfD, and the sock in the case of DRV, should all read [[WP:OTHERPARENT]]. The 1st nom might be OK, but the others should [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]] as [[Talk:Trump_raised-fist_photographs#The_picture_too,_really?|discussed]]. [[Special:Contributions/174.92.25.207|174.92.25.207]] ([[User talk:174.92.25.207|talk]]) 08:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
I have no objections to it being reopened, but does anyone honestly think it's going to turn out any different with more time? <b>[[User:Jauerback|Jauerback]]</b><sup>[[User talk:Jauerback|dude?]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jauerback|dude.]]</sub> 14:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

== NAC at FFD File:Shooting of Donald Trump.webp ==
{{atop|status=resolved|result=NAC has been reversed with closer's agreement. -- [[User:Whpq|Whpq]] ([[User talk:Whpq|talk]]) 11:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)}}

{{nacc}}I don't think [[:Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 July 14#File:Shooting of Donald Trump.webp]] was a good close, and it would've been better to have left it to an administrator who has experience in closing FFD discussions. This was a highly contentious discussion with many particpants. Non-free content use discussions can be quite nuanced and such closes often require and are expected to to be something that's simply more than a "Closed as keep" type of statement. I think this discussion probably falls under [[:WP:BADNAC]] <u>(</u>no matter how well-meaning the close was)<u>,</u> <s>and</s> should have at least been allowed to run the seven days typically allowed for FFD discussions and then perhaps be closed by someone more familiar with [[:WP:FFDAI]] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=FeralOink&namespace=6&tagfilter=&start=&end=&limit=50 more experience] at closing file related discussions. This doesn't seem to be the right discussion for a non-administrator with what appears to be not a lot of experience in non-free content matters to decide to step in and close. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 05:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC); edited 08:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)</ins>
:Hello, [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]]. Thank you for notifying me of this discussion. I do have experience in non-free content matters. I have been a near daily editor of Wikipedia English (and frequent editor of Commons) since 2011. I carefully read the criteria for non-administrative closures of XFDs. My decision to close the discussion was motivated by fair use criteria (small/low pixel image of content not widely available, that is of educational use and for public information) and:

*by the following information inserted at the top of the discussion, making the matter seem moot to me: "Update: the nomination statement is now outdated. The article Trump raised fist photographs now exists, as well as a section in the main article: [[Attempted_assassination_of_Donald_Trump#Raised_fist_photographs|Attempted assassination of Donald Trump § "Raised fist]] photographs"
*the fact that an article about [[Trump_raised-fist_photographs|iconic raised fist Donald Trump assassination attempt photographs]] has already been created (after extensive discussion) and is even undergoing refinement for a minor name change, and a third article section, [[Public_image_of_Donald_Trump#Photographs_during_2024_assassination_attempt|photographs during 2024 assassination attempts]]

:If administrators feel that I improperly acted to close the XFD discussion, I apologize now, and will not attempt to do any such thing again in the future.--[[User:FeralOink|FeralOink]] ([[User talk:FeralOink|talk]]) 07:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
::Even beyond being a NAC, I am extremely concerned by the lack of any close rationale for a complicated discussion with nuanced copyright issues. A strong close rationale is expected in difficult closes. [[User:Curbon7|Curbon7]] ([[User talk:Curbon7|talk]]) 07:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
:::The series of automated XFD close steps caught me by surprise before I had a chance to enter a short form version of what I stated above. You're correct.  I also just read this, above, about [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#More_haste;_less_speed|more haste, less speed in the context of Trump raised fist photos]]. Okay, mea culpa, it was a bad close.  Revert me, reopen the discussion, and issue my punishment. I'm ready. Please don't block me from editing Wikipedia permanently though?--[[User:FeralOink|FeralOink]] ([[User talk:FeralOink|talk]]) 07:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
::::{{nacc}}First off, nobody's asking for you to be punished (at least not me), Moreover, it kind of takes a bit of moxy to try and close a discussion such as that. I certainly don't think I could do it and I've got a fair amount of experience in FFD discussions. However, just from what you posted above, it seems like you might not be expereinced enough to take on something like this, particulary since you don't seem to be very active at FFD. For reference, [[:WP:NFCC]] and [[:fair use]] aren't really the same whenit comes to Wikipedia; they're being used interchangeably alot in that discussion, but [[:WP:NFC#Background|Wikipedia's policy has been set up to be more restrictive that fair use]]. There are [[:WP:NFCCP|ten non-free content use criteria]] that each use of non-free content needs to satisfy and [[:WP:JUSTONE|failing to satisfy even one of these]] means the particluar use is not policy compliant. In addition, FFD discussion typically run seven days before being closed as per [[:WP:FFD]] and [[:WP:FFDAI]], except perhaps when it's quite clear an eariler close is going to be non-contentious or otherwise obvious. This discussion was only open for only two days and yet had a huge numnber of particpants discussing multiple interpretations of different non-free content use criteria. It's likely going to continue to generate more comments because there are not only multiple articles where some may want the file to be used, but also multiple ways in which the file could be used.  FWIW, being used for primary identification purposes in a stand-alone article may strengthen the justification for a particular non-free use, but it's doesn't automatically make said non-free NFCC compliant. I'm sure you meant well, but the number of participants in the discusison and the complexity of the what was being discussed probably pushed this discussion into realm of item 2 of [[:WP:BADNAC]], which means closing it is probably better left to an administrator whose more experienced in non-free content use policy and closing FFD discussions. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 07:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
::::I've undone the closure per your request. Certainly there's no need for any punishment or block—you understand the issue, so there's nothing more for us to do here. [[User:Extraordinary Writ|Extraordinary Writ]] ([[User talk:Extraordinary Writ|talk]]) 07:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
:I think that one (and almost all XFDs) should run the full 7 days since there is no reason stated to close it early. I also think a detailed rationale is needed for a complex discussion like that. I see the closer gave permission to revert, which was done, so we should be all set here. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 07:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
:Yes, a nuanced close is needed here.  For a significant time during the FFD, people were voting "Keep" despite the fact that the image was a clear F7b speedy delete candidate.  The only reason it isn't one now is because an article was quickly knocked together to make it ''not'' one, which I'm not sure is in the spirit of a Free Encyclopedia (regardless of the issues with that article itself). [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 07:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
::The image was the subject of sourced commentary in [[Attempted assassination of Donald Trump#Aftermath]] continually since the time it was nominated, so I don't really think that's true. [[User:Endwise|Endwise]] ([[User talk:Endwise|talk]]) 08:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
:::A sourced statement of any sort about the image was not added until [[Special:Diff/1234376567|this edit]] more than an hour after the image was nominated at FFD, when it looked like [[Special:Permalink/1234376506|this]].  I can say I ''certainly'' would have speedied the file myself if I had known it was an Associated Press image when the FFD looked like [[Special:Permalink/1234369364|this]].  Anyway, FFD is an extraordinarily bad place for non-admins to close discussions in general; more than anywhere else, debates there are closed on strength of policy-based argument rather than raw vote count, and there's still, among other things, an overriding and unrebutted UUI6 argument to remove the image from one of the articles it's currently in. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 09:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
::::Ahh, my mistake on the timing there. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Attempted_assassination_of_Donald_Trump&oldid=1234378063#Aftermath version I remembered] was indeed from about an hour or so after the FFD was opened. [[User:Endwise|Endwise]] ([[User talk:Endwise|talk]]) 09:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
::::{{NACC}} I have replied in the FFD, arguing why FFD is not the proper venue for UUI6. [[Special:Contributions/174.92.25.207|174.92.25.207]] ([[User talk:174.92.25.207|talk]]) 10:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
:According to [[WP:NFCC]], {{tq|Files for discussion is the central venue to discuss whether a particular image meets the non-free content criteria, regardless of whether the file should be deleted or not. For example, a discussion might be held about whether it is appropriate to use an image in ARTICLE1 even if it unquestionably meets the criteria for use in ARTICLE2.}} However, this discussion is such a trainwreck that a new seperate thread to determine whether inclusion in the article [[Attempted assassination of Donald Trump]] would be better. The image indutiably meets NFCC in the article about the photograph. [[User:Ca|Ca]] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">[[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]]</sup></i> 11:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Super ninja2==
{{Atop|I withdraw. Thank you all! [[User:Super ninja2|☆SuperNinja2☆]] <small>'''[[User talk:Super ninja2|<u>TALK!</u>]]'''</small> 19:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)}}
<small>''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Enforcement|here]]. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.''</small>

<small>''To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections. Other editors may comment below.  Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see [[WP:UNINVOLVED]]).''</small>

; Appealing user : {{userlinks|Super ninja2}} – [[User:Super ninja2|☆SuperNinja2☆]] <small>'''[[User talk:Super ninja2|<u>TALK!</u>]]'''</small> 15:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

; Sanction being appealed : "[[User talk:Super ninja2/Archive_4#Blocked|formally topic-banned from the Israel-Palestine conflict topic area indefinitely, appealable to AN in no less than 6 months]]"

; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|Daniel}}

; Notification of that administrator : [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daniel&diff=prev&oldid=1234675819]

===Statement by Super ninja2===

The admin said in the unblock request's Accept reason: {{tq|it goes without saying that you are on a pretty tight piece of rope here}} [[Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope|which means]] that {{tq|If they mean what they say, then unblocking will be the right thing to do, and if they don't, they'll be blocked again soon enough.}} And during these 6 months I think that I proved that I understood my lesson. I restricted myself from editing both continuous and Palestine-Israel topic areas. Regarding my edits on other topics, I practiced self-restrain, patience, thinking twice before undoing an edit or saying something. I think that means I corrected my disruptive behavior. I don't think I will engage in any future lengthy heated discussions. Just some votes and maybe RfC. But if I do, I will do it calmly, discreetly and practice patience. Thank y'all. [[User:Super ninja2|☆SuperNinja2☆]] <small>'''[[User talk:Super ninja2|<u>TALK!</u>]]'''</small> 15:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

===Statement by Daniel===
As per the thread in Super ninja2's archive (linked above), this restriction was implemented as part of an unblock agreement. No strong opinion either way from me about whether it gets lifted or retained, although I acknowledge the diff provided by Brad below gives me some level of pause. Whichever decision is reached via consensus here has my implicit blessing, as both outcomes would be ''reasonable'' in the circumstances — up to consensus to determine which is ''preferred''. Thanks, [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 23:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

===Statement by The Kip===
{{hat|reason=My bad. [[User:The Kip|<span style="color:#333f42;">'''The'''</span>]] [[User talk:The Kip|<span style="color:#b4975a;">'''Kip'''</span>]] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Kip|contribs]])</sup></small></span> 04:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)}}
No opinion on the appeal itself (yet), but shouldn't this be at [[WP:AE]]? [[User:The Kip|<span style="color:#333f42;">'''The'''</span>]] [[User talk:The Kip|<span style="color:#b4975a;">'''Kip'''</span>]] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Kip|contribs]])</sup></small></span> 16:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
:{{tq|The editor may...request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN")}}. This is an appropriate venue. [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 16:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
{{hab}}
Context: I was the one who initially [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1140#Super_Ninja2_and_WP%3ANOTGETTINGIT reported Super Ninja2 at ANI] back in November, during my one major dabble in the ARBPIA area before I opted to stay away. This report, and a concurrent 3/1RR violation, is what led to his indef by HJ Mitchell, later reduced to a ARBPIA TBAN from Daniel.

<s>On one hand</s>, their prior history of edit warring and the whole Al-Ahli saga were... not ideal, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1150#Reopen_of_discussion this incident] from late February + [[Special:Diff/1217639040|this reverted edit]] from April still gives me some pause regarding an overturn of the TBAN - I'm not ''entirely'' convinced the maturity is there yet.

I was ''about'' to say that on the other hand, that's simply my opinion and I couldn't really find any concrete reasons to oppose an overturn, buuuuut [[Special:Diff/1229479438|this edit from last month]] seems like a pretty clear-cut TBAN violation, given the quote they modified directly relates to the [[Israel–Hamas war hostage crisis|conflict's hostage crisis]]. As a result, I don't think an overturn is the right move at this moment. [[User:The Kip|<span style="color:#333f42;">'''The'''</span>]] [[User talk:The Kip|<span style="color:#b4975a;">'''Kip'''</span>]] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Kip|contribs]])</sup></small></span> 04:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

===Statement by (involved editor 2)===

===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Super ninja2 ===

<!-- When closing this request (once there is a consensus) use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} if at AE, or an archive/discussion box template if on AN, inform the user on their talk page and note it in the contentious topics log below where their sanctions is logged. -->
* [[Special:Diff/1233677433|This]] is a topic ban violation from only 5 days ago. – [[User talk:Bradv|<span style="color:#333">'''brad''v'''''</span>]] 15:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
*:I thought the article does not belong to the Palestine-Israel topic area. But I see where you're coming from. [[User:Super ninja2|☆SuperNinja2☆]] <small>'''[[User talk:Super ninja2|<u>TALK!</u>]]'''</small> 16:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
*::You legitimately did not believe that edit violated your topic ban? [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 16:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::Come on! If I wanted to violate my ban, I would have edited a more important article about the topic, right? Why would anyone want to get in trouble if they want to start an appeal right after, right? So you can have a good faith and confidently say that "'''No'''", I didn't mean it or believed it was in my ban. BUT, I do understand that this was/is a bad indicator, even I can see it (that's a more accurate and rational rephrasing). I was skeptical about editing it but gave it the benefit of doubt. But, yea, I know it's indicating that I'm a bit impulsive. I get it. 
*:::And if you say: 
*:::* "then why did you start an appeal knowing you are impulsive?"
*::::Only a little impulsive, trust me but more importantly I am making a progress! {{wink}} {{thumb up}}
*:::* "why would you expect us to accept the appeal?"
*::::Because acknowledging the flows in oneself is a good indicator for good behavior too? I mean you can't say you are perfect either (in editing Wikipedia context). I bet you have many flows but what matters is working and making a progress in being a constructive editor and it doesn't matter if I'm more flowed than you are in this field, it's making a progress into being a better editor what matters. {{wink}}
*:::Hope that wasn't extra! 😅
*:::[[User:Super ninja2|☆SuperNinja2☆]] <small>'''[[User talk:Super ninja2|<u>TALK!</u>]]'''</small> 17:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
*:: The topic ban was for the Israel-Palestine '''''conflict''''' topic area <small>(emphasis mine)</small>. It was not for the Israel-Palestine topic area <small>(note missing word)</small>. I note too that the topic ban did not say "broadly construed". Seeing the article, I don't see how [[Eli Harari]] has been involved in the Israel-Palestine conflict, only that they were born in the region. I concur with Super ninja2 and disagree with Bradv; I don't see this as a topic ban violation. --[[User:Hammersoft|Hammersoft]] ([[User talk:Hammersoft|talk]]) 00:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::You have provided the reasoning/rationale I was looking to see from SuperNinja2. I'm not sure they realize why it is or isn't a violation, though I tend toward the latter. [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 00:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::If you don't realize how changing "Israel" to "Palestine" in relation to Tel Aviv is related to this conflict, then you likely haven't been very active in this topic area. Also, by default [[WP:TBAN|all topic bans are "broadly construed"]], unless otherwise specified. – [[User talk:Bradv|<span style="color:#333">'''brad''v'''''</span>]] 00:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::: If it's broadly construed, it's broadly construed. If it's not, it's not. I've seen a lot of topic bans. If it was to be specified, it should have been. It's absence isn't Super ninja2's fault. I've also seen a considerable number of edits on various articles across the project that properly adjust what a birth place is based on the time of birth. It's a very common edit, and proper to do so. Again, Super ninja2 didn't do anything wrong. It's a good edit, and outside of the topic ban. If this is the only thing anyone can find that even remotely smacks of Super ninja2 doing anything wrong in the last six months, I dare say the case has been made that Super ninja2 has been acting very appropriately. Personally, I haven't investigated their edits over the last six months. But, this claim is making the case in favor of Super ninja2 all on its own. Please come up with something substantive. This one isn't. --[[User:Hammersoft|Hammersoft]] ([[User talk:Hammersoft|talk]]) 01:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
*::::I'll openly admit I'm not the biggest fan of SuperNinja's past conduct (I was the one that reported him in the first place, leading to his TBAN) - with that said, I don't really think this is as severe as you believe it to be. 
*::::It'd be one thing if he changed a post-1948-born Israeli individual's birth location to "Tel Aviv, [[Palestine]]" (as in the modern State of Palestine), which would obviously be a TBAN violation; however, the subject of that article was born in 1945, when Tel Aviv was still part of [[Mandatory Palestine]] (as in the British-controlled mandate/territory). It'd be similar to changing a 30s/40s-born Jordanian's birth country to "Transjordan," rather than simply Jordan. Besides debates on whether birth locations should be contemporary or modern, it seems like an appropriate edit to make. [[User:The Kip|<span style="color:#333f42;">'''The'''</span>]] [[User talk:The Kip|<span style="color:#b4975a;">'''Kip'''</span>]] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Kip|contribs]])</sup></small></span> 04:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
*Have I missed something somewhere?  Is it now normal for WP:AN to include discussions for arbitration appeals?  No comment on this particular one's merits; I'm just not sure it's in the right place.  [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 21:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
*:Hi [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]], in my original notification I advised them that they can appeal at AE or AN, as per [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Standard provision: appeals and modifications]]. Thanks, [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 23:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
*:It's never made sense to me why the process allows for two separate locations for appeals as standard, but it does. [[User:Swatjester|<span style="color:red">⇒</span>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<span style="font-family:Serif"><span style="color:black">SWAT</span><span style="color:goldenrod">Jester</span></span>]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 23:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
*:As I posted above: {{tq|The editor may...request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN")}}. This is an appropriate venue. [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 00:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
{{Abot}}

== Creation of protected redirect (AFC/R) ==

During the course of handling [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects#Redirect request: Zard Patton Ka Bunn|this AfC/R request]], I was blocked from creating the redirect due to seemingly blanket title blacklist. Could an administrator create the target page? Thank you. [[User:Garsh2|Garsh]] ([[User talk:Garsh2|talk]]) 02:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
:{{u|Garsh2}}, not an admin, but done. [[User:EggRoll97|EggRoll97]] <sup>([[User_talk:EggRoll97|talk]]) </sup> 03:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
::Ah! I forgot page movers can do this too. Apologies and thanks. [[User:Garsh2|Garsh]] ([[User talk:Garsh2|talk]]) 03:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
:::[[User:EggRoll97|EggRoll97]] and [[User:Garsh2|Garsh2]], the IP that requested the redirect creation was the same sockmaster that led to the blacklisting. Any objection to deletion? I'm not sure [[WP:G5]] speedy deletion fits here, since the sock isn't the one that created the page, so I'd prefer something like [[WP:G7]]. I'm not sure which of you to consider the "author", and I'd love to hear from you both. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 03:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
::::I'll invite any uninvolved editor to disagree, but I find this to be an independently valid redirect regardless of who the AfC/R requester may have been. It strikes me as an obvious subtopic redirect under [[WP:POFR]], and a validating source was even provided in the request. What goes on with the sockpuppetry is not my area of interest, but I will object to deletion based on the merit of the redirect itself. [[User:Garsh2|Garsh]] ([[User talk:Garsh2|talk]]) 03:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::That's reasonable. If you find [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Kashf_Foundation&diff=prev&oldid=1234951565 this edit] to be good, you may want to restore it and assume responsibility for its content. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 04:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::I find myself in a situation where this edit is not one I would have otherwise made, but I do not see anything that makes it immediately revertible (other than the obvious sock). I'll look further into it shortly. Thanks for your help on this, there turned out to be more here than I originally thought. [[User:Garsh2|Garsh]] ([[User talk:Garsh2|talk]]) 04:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::Just FYI, [[User:Garsh2|Garsh]], but this request was by a sockpuppet. If you looked at the history of the redirect page, you'd see that it was created by several socks. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 04:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::Yes, I noticed that this appears to be a frequent sock target and I was informed about the nature of the request in the above comments. Thanks. [[User:Garsh2|Garsh]] ([[User talk:Garsh2|talk]]) 04:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Firefangledfeathers|Liz}} I agree with what Garsh2 commented above. I saw the deletion log, but the redirect led to, at the time (prior to the removal of the section) a section that contained a source indicating at least some level of notability, so I didn't see any reason not to create the redirect. It still remains mentioned on the target article for [[Kashf Foundation]] at [[Kashf Foundation#Media and social platforms]], so per [[WP:PROXYING]] I will take responsibility for the content. No opinion personally on the edit that was reverted to the page itself, I'm not sure it really needs its own section. I've retargeted the redirect to the Media and social platforms section. [[User:EggRoll97|EggRoll97]] <sup>([[User_talk:EggRoll97|talk]]) </sup> 05:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

== ARBPIA gaming? ==
{{atop
| status = 
| result = There is no consensus that there was any violation of GAMING here. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 13:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
}}



The user [[User:Amayorov|Amayorov]], despite having an eight-year-old account, made their first edit on 3 July 2024 before proceeding to pass 500 edits and receive extended confirmed permissions on 6 July 2024. All of the edits made, 100s a day, were on European politics and history. Shortly after achieving EC permissions, suddenly it's all [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Amayorov&target=Amayorov&limit=100 1948 Palestine war], specifically inserting [[Benny Morris]] as a source all over the place and doing some work on the Benny Morris biography. Apparently European content has lost its appeal. Make of this what you will. I also have to wonder if, despite having an extant account for 8 years, achieving 500 edits in three days (rather than the 30 days as envisaged in the ECR rule set) is somewhat of a violation of the spirit of the restrictions, even if not the technical function. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 19:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
:Were there any issues with the edits?
:Discussions recently have come to the conclusion that absent obvious abuse - unproductive or disruptive edits, or repeatedly making a dozen edits to do what could be done in one or two - it’s acceptable for editors to work towards ECP.
:To an extent, this makes sense - if we tell people "this is what you need to edit this topic area" we can’t reasonably expect editors interested in the topic area to not work towards it. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 19:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
::see my reply [[User:Amayorov|Amayorov]] ([[User talk:Amayorov|talk]]) 19:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
::Issues other than that pushing Benny Morris here there any everywhere with little regard for any other sources is a terrible form of disregard for NPOV? That alone, in a contentious topic area, is pretty disruptive. The 500/30 rule is aimed at ensuring a minimum level of understanding and competency. Yes, some are encouraged to rush the requirements, but we shouldn't encourage editors to rush the requirements. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 19:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
:::I did not "push Benny Morris" but rather expanded on the already existing citations to his work. Recall that Benny Morris' 2008 book had already been the most quoted reference on that page. When necessary, I've added phrases such as "some scholars allege that" etc.
:::When you and other users disagreed with my edits, I didn't proceed, but rather created sections on the Talk page. Unlike other users, you didn't engage.
:::I think the extensive sourcing I use in any of my edits illustrate that I at least possess "a minimum level of competency". [[User:Amayorov|Amayorov]] ([[User talk:Amayorov|talk]]) 19:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
::::I have engaged. As of the time of me writing this, there are at least two comments from me to you that you have not responded to. Again, this can be checked. I suggest you desist from misrepresenting very verifiable information in this forum. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 19:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::You wrote those comments less than an hour before reporting me on the Admin board. Yes –– all of this can be checked.
:::::''I suggest you desist from misrepresenting very verifiable information in this forum.'' [[User:Amayorov|Amayorov]] ([[User talk:Amayorov|talk]]) 19:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
:::I meant in regardless to the substance of this complaint - with the edits to reach 500. 
:::If we don’t tell editors that they can’t work towards 500/30, then how should they know we don’t want them to work towards them? If the goal is to ensure {{tq|a minimum level of understanding and competency}}, and 500 edits isn’t sufficient for that, then let’s modify the requirements - for example, require edits to be a minimum byte size to count, as I have proposed in the past. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 19:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
::::I think that would be a good idea. However, I have clearly written plenty of bytes in my 500 edits, in some cases going as far as copy-editing entire pages that had been poorly translated or unsourced. You can see all that in my edit history. [[User:Amayorov|Amayorov]] ([[User talk:Amayorov|talk]]) 19:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
:This is patently false. I have made extensive edits to various topics, including military history and Central Asian history, paganism, and engineering. All my corrections were extensively referenced. I have also rewritten several large articles, requiring copy-edit and verification.
:It is true that I have re-activated my account in the week. This is simply a reflection of the fact that I have free time, and have grown fond of Wikipedia.
:Benny Morris' 1948 book has always been the most referenced book on the topic. I have used not only that book but also others by different authors, as well as sourcing UN archives.
:I have added corrections and more references on the subject, including 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight and Palestinian nationalism. None of the other users had an issue with my work.
:By contrast, @[[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] has reverted my edits without giving a justification. They also ignored my attempts at a discussion in the Talk pages. [[User:Amayorov|Amayorov]] ([[User talk:Amayorov|talk]]) 19:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
::I had a justification, and I have responded on talk. I suggest that you avoid misrepresenting things that can be checked up on (on an administrative noticeboard). And yes, other users have taken up issue with your edits. I'm not sure why you would misrepresent this. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 19:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Your justification was ''RV gf edits - unfortunately, adding random titbits of background information from Morris, removing dates and badly rephrasing other parts is not an improvement.''
:::This is not specific or constructive. In order to clarify your objections, I created discussion topics on the Talk page – which you have ignored. [[User:Amayorov|Amayorov]] ([[User talk:Amayorov|talk]]) 19:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
::::I have responded to some, not all of your posts. However, I would prefer to see what administrators think of this situation before potentially unduly spending more time on explaining why expanding claims from a single source that is, in your own words, already the most [(over-)]quoted reference on the page, is not particularly in the service of NPOV. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 19:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
::::You have responded to them half an hour ago, almost immediately posting on the Admin board. 
::::Yes, Benny Morris is the most quoted historian on the 1948 war. I barely added new references to him, usually simply extending the existing ones. [[User:Amayorov|Amayorov]] ([[User talk:Amayorov|talk]]) 19:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::I suppose I should be grateful that you've helped illustrate quite ''how'' over-represented Benny Morris is (more than 50 citations and mentions), but again, that begs the question of why you think this clear imbalance problem should be worsened. If you can't see that there might be an imbalance problem there, that somewhat illustrates why the 500/30 rule exists and why a month of actual editing is, in spirit, what is expected of it. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 19:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::Because Morris has written multiple, highly regarded books on the 1948 war. He's cited by plenty of other authors, such as Shlaim, Khalidi,  Ben-Ami, and others. 
::::::Besides, and as I've previously explained, I didn't add much new material. I've clarified previous references and added qualifications to partisan statements. [[User:Amayorov|Amayorov]] ([[User talk:Amayorov|talk]]) 19:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
:This seems like a content dispute, {{u|Iskandar323}}, moreso than any actual [[WP:GAMING|gaming]]. It seems like it might be better to have discussed this with the editor on a talk page, not hauled them to [[WP:AN|AN]]. The editor's contributions appear to be in good faith, and while I haven't gone into a full deep-dive or anything of the sort, they don't seem to be ''unconstructive'' at first glance. Favoring a specific historian isn't necessarily a behavioral issue, so long as they are willing to discuss inclusion and abide by the results of consensus. Building a culture of continually questioning those who take the time to build a constructive editing history in order to prove they can be trusted with access to contentious topics is a terrifying idea. If I was to accuse someone of gaming for rollback, for example, because they spent a lot of time reverting vandals, it would likely be considered at the very least rude, and at worst a personal attack. [[User:EggRoll97|EggRoll97]] <sup>([[User_talk:EggRoll97|talk]]) </sup> 21:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
::There is a content dispute for sure, which I will continue in good faith. At the same time, there is only one type of account that I have ever seen that goes from 0 to 100 edits a day on some random topic before switching (after 3 frenetic days) to almost pure ARBPIA edits, and it isn't the constructive variety. There are plenty of dubious accounts that have just passed this threshold currently operating in the contentious topic area. This account, however, caught my eye due to the rapid edit aggregation and glaring topic switch. I have raised the issue of quite a few gaming accounts on this noticeboard, and to date, most of them have raised eyebrows for admins too. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 21:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
FWIW, from my perspective there appears to be some unnecessary edit farming in this user's background. For instance, [[Sukhoi Shkval]] did not require 40 edits in a row to achieve this [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sukhoi_Shkval&diff=1232929188&oldid=1101311729 relatively minimal difference], while not managing to add a single in-line citation or new source. On [[9К512 Uragan-1M]] we got some extremely minor, non-substantive copyediting that frankly didn't change the readability of the article much. An improvement? Perhaps trivially, but reasonable editors could disagree there. Worth sanctioning over? IMO probably not, but I don't think Iskandar323's concerns are without merit. [[User:Swatjester|<span style="color:red">⇒</span>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<span style="font-family:Serif"><span style="color:black">SWAT</span><span style="color:goldenrod">Jester</span></span>]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 22:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

:Regarding 9K512 Uragan-1M, the article had been marked as “roughly translated.” I did my best to correct residual grammatical errors, before marking the issue as resolved. <br><br>Regarding Sukhoi-Shkval, I agree that 40 edits were excessive. One reason for this was that I was still learning about the editing tools, discovering new templates and features. Another justification is that I had to decipher some unclear text, such as “Each wing has a rudder that functions as a rudder and aileron.” Here, the first “rudder” is in fact not a rudder at all, but a flap. I had only figured that out once I read through the sources. [[User:Amayorov|Amayorov]] ([[User talk:Amayorov|talk]]) 18:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
:It wouldn't require 40 edits from an experienced editor who knew everything about how wikitext worked, but for somebody figuring it out for the first time I am inclined to assume good faith. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contribs/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 20:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

{{od}} There may be something going on with ARBPIA, perhaps unrelated to this, but worth thinking about. We had a [[Special:Contributions/Icebear244|recently compromised account]] jump into ARBPIA in the past week, threatening to report other editors if reverted, then [[wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement%23Nishidani|reporting a prominent ‘opponent’]] to WP:AE, volunteering to be topic banned if the ‘opponent’ is also topic banned, before being Checkuser blocked by an Arb. '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 23:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I was going to report this user as well. Account created in 2016 but first edit made a few days ago and quickly put in 500 edits, immediately jumps into Israeli-Palestinian conflict topic area, seemingly POV-pushing. Seems to be an experienced user as well. I agree with @[[User:Starship.paint|Starship.paint]] that there seems to be something going on with ARBPIA, specifically a surge in sock accounts. [[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 05:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know whether [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KSqg5O34kzAvqN4ztG07KGz1ryicDNLG/view these plots] can provide any illumination. The dramatic change in slope and shape of the bytes added and page byte size change curves after extendedconfirmed has been granted at 500 edits is consistent with the notion of gaming to obtain the privilege in order to enter the contentious PIA topic area. These kind of signal shapes for users that enter the PIA topic area can often be seen for sockpuppets of AndresHerutJaim/יניב הורון, not that that suggests this is an AHJ sock. Wikipedia provides tools to help new users rapidly gain EC. Sometimes this kind of impressive efficiency is thanks to the [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Growth/Tools/Suggested_edits Wikimedia Foundation Growth team's "Newcomer tasks" project]. Also, their [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Saint_Levant&diff=prev&oldid=1232422488 first edit] being an [[WP:ARBECR]] violation is not great. [[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 09:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

:When I was doing my edits, I was using almost exclusively [[:Category:Wikipedia backlog|Wiki’s backlog.]] I chose the issues that I could conceivably help with, such as Rough Translation from Russian and French (the languages I speak), and lead rewrite requests. I intend to continue on with this work in the future.
:And, yes, I’m interested in the IP history, about which I’ve read a lot. Since gaining extended privileges, I’ve made improvements to those articles. Those edits have arguably been better-sources than any of my other work, due to my having more knowledge to my having more knowledge on the topic. I do not deny that I wanted to contribute to these topics from the start. [[User:Amayorov|Amayorov]] ([[User talk:Amayorov|talk]]) 10:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks for the info Amayorov but you don't need to defend yourself to me. I'm nobody. I'm just providing information. Either way, the notion of gaming in Wikipedia and its relationship to the [[WP:ARBECR]] barrier is currently rather vague. [[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 11:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
::Where did you learn to add a colon prefix to the category name in your busy schedule by the way e.g. :Category:Wikipedia backlog|Wiki’s backlog? [[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 05:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)   
:::The visual editor adds it automatically, when I link to the url https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_backlog [[User:Amayorov|Amayorov]] ([[User talk:Amayorov|talk]]) 13:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Either way, regardless of the specifics of this editor, it's important for the community to acknowledge that a) [[WP:ARBECR]] was introduced as an entry barrier for good reasons and b) highly motivated people have already discovered ways to essentially tunnel through that barrier. [[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 10:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

:Not being a tech wizard, I can only judge by what I see over time. I am in the habit of adding awareness notices if I notice new editors (non EC or EC) making edits in the topic area and off the top of my head, I would say that occurs 3 or 4 times a month at least, there appears to be an increase in the number of such editors in recent times, as to what proportion of them are [[WP:NOTHERE]] I couldn't say but experience tells me that some at least are in that category. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 10:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
::I think you are underestimating your contribution. This year I think you have provided the awareness notices to 202 users, or thereabouts. That is based on your revisions to user talk pages where the byte size change is in a range consistent with the awareness template size. [[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 16:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
:::The top of my head is very unreliable then, lol. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 16:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Sean.hoyland}} There is an easier way to check; see this [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchAction=any&wpSearchActionTaken=tag&wpSearchFilter=602&wpSearchImpact=0&wpSearchPeriodEnd=&wpSearchPeriodStart=&wpSearchTitle=&wpSearchUser=Selfstudier&offset=20240126172553 log search]. Selfstudier has posted 210 this year. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 21:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
::::Ah, that's useful to know. Thanks. I've not really spent any time looking at the filters, despite them being a likely information goldmine. On the other hand, the pointlessly harder path is often more fun. [[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 04:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)  
No comment about the gaming accusation, but the ARBPIA edits themselves seem fine. Morris is arguably the most prominent historian in this area, and one of the more neutral ones, with critics from both sides. It's debatable whether some of the added content is important enough to include, but it's reasonable enough, and Amayorov seems open to feedback and compromise. [[WP:POVPUSH|POV pushing]] involves ''aggression'', which I don't see here. If we were to expect some kind of strict symmetry in editing behavior, the vast majority of us ARBPIA editors would fail that standard. — [[User:XDanielx|<span style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: bold; color: green;">xDanielx</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:XDanielx|T]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/XDanielx|C]]</sub>\<sup>[[Wikipedia:Editor review/xDanielx|R]]</sup> 18:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
:I think it's quite natural that hot topics attract new editors trying to fix (perceived) gaps or biases. I myself got to 500 edits within two months after getting involved in another contentious area. At the end of the day the question should be whether an editor understands and follows the rules. [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]]<sub>[[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]]</sub> 21:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
:I would say, at the start of the day the test should be - is an editor violating the rules merely by being here evading a block or ban. Unfortunately, it's not possible to tell whether an editor understands and follows the rules, all of the rules, not just a subset, by looking at the content they generate and the image they present. If an editor violates the rule against sockpuppetry by employing deception, a very common occurrence in the PIA topic area, it's reasonable to assume they will likely violate other rules while generating content or interacting with editors at some point. [[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 02:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
*{{u|Amayorov}} can you explain why your account was created on July 8, 2016, but your very first edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Saint_Levant&diff=prev&oldid=1232422488] is on July 3, 2024? To me that's a red flag. A proposed remedy is that Amayorov's 30 days start from July 3, 2024.'''[[User talk:Vice regent|VR]]''' <sub>(Please [[Template:Ping|ping]] on reply)</sub> 19:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
*:I explained it [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#c-Red-tailed hawk-20240712024100-Amayorov|here]]. In 2016, I created an account for a university practical that required me to create a web page about a chemical compound on Wikidata. In my case, it was a terpenoid, Q44009079‬. I don't know why the page doesn't exist anymore, but I found emails from 2018, notifying that other pages have been linked to it (see [https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1nMchXyUO1taZGCnW6ID4Rf3d4Ub6wSTa?usp=sharing screenshots]).
*:A couple weeks ago, I started to be interested in trying out Wikipedia editing. I'm currently waiting to start a new job, and have plenty of time. [[User:Amayorov|Amayorov]] ([[User talk:Amayorov|talk]]) 20:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
*::Actually, I've been able to retrace this a bit more, and what I said wasn't entirely accurate. In 2017, I created a new account, @[[User:Alexmayorov|Alexmayorov]], specifically for that practical. I used it to create [https://www.wikidata.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Q44009079&action=history Q44009079]. Both Amayorov and Alexmayorov are registered on the same email address. Regarding @[[User:Amayorov|Amayorov]], created in 2016, I can't recall why I made it.
*::In April 2023, I decided to restore access to my account. I couldn't recall my username, and requested a password reset using my email. That reset came back with Amayorov as the user. [[User:Amayorov|Amayorov]] ([[User talk:Amayorov|talk]]) 20:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::Hello, this is my second account, which I've only just realised I had! [[User:Alexmayorov|Alexmayorov]] ([[User talk:Alexmayorov|talk]]) 20:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
*::::@[[User:Alexmayorov|Alexmayorov]], @[[User:Amayorov|Amayorov]] if you're going to have two accounts, you should disclose on your userspace of each what the alternative account is. Just to cover yourself from accusations of socking in the future. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 10:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Have just added the relevant userbox, thanks! I only intend to be using one though [[User:Amayorov|Amayorov]] ([[User talk:Amayorov|talk]]) 10:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::I'm confused. It [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Alexmayorov says] "20:42, July 12, 2024 User account Alexmayorov talk contribs was created automatically", as opposed to 2017.'''[[User talk:Vice regent|VR]]''' <sub>(Please [[Template:Ping|ping]] on reply)</sub> 23:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
*::::https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Alexmayorov [[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 23:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
*::::Because it was a wikidata only account. So the en.wiki one poofed into existence when they logged in here. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 05:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
*::::@[[User:Vice regent|Vice regent]] {{emoji|1F3D3}} [[User:Amayorov|Amayorov]] ([[User talk:Amayorov|talk]]) 11:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Got it, thanks! '''[[User talk:Vice regent|VR]]''' <sub>(Please [[Template:Ping|ping]] on reply)</sub> 18:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Vice regent|Vice regent]] Ping as requested [[User:Amayorov|Amayorov]] ([[User talk:Amayorov|talk]]) 22:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
*I don't see this as "gaming" anything, but more of a content dispute (which should be resolved amicably at the talk page). [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 15:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Arbitration motion regarding Suspension of Beeblebrox ==

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by [[Special:Permalink/1235135750#Motion: Suspension of Beeblebrox|motion]] that:
{{ivmbox|1=The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 14#Suspension of Beeblebrox|November announcement of the suspension of Beeblebrox]] is amended to remove the sentence {{tqq|These failures followed a previous formal warning issued to Beeblebrox in September 2021 by the Arbitration Committee concerning his conduct in off-wiki forums.}} and insert in its place the sentence {{tqq|In September 2021, within the scope of internal Committee discussions, Beeblebrox was advised that his off-wiki conduct was suboptimal.}}}}
For the Arbitration Committee, [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh|talk]]) 21:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
: Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Arbitration motion regarding Suspension of Beeblebrox}}'''<!-- [[User:ArbClerkBot|ArbClerkBot]] ([[User talk:ArbClerkBot|talk]]) 21:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes-->

==RfC closure review request at [[:Talk:Mukokuseki#RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead]]==
:{{RfC closure review links|Mukokuseki|rfc_close_page=Talk:Mukokuseki#RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead}} ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar#Mukokuseki RFC|Discussion with closer]])

'''Closer''': {{userlinks|LokiTheLiar}}

'''Notified''': [[User talk:LokiTheLiar#Notice of noticeboard discussion]]

'''Reasoning''': <br>'''1.''' Discussion of point 1 [[WP:NOCON|ended with "no agreement to take or not take an action"]], and should have been closed as ''no consensus''. None of the "No" voters responded to any attempts to discuss their positions, and of them [[User:Biosaurt]] did not cite any evidence for their position beyond personal opinion and [[User:Super ninja2]] simply copypasted an already debunked paragraph from a previous discussion, which did not even apply to the running version of the page at the time.<br>'''2.''' LokiTheLiar cited the rough majority towards "no" on point 1 as the basis of their eventual decision, however, rather than what they described as a "firm majority" in the closure message, the "no" votes were only one vote away from a clean 50%, which would not be a majority; Loki only evaluated it as a majority because they counted [[User:Seraphimblade]]'s ''highly conditional'' "no" as a vote. Seraphimblade did not respond to an attempt to explain how the condition in question was not met by the article at the time, their vote should as such have counted as a "yes" or "neutral" vote instead. This was just a further result of Superninja actively misinterpreting or misrepresenting the phrasing of the article in their original request submission, as was noted in a comment elsewhere in the same thread.<br>See [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mukokuseki&oldid=1231878638 '''here'''] for the version of the article at the time of closure. [[User:Orchastrattor|Orchastrattor]] ([[User talk:Orchastrattor|talk]]) 18:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

:Addendum, The closure message also implied the expected course of action would be to remove the information cited to Yano and Oana-Maria but to keep the information cited to Ruh, which would be a flagrant violation of the policy on neutral point of view. Should have been clarified in the closure message. [[User:Orchastrattor|Orchastrattor]] ([[User talk:Orchastrattor|talk]]) 18:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

===Closer (Mukokuseki)===
1. I don't know what Orchastrattor is talking about here. There very much was an agreement to take an action, namely to remove the phrase about Western features. There were only six participants, but of those, four of them supported removing the phrase about Western figures. As the closer I get to weigh the relative strength of the arguments and my determination was that there wasn't anything that was either particularly strong or particularly weak, so I went by the consensus as expressed by the participants.

2. I mean, this feels like it's restating my close message in hostile terms. Yes, it would have been a "clear consensus" if there were more people, because 2/3 of the participants supported "no". However, since there were only six participants, I didn't feel comfortable saying something so strong, so I only found a "rough consensus". Yes, there's so few participants means is that if one participant had flipped the result would have changed... and that's exactly why it's a rough consensus rather than a clear one. The actual fact of the matter is that nobody did flip, and the actual votes were 4 to 2.

Seraphimblade can say more about his !vote, but while he was less strongly for it than the others he did very clearly say he was "no" on 1. Furthermore, one of the two "yes" votes was a qualified yes, so I don't think this line of reasoning holds up. 

Also, Orchastrattor repeatedly says or implies that not responding to his counterarguments constitutes a weak argument. That's not true and I'd invite them to read [[WP:BLUDGEONING]]. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 18:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

:I am aware of Bludgeon, thank you. I am not saying any individual editor was at fault for failing to respond, I am saying that the fact that ''none'' of the four or five editors in question engaged with opposing arguments indicates the ''overall'' lack of discussion I alluded to. I had to respond to Biosaurt simply because I had already reverted one of their edits, but if ''either'' Seraphim or Superninja had responded to me at least once I would have already been far more willing to accept the closure as an actual consensus.
:On that note you keep saying you weren't "comfortable" with stating a clear consensus, but why does that matter if the "rough" consensus is ''just as binding'' for the future of the article? The risk of POV in Ruh's favor is just as great either way, what is even the point of distinguishing between the two? [[User:Orchastrattor|Orchastrattor]] ([[User talk:Orchastrattor|talk]]) 19:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
::Put more directly, why would you be confident enough putting this consensus as the closure if you aren't actually confident that it sufficiently represents the consensus of the community? [[User:Orchastrattor|Orchastrattor]] ([[User talk:Orchastrattor|talk]]) 21:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
:::I am confident that it sufficiently represents the consensus of the community. You're mistaken about what a "rough consensus" means. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 22:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
::::Wikipedia doesn't have an internally accepted definition for a rough consensus versus a clear consensus. You described it as a situation in which no one argument {{strikethrough|can be said}} has been demonstrated through discussion to be stronger or weaker than another, which sounds an awful lot like a no-consensus closure to me. Polling is meaningless if no actual policy- and source-based discussion took place. [[User:Orchastrattor|Orchastrattor]] ([[User talk:Orchastrattor|talk]]) 22:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::But I said exactly that in the close: {{tq|Since this is very fact based, I don't really see either side of this argument as inherently stronger, but the fact that the No side had clearly more people implies strongly that it was more convincing}}.
:::::And discussion did take place, it's just gone against you. Sorry about that but you have to learn how to accept a loss. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 22:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::Simply stating a stance the most times isn't discussion. The main wpspace article on [[WP:CON|Consensus]] clearly states that [[WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS|discussion must use "''reasons'' based in policy, sources, and common sense"]], that [[WP:TALKDONTREVERT|"[t]he quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view"]], that "[t]he arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever", and that "as consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting".
::::::Out of the four votes you cited IOHANNVSVERVS was just referencing an earlier discussion that reached a complete impasse, Seraphim was only speaking abstractly and still hasn't made their stance on the actual article clear, Superninja wasn't even talking about the same version of the article as everyone else, and Biosaurt's should have been discarded immediately for [[WP:OR]]. Polling returning four to two votes doesn't matter if in terms of actual arguments presented its closer to one-and-a-half to two. Expecting a reply to at least one of my four comments was perfectly reasonable on my part. [[User:Orchastrattor|Orchastrattor]] ([[User talk:Orchastrattor|talk]]) 23:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

===Non-participants (Mukokuseki)===
*That's a remarkably obvious "endorse". There's also an opportunity for a sysop to visit the nominator's talk page to offer support, advice and guidance.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 17:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' I'm really more confused on what problem is here..? The close appears fair and neutral, and judging by the RfC, it may be helpful if an admin (or just, someone? I'm not sure how best to offer advice to this user, personally) were to give some guidance to the filer, because the most gentle way I can put such advice would be that a reading of [[WP:SATISFY]] would be beneficial for the filer based on their demands that participants in the RfC give them a satisfactory answer for their opinions to be valid. [[User:EggRoll97|EggRoll97]] <sup>([[User_talk:EggRoll97|talk]]) </sup> 03:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
*I looked the discussion over around a month ago with a view to close, although I didn't get around to it. I think the conclusions I reached were similar to those in the close, so a clear '''endorse''' for me. I also remember noting Orchastrattor's borderline incivility in their [[WP:BLUDGEONING]]-adjacent replies; I suggest they try to keep a lid on that. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 14:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

===Participants (Mukokuseki)===
====SuperNinja2====
This user is constantly edit warring and has disruptive editing behavior and would not stop annoying the community to have the articles reflect their narrative. I hope you take proper action with them to stop them from disturbing the work of the community. We have other things to do than dealing with them. [[User:Super ninja2|☆SuperNinja2☆]] <small>'''[[User talk:Super ninja2|<u>TALK!</u>]]'''</small> 18:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

:I don't even like anime, what narrative would I be pushing? I had essentially no familiarity with the subject of the article before I started collecting the sources for it, I am just placing Yano's view as equally important with other views because that is what the sources indicate. That is the basic requirement of [[WP:Neutral point of view]], if you do not believe it applies in this case the [[WP:BURDEN|burden of proof]] is on you to demonstrate. [[User:Orchastrattor|Orchastrattor]] ([[User talk:Orchastrattor|talk]]) 19:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

====Orchastrattor====
I understand the concerns over SATISFY, however I still feel justified in highlighting Seraphim's case because their answer could have determined whether their comment actually counts as a vote or not, my argument there is that in absence of further clarification the closer should have erred on the side of caution and counted it as a "neutral" vote or something similar. additionally the two comments I directed at Superninja were concerned with an underlying issue of if they were engaging in good faith with an objective reading of the correct revision of the article, something I also feel would have been reasonable for the closer to consider. [[User:Orchastrattor|Orchastrattor]] ([[User talk:Orchastrattor|talk]]) 22:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

===Discussion (Mukokuseki)===

== Release of the 2021 letter to Just Step Sideways ==

The Arbitration Committee attaches the following addendum to its [[Special:Diff/1235136231|previous announcement]] regarding the suspension of Beeblebrox, also known as Just Step Sideways:

{{cot|Redacted contents of the 2021 letter}}
Dear Beeblebrox, 

I'm writing to you on behalf of the rest of the committee, after {{redacted}}. 

Your plain speaking is appreciated, however there have been a couple of occasions that comments made in public risk compromising the faith the community puts in arbitrators to conduct arbitration fairly. Two important traits the community expects us to be are to be (a) discreet and (b) scrupulous/fair.  

Mocking another editor (albeit one currently indefinitely blocked on en-wiki) on a Wikipedia criticism site is not compatible with fairness, and candid comments about differences in opinion concerning {{redacted}} and {{redacted}} are not compatible with discretion.

Outside the public comments, your recent message to the functionaries list regarding {{redacted}} has caused significant consternation amongst editors there. Whilst you may not have realised {{redacted}}, the tone used in regard to another contributor who is participating in good faith was also not compatible with scrupulous behaviour. 

Can you please be really really careful in situations where a public comment (a) may reveal or hint at private committee discussion, or (b) come across as denigrating, mocking or flippantly dismissing another person's concerns, or other ad hominem comments, in all fora, but particularly if made on Wikipediocracy.

For the Arbitration Committee,
{{cob}}

Support: Aoidh, Barkeep49, Guerillero, L235, Moneytrees, Sdrqaz, ToBeFree

Oppose: CaptainEek, Maxim, Primefac, Z1720

Abstain: HJ Mitchell

On behalf of the Committee, [[User:Sdrqaz|Sdrqaz]] ([[User talk:Sdrqaz|talk]]) 22:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
: Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Release of the 2021 letter to Just Step Sideways}}'''<!-- [[User:ArbClerkBot|ArbClerkBot]] ([[User talk:ArbClerkBot|talk]]) 22:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes-->

== Reporting Nisf   ==
{{Atop|OP blocked as a sock.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 23:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)}}
*{{Userlinks|Nisf}}
I sadly wish to report this user for baseless accusations aimed at me. The user claims I have made unconstructive edits when I have not so far during my time here in fact I’ll happy present this for your eyes 
[[Special:Contributions/Fishytimes196]] Please can you help clear this issue for good thank you kindly and sorry for all of this [[User:Fishytimes196|Fishytimes196]] ([[User talk:Fishytimes196|talk]]) 18:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

:That and they went out it they’re way to insult my mother who is no longer around [[User:Fishytimes196|Fishytimes196]] ([[User talk:Fishytimes196|talk]]) 18:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
::Do you have anything to back this up? I can't find any evidence of Nisf having said that. Also, when reporting a user, please inform them on their talk page, I've done it for you. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 18:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Thank u and unfortunately they seem to have erased said information [[User:Fishytimes196|Fishytimes196]] ([[User talk:Fishytimes196|talk]]) 18:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
::::I hope to resolve this issue and gain closure [[User:Fishytimes196|Fishytimes196]] ([[User talk:Fishytimes196|talk]]) 18:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
:::And if u meant in constructive edits then  “Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at [[:List of Disney+ original programming]]. Your edits appear to be [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|disruptive]]” when I barely said anything [[User:Fishytimes196|Fishytimes196]] ([[User talk:Fishytimes196|talk]]) 18:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
::This is a fairly serious accusation that I think should be retracted. <span style="background:#735172;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkgray 2px 2px 2px">&nbsp;[[User:MaybeitsMir|<span style="color:#FFB3DE">miranda</span>]] [[User talk:maybeitsmir|<span style=";color:#bcf7f5">:3</span>]]&nbsp;</span> 22:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
:You must provide [[WP:DIFF]]s of the offending comments. We're not trawling through their contributions trying to figure out what you're referring to. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 18:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
::If nothing can be done about this matter I will respect your decision and move on sorry [[User:Fishytimes196|Fishytimes196]] ([[User talk:Fishytimes196|talk]]) 18:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
:::What I meant was was there anything on my wikipedia contribution page  that u would consider in constructive and attacking sorry not to sound rude [[User:Fishytimes196|Fishytimes196]] ([[User talk:Fishytimes196|talk]]) 18:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
:FYI, [[User:Fishytimes196|Fishytimes196]] appears to be a sockpuppet account for the ISP address 2.98.157.209. The reason for the reversion of their edits has been explained, they were warned their for continued disruptive editing (which they deleted from their talk page). I chose not to engage further and they posted... whatever's going on here. [[User:Nisf|Nisf]] ([[User talk:Nisf|talk]]) 19:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
::It’s official I’m leaving wikiedpia now [[User:Fishytimes196|Fishytimes196]] ([[User talk:Fishytimes196|talk]]) 19:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
:::if I’m considered a puppet then I have not a single thing to say that will convince you otherwise. If you are unwilling to apologise for your actions and end this fight then I’ll just finish it and not speak to u ever again thank u and now I’m out for good. [[User:Fishytimes196|Fishytimes196]] ([[User talk:Fishytimes196|talk]]) 19:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
::::(after edit conflict) {{u|Fishytimes196}}, if you decide to reverse your flouncing out here are a few things to bear in mind:
:::#People are welcome to log in or contribute without logging in, but doing both in the same or related disputes is frowned upon.
:::#Reports at [[WP:AN]] or anywhere where an editor's behaviour needs to be looked at should come with evidence, preferably in the form of [[WP:diff|diff]]s. Things in blue are links which should be read.
:::#People will look at the behaviour of ''everyone'' (including the reporter) involved in a dispute. 
:::#Many people here (including me) are prejudiced against people who don't write in pretty standard, pretty formal English when in a situation that demands it. I mean things like "u" for "you" and the misuse of capital letters.
::::I think that's enough for now. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 19:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::Spelling has nothing to do with this so please move on from that. Thank U [[User:Fishytimes196|Fishytimes196]] ([[User talk:Fishytimes196|talk]]) 19:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Fishytimes196, this is your only warning, do not remove other editors comments. [[User:RickinBaltimore|RickinBaltimore]] ([[User talk:RickinBaltimore|talk]]) 19:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

:My apologies it’s just I’m not happy with the slander present by this user nisf of this issue cannot be resolved then I’ll remove myself from the equation thank u and my apologies for said removal [[User:Fishytimes196|Fishytimes196]] ([[User talk:Fishytimes196|talk]]) 19:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
::@[[User:Fishytimes196|Fishytimes196]], you need to provide a link to the edit in which Nisf {{tq|"went out it they’re way to insult my mother who is no longer around"}}. I've looked at Nisf's contributions and cannot find an edit that supports your accusation. [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 19:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
:::I suspect this is likely a case of [[WP:BOOMERANG]]. I noticed {{User13|2.98.157.209}}'s problematic editing a few days ago and just judging {{diff2|1235121207|by the edits here}}, they're the [[WP:LOUTSOCK]] of {{user|Fishytimes196}} – [[User:Macaddct1984|macaddct1984]] <sup>([[User talk:Macaddct1984|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Macaddct1984|contribs]])</sup> 20:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
::::Just a [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:173.189.21.186&diff=prev&oldid=1235055483&diffmode=source coincidence] I bet. [[User:OverlordQ|<span style="color:#171788;font-weight:bold">Q</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:OverlordQ|T]] [[Special:Contributions/OverlordQ|C]]</sup> 20:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::Fishy times indeed – [[User:Macaddct1984|macaddct1984]] <sup>([[User talk:Macaddct1984|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Macaddct1984|contribs]])</sup> 20:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
{{Abot}}

== Merging an article ==

It has been suggested to merge the [[Marshal of the Sri Lanka Air Force]] article to [[Roshan Goonetileke]], I do not know how to merge, please tell me the system of merging, after merging contents from the [[Marshal of the Sri Lanka Air Force]] to [[Roshan Goonetileke]], will the [[Marshal of the Sri Lanka Air Force]] article be redirected to [[Roshan Goonetileke]]? [[User:Hamwal|Hamwal]] ([[User talk:Hamwal|talk]]) 07:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

:They've been merged. For future reference, see [[Wikipedia:Merging#How to merge]]. &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 08:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

== Proposed motion on historical elections ==

The Arbitration Committee is considering a '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion: Historical elections|proposed motion]]''' related to opening a case to examine behavior within the historical election topic area. Community statements are welcome at the above link. For the Arbitration Committee, --[[User:Guerillero|Guerillero]] <sup>[[User_talk:Guerillero|<span style="color: green;">Parlez Moi</span>]]</sup> 20:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
: Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Proposed motion on historical elections}}'''<!-- [[User:ArbClerkBot|ArbClerkBot]] ([[User talk:ArbClerkBot|talk]]) 20:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes-->

== Indian National Army potential edit warring ==

Hello, I am trying to bring attention to a potential edit warring on the page [[Indian National Army]]. The page had been initially written with painful attention to NPOV since there is a percpetion amongst Indians that this organisation was one of "Freedom fighter", whilst amongst British historians they were "Fascist/Japanese collaborators". This was covered in the main article. I haven't kept watch on this article, but it seems the "collaborator" identity (and a pejorative connotation) has now become very important to a few editors, along with factual inaccuracies, and my reversion to the last neutral version (although still degenrated to a poor version since 2007) has since been reverted by another editor [[User:Orientls|Orientls]] ([[User talk:Orientls|talk]]) twice. I do not wish to engage edit warring, but it appears the editor has dismissed the fact that the article (as initially written in NPOV) relied on history books written by historians dedicated to the topic, and instead relying on snippets and sentences from tertiary sources like sentences etc in publsihed book to claim [[WP:RS]]. I have pointed out that there are two POVs, but this particular editor appears to be very dismissive of other PoVs to the point of dismissing reliable sources, and appers to be asking for evidence of what is very obvious. some help and input would be appreciated.[[User:rueben_lys|rueben_lys]] ([[User talk:rueben_lys|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/rueben_lys|contribs]]) 17:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
:The edit warring appears to have been by the OP. This is a content dispute that should be discussed, as it is being, on the article talk page. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 21:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Doing a {{diff|Indian_National_Army|961601765|1235310493|4 year revert}} is a bold choice, granted that page history is a ''mess'' – [[User:Macaddct1984|macaddct1984]] <sup>([[User talk:Macaddct1984|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Macaddct1984|contribs]])</sup> 23:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
::::I will note that the 4-year revert to the "stable" version ''stretches'' the term "stable" a bit. In my capacity as an admin, I'd recommend 1RR be imposed to prevent this sort of back-and-forth slower edit warring. — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 14:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
*I would recommend article protection or page blocks for both parties because from the talk page discussion because frankly both sides are wrong: rueben_lys arguing that NPOV should be based on what "people" believe rather than reliable and sources and Orientls citing a [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Rising_Sun_Victorious/hy51EAAAQBAJ book about a imagined alternate history] in which the Japanese won WWII for historical facts! [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] ([[User talk:Abecedare|talk]]) 14:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
:*You are reading it wrong. On talk page, I had cited a total of [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indian_National_Army&diff=prev&oldid=1235224684 5 sources] of which this book is one, authored by military historian [[Peter G. Tsouras]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?search=%22Peter+G.+Tsouras%22&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 cited across Wikipedia]) and this has called "more academic in nature" (in comparison with other alternate histories) by others.[https://www.criticsatlarge.ca/2014/06/alternate-history-sf-so-many-worlds-to.html]  Also see earlier discussion on military alternative history on [[WP:RSN]].[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_236#Alternative_history] Nobody blocks anyone for citing such books in talk page discussion only for showing a "prevalent fact" which is backed by other 4 scholarly sources cited in the same message. [[User:Orientls|Orientls]] ([[User talk:Orientls|talk]]) 07:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

== KiranBOT ==

KiranBOT keeps add things like [[:Special:diff/KiranBot/1234850816|this]] to [[:Wikipedia:In the news/Posted/November 2004]]. I know the bot is just doing what it's been tasked to do and doesn't "read" what it's adding, but that's some pretty offensive stuff that might even need to be [[:WP:REVDEL]]. Perhaps someone needs to manually go through the bots edits and get rid of the really offensive stuff, and also check that it's not happening on other pages. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 13:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
:I've blocked the bot for the moment until this can be sorted out. [[User:RickinBaltimore|RickinBaltimore]] ([[User talk:RickinBaltimore|talk]]) 13:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
::Also if this is sorted out and I'm not around, any admin can lift the block for me. [[User:RickinBaltimore|RickinBaltimore]] ([[User talk:RickinBaltimore|talk]]) 13:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
:::I terminated the program responsible for that particular task, in case {{u|RickinBaltimore}} is not around, would someone kindly unblock the bot? I will fix the problem soon, but the bot needs to be unblocked for other tasks. I apologise for the inconvenience, and thanks for the patience. —usernamekiran [[User talk:usernamekiran|(talk)]] 16:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
::::Got it for you. No problem, happy to help! [[User:RickinBaltimore|RickinBaltimore]] ([[User talk:RickinBaltimore|talk]]) 16:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::Thanks {{u|RickinBaltimore|Rick}}! See you around :-) —usernamekiran [[User talk:usernamekiran|(talk)]] 17:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
:By the way, this appears to be a legitimate archival, just that the bot is trying to archive vandalism. See [[Wikipedia:Edit_filter_noticeboard/Archive_12#bot_triggering_filters|here]] for the previous discussion. The behavior is ultimately just the bot functioning as intended, it's just that the page history for the ITN template includes revisions by the AppleWorks vandal back in 2004 (I know, ye olden days.) which inserted graphic imagery since the template wasn't fully protected back then. [[User:EggRoll97|EggRoll97]] <sup>([[User_talk:EggRoll97|talk]]) </sup> 18:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
::{{ping|EggRoll97|RickinBaltimore|usernamekiran}} I realize the bot is just doing what it's been tasked to do and isn't acting or being used maliciously. I also am not trying to throw shade on the bot's creator/operator. The problem totally lies at the feet of the accounts that originally made the posts being archived. The bot is, however, still archiving things like [[:Special:diff/KiranBot/1234852395|this]] mixed in with the proper edits it's archiving. This issue seems to involve archiving really old ITN posts that almost certainly would be immediately removed and likely revdeleted if made today. Is there's a way to use the bot (directly or indirectly) to find these post so that an administrator can go in and get rid of them once and for all? There's no point in doing anything about the accounts that made the posts, but the posts themselves shouldn't be allowed to be publicly visible on some archived page. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 20:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Yeah this sort of thing happens with old history archives. It also occurred with the old bot-generated village pump archives; I obliterated most of the evidence when reordering them last year, but you can still see some bizarre letter-changing vandalism in [[Special:Permalink/449382140#TechTV/Comcast Merger|this bot archive ]] of [[Wikipedia:Village pump/Archive AH]] (search for Comcast if the anchor doesn't work). [[User:Graham87|Graham87]] ([[User talk:Graham87|talk]]) 03:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
:I don't know if this is really the end of the world; it's just a bunch of schoolyard nonsense. I mean: "{{tq|A bastard on wheels is an ugly car on FUCKING BASTARDS BLOODY MOTHERFUCKING BASTARD FOR PISSING IN MY FUCKING GRANNYS FLOWERPOTS}}" -- who cares? Anyway, this is a [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Posted/November_2004&action=history thing which seems to co back to December]. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contribs/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 12:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

== Peter Sonski 2024 Presidential Campaign ==

Could an administrator take a look at [[:Peter Sonski 2024 Presidential Campaign]]? It seems to have been started as [[:Draft:Peter Sonski 2024 Presidential Campaign]], but then was copied and pasted into the mainspace earlier today. A draft isn't really needed if the article is OK for the mainspace, but perhaps it would be better to submit this to AfC for review. I did some really minor clean up, but there's still entire sections that are unsourced and seem to have some NPOV issues. There's also a good chance there might be some COI edit going on, but that's just a guess. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 02:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

:Agree that draftifying and submitting to AfC would be the right venue for this - it’s certainly in-depth enough to make a decent article, and the existing sourcing seems adequate, but I share the NPOV/{{cn}} concerns. [[User:The Kip|<span style="color:#333f42;">'''The'''</span>]] [[User talk:The Kip|<span style="color:#b4975a;">'''Kip'''</span>]] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Kip|contribs]])</sup></small></span> 03:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
:The copy-paste is fine [[WP:COPYWITHIN|attribution-wise]], since the sole author of the draft is also the one who copied the content from the draft into the mainspace. But [https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Peter+Sonski+2024+Presidential+Campaign&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=0&use_links=1&turnitin=0 Earwig] is not super happy when just checking the links in the page, as this appears to largely be a copy-paste from [https://www.petersonski.com/vision campaign] [https://www.petersonski.com/Lauren-Onak materials] or [https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2023/06/peter-sonski-chosen-as-american-solidarity-presidential-nominee-on-first-ballot/ elsewhere]. [[WP:COPYPROBLEMS]] here we come... — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 03:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
:<small>Also, {{yo|Marchjuly}} you probably should notify the page creator when bringing this sort of thing here if you are alleging that {{tq|there might be some COI edit going on}}. I've done so, in [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eleutherius&diff=prev&oldid=1235198736 this edit], but just please remember to do so going forward. — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 04:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC) </small>
::{{ping|Red-tailed hawk}} My bad about the lack of COI notification. My apologies to the creator for that. Anyway, I didn't think attribution was a problem for the reason you cited, It does seem redundant, though, to have a draft and an article about the same subject matter. Assuming the the copyvio problems also pertain to the draft, then perhaps it should be nuked so that the focus can be shifted to clearing the article of copyvio content. Are you going to list the article at [[:WP:CPN]]? -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 04:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Already done at [[Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2024 July 18]]. — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 04:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Red-tailed hawk}} Thanks for taking care of the CPN stuff. I've apologized to the creator on their user talk page for not notifying them about this. I suggested that they consider requesting that the draft be deleted per [[:WP:G7]] since there's really no need for it anymore. If that's not possible until the copyvio issue is resolved, please let me know. I'll strike that suggestion from my post. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 04:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::Hi all. 
:::::thanks for all the info. 
:::::Ive rewritten the article on my sandbox without the copyvio material. I did use one link as a ref in a way i think complies. 
:::::Either way... am i ok to just paste back in the article with the clarifications or are there other things to do?  I should add that a good percentatge of the article was already outside of the copyvio sections. 
:::::Thanks again [[User:Eleutherius|Eleutherius]] ([[User talk:Eleutherius|talk]]) 02:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

apologies i read the way ahead on the copyvio notice.  Still learning. I think ive rectified the situation now.  
[[User:Eleutherius|Eleutherius]] ([[User talk:Eleutherius|talk]]) 15:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

== Can we place Extended confirmed protection? ==
all articles on Israel - Palestine articles should have this
this article was recently created.
on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_to_the_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war [[User:Astropulse|Astropulse]] ([[User talk:Astropulse|talk]]) 10:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

:[[Wikipedia:Requests for page protection]] [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 11:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
:ScottishFinnishRadish took care of the recently added article. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 11:10, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

== Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Death of Jay Slater  ==

Is there a template or something that can be added to [[:Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Death of Jay Slater]] to let those posting on it know that !votes should be added to the discusion's main page? Maybe {{tl|Not a vote}}? In addition, it seems like it might be a good idea to add "Not a vote" to [[:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Jay Slater]]. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 20:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
* Added (not a vote) template to the AfD. As for the others, not a lot we can do except tell them they've got it wrong, but I bet most of them aren't ... shall we say ... people who are going to come back and take any notice of it. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 20:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
*: Thank you for doing that {{u|Black Kite}}. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 00:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

== Account hacked ==

I have two Wikipedia accounts. On my new device I was able to log in to my first one alright, but the email of my second one was changed. I have publicly linked both of them a long time ago and I can prove my identity. Please help. [[Special:Contributions/2409:4042:818:A8D5:28D6:71FF:FE03:CB55|2409:4042:818:A8D5:28D6:71FF:FE03:CB55]] ([[User talk:2409:4042:818:A8D5:28D6:71FF:FE03:CB55|talk]]) 04:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
:Well if you can log on from one, then you can post from there to prove who you are. see [[Wikipedia:Compromised accounts#After being compromised]]. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 06:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

== Rohitha Aluvihare ==

I have created a page titled [[Rohitha Aluvihare]], please create a talk page of this article. [[User:Hamwal|Hamwal]] ([[User talk:Hamwal|talk]]) 10:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

:Someone already created it. In the future you can create it yourself by clicking on the red link (e.g. the Talk tab) and typing some wikicode. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 10:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

== User is ignoring ArbCom's explicit instructions, is harassing, hounding, and attacking me ==
{{atop|1=Complaint has been withdrawn, nothing to do here. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 13:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)}}

{{User3|CloversMallRat}} (CMR) is someone who edits--among other topics--music-related articles. On several occasions, some of his editing has involved coming to an article to change its existing styles (among other changes that he makes). I have brought up how we have several portions of the MoS that explicitly say to not do this (e.g. [[MOS:CITEVAR]] or [[MOS:RETAIN]]), particularly [[MOS:VAR]], which reads in part:
:"The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]] has expressed the principle that "When either of two styles is acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change."
:With citations to [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|ArbCom]] decisions in [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk#Principles|June 2005]], [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/jguk 2#Principles|November 2005]], and [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sortan#Principles|2006]]
and continues:
:enforcing optional style in a [[Wikipedia:Bot policy#Assisted editing guidelines|bot-like]] fashion without prior consensus, [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|is never acceptable]]
Germane to this, [[WP:ALBUMSTYLE]] is a style advice page that has been thoroughly vetted repeatedly at [[WT:ALBUM]] and the community members there have expressed on multiple occasions that it represents the will of the editors and that it should be incorporated into the MoS. Regarding track listings, it reads in part:
:"A track listing should generally be formatted as a numbered list... In more complicated situations (releases with a wide variety of writers/producers, compilations culled from multiple sources, etc.), a table or the {{tl|Track listing}} template may be a better choice."
It proceeds to give examples of all three styles and discusses other elements. The most recent time this has been discussed and revised was just weeks ago.

Over the course of several years, CloversMallRat has continued to come to album articles and change their styles and I have brought up this topic at his talk page multiple times. In spite of the fact that there are two or more acceptable styles, he has insisted on converting existing, stable articles to his preferred style with justifications such as "<var>style</var> is more popular" or "<var>style</var> is used on all of the other articles by this artist", etc. without addressing that these changes should not be made unilaterally and he has also refused to revert himself in these cases. Examples over the years:
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Your_Life_Is_a_Record&type=revision&diff=944475561&oldid=944474619 2020-03-07]
**Discussed [[User_talk:CloversMallRat/Archive_3#Confusing_edit|here]] with no response from CMR.
**[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Your_Life_Is_a_Record&diff=next&oldid=944481572 Added again]
***Discussed [[User_talk:CloversMallRat/Archive_3#Please_see_WP:BRD_and_WP:3RR|here]] with no response from CMR and no post to talk. Eventually, a discussion did happen here: [[Talk:Your_Life_Is_a_Record#Track listing]] with literally every other person pointing out how it is not normative or required to use {{tl|track listing}} and no consensus to change the format.
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Carolyn%27s_Boy&diff=prev&oldid=1180003173 2023-10-13]
**Discussed [[User_talk:CloversMallRat/Archive_3#Track_listing_formats|here]] where CMR did actually engage in discussion, but his rationales again ignored what ArbCom explicitly said about multiple acceptable styles and he is in my opinion, enforcing his preferred style in a bot-like fashion by calling converting track listings things like "bringing them up to date" or "fixing" or [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Psychopath_%28album%29&diff=1235558932&oldid=1235557954 noting ''other'' changes he makes while omitting the fact that he is changing the style at the same time] or leaving [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ain%27t_My_Last_Rodeo&diff=1232515279&oldid=1194210386 no substantive edit summary at all and refusing to give any reason why he did it].

This came up again today because he did the [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Stampede_%28Orville_Peck_album%29&diff=1235395043&oldid=1233927777 same thing all over again], inserting his preferred style for the track listing and ignoring [[MOS:CITEVAR]] in this edit (he amended the latter issue later: I mention this to point out how he ''is'' in fact conscious of the fact that there are multiple acceptable styles for several things on Wikipedia and he does know better than to change or ignore them based on personal preference). When I brought it up at his talk page again, he refused to revert himself and seek consensus. He gave a justification for his edits based on this being a duets album, but of course, he has also done the same thing of changing to his preferred style on [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ain%27t_My_Last_Rodeo&diff=1232515279&oldid=1194210386 other track listings] evidently just because he wanted to (note that I did explicitly ask him why he did this and he refused to answer). I asked him [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACloversMallRat&diff=1235443483&oldid=1235397279 why he made this change] and I have repeatedly asked him if he is willing to revert himself, but he has refused to explain his actions, revert himself, or post to talk. Instead, he has:
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CloversMallRat&diff=next&oldid=1235548256 insulted me and stated that since a majority of articles are a certain style, that justifies changing the other articles to his preferred style] (which, of course is exactly why [[MOS:VAR]], [[MOS:CITEVAR]], [[MOS:RETAIN]], etc. exist: because there are ''multiple acceptable styles''.)
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CloversMallRat&diff=next&oldid=1235551481 he has imposed his own standard on when a certain style can and cannot be allowed, which has no basis in consensus or discussion at all] ("the only time when it is preferable and effective to utilize that"), which again, seems to confirm that he insists that he will continue in a bot-like fashion converting articles to his preferred style.
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aria1561&diff=prev&oldid=1235551335 followed me to another user's talk page], [[WP:HOUNDING|hounding]] and leaving a [[WP:PERSONALATTACK|personal attack]]. (The third party removed his comments and told him to not post unrelated topics on his talk page.)
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CloversMallRat&diff=next&oldid=1235556500 proceeded] to do the same preferred-style replacement at another article that I have recently created with [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Psychopath_(album)&diff=prev&oldid=1235558932 another misleading edit summary]. I do not know if he explicitly chose an article just because I created it, but I am alleging that he did purely to be provocative and cause me more grief.
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CloversMallRat&diff=next&oldid=1235556500 When I pointed out how he just so happened to have done this same behavior on an article I created], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CloversMallRat&diff=next&oldid=1235560701 this was his unacceptable response, which should never have been posted].

CMR is explicit and recalcitrant that he will not abide by the clear instructions of ArbCom, has engaged in this behavior on repeated occasions for several years knowing better, and is now deliberately attacking, hounding, and harassing me personally, and he is generally not acting in a way that is collaborative, civil, or acceptable. I am requesting admin action and for someone else to please undo his style changes at [[Ain't My Last Rodeo]], [[Psychopath (album)]], and [[Stampede (Orville Peck album)]], while retaining the useful additions he has made. ―[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''<span style="color:black">v</span>f</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 23:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

:[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACloversMallRat&diff=1235564833&oldid=1235562341 Notice given]. ―[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''<span style="color:black">v</span>f</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 23:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
::There are several things to note here, among them:
::"Discussed here with no response from CMR and no post to talk. Eventually, a discussion did happen here: Talk:Your_Life_Is_a_Record#Track listing with literally every other person pointing out how it is not normative or required to use {{[[Template:track listing|track listing]]}} and no consensus to change the format."
::: Only two outside parties responded, and one of them agreed with me that the style should be consistent across an artist's catalog, which is why that initial issue took place because she had released two prior studio albums where the style was inconsistent with the format you used on her third record. I was not aware of the rationale behind your complaints at the time this took place, as it was the first instance that it occurred, and eventually made an effort to engage in discussion as requested because in this particular case, nothing new was being added.
::"followed me to another user's talk page, hounding and leaving a personal attack. (The third party removed his comments and told him to not post unrelated topics on his talk page.)"
::: This user responded in their edit summary being wholly unfavorable in YOUR direction, rather than mine, so this is a very odd way of spinning this to make you look better. (https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aria1561&action=history) And while granted I shouldn't have posted anything in that conversation in all honesty, I did take notice that you were employing the same hostile scare tactics over another reputable user simultaneously for perfectly acceptable edits they had made, and being deliberately combative/obtuse when they explained themselves adequately.
::"When I pointed out how he just so happened to have done this same behavior on an article I created, this was his unacceptable response, which should never have been posted."
::: With respect to [[Psychopath (album)]], you were more bent out of shape about the style change than actually putting in the time and energy to sufficiently add songwriters to the article you created! You seem to have a sort of superiority complex about articles as if you creating them makes them "yours" and yet couldn't even be bothered it seems to fully complete the job? A tracklisting without songwriting credits when they're easily obtainable on the Internet is just ridiculous. I didn't actually note that you had created this one; the timing is just odd because I was listening to Morgan Wade's newest song that came out today ("Total Control") and it caused me to go to her page and notice that, a year after release, her album STILL had no songwriting credits.
::And with regards to ''Stampede'', as that is what prompted all of this aggression today: 
::: I explicitly stated WHY the style was edited, because the format you had used was inadequate for a duets album where not a single one of the duets was properly notated. The purpose of the {{[[Template:tracklisting|tracklisting}} is to expand upon more complicated tracklistings, and you failed to properly list this vital information seeing as the project is a DUETS album, therein every track realistically should have something indicating a featured artist somewhere on it.
::Lastly, above all else,
::: Justin/Koavf has repeatedly approached me with a hostility and confronting nature, time and time again, while also repeatedly ignoring and steamrolling past my responses where I try to actually engage with him in discourse, instead choosing to continue exerting a superiority complex over me. I am merely editing Wikipedia with the whole purpose of improving articles and adding beneficial information, which is a lot of times lacking in these instances. I gave a 100% completely valid and sensible reason why the ''Stampede'' tracklisting was updated to reflect additional information necessary to have in the article, i.e. This user seems to have a great deal of time and energy to expand on policing my editing history, and it is reflected in instances like choosing to berate me about fully updating tracklistings with proper info, instead of just... finishing the job himself the first time. The fact that me adding songwriters or duet partners to articles you created but did not complete has caused you to experience "grief" is just unsettling, to say the least. Reading my talk page from today gives a clear glimpse at the obtuse nature with which this user addresses me. I do not wish to engage in these cyclical debates with this user and have to worry about whether I'm accidentally adding something to one of his precious untouchable articles that he's created. I have edited Wikipedia for nearly two decades and have never had a single other user on this website who has repeatedly hounded me the way this person has over stuff that I have added for the benefit of the article at hand. The time and effort you've put into this witchhunt against me exceeding your time and effort put into the articles you create says a lot of your character imo and is part of the reason why I have a hard time being able to even engage in civility with you because you just quite frankly won't allow it. It's just exhausting. [[User:CloversMallRat|CloversMallRat]] ([[User talk:CloversMallRat|talk]]) 00:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

* This is a preposterous complaint.  I don't see how an ARBCOM decision from nearly 20 years ago is "explicit instructions" for this dispute.  <s>I don't see how [[Special:Diff/1232515279]] or [[Special:Diff/1235395043]] are inappropriate (EDIT: apparently Koavf's "diff" involved 17 edits from 3 users; the links may not include the objectionable changes).</s>  And I don't see what other diffs are considered problematic.  Koavf has enough experience to know that [[WP:AN]] complaints should be clearer and less bombastic. [[User:Walsh90210|Walsh90210]] ([[User talk:Walsh90210|talk]]) 00:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
** [[Special:Diff/1233927777/1235400176]] (16 edits by CloversMallRat) seems to be the diff for the most recent dispute; I think the use of the {{tl|track listing}} template instead of a wikitext list is the crux of the dispute.  I must frown upon appealing to [[MOS:VAR]] to prevent style-changes when editors are rushing to create an article about an album that has not been released. [[User:Walsh90210|Walsh90210]] ([[User talk:Walsh90210|talk]]) 01:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
**:It's also worth noting that the statement cited indicates "unless there is some substantial reason for the change" and I assessed that adding duet partners to a duet album is a pretty damn convincing argument for updating the tracklisting to properly include and display that information. Instead of listening to that though he just started yelling at a different cloud and instead cited an album from 1999 as proof of not needing to use {{[[Template:tracklisting|tracklisting]]}}. [[User:CloversMallRat|CloversMallRat]] ([[User talk:CloversMallRat|talk]]) 01:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
**:: I agree.  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice]] (an essay, but a long-standing one which has had this content for over a decade and which Koavf has edited multiple times) says {{tq|In more complicated situations (releases with a wide variety of writers/producers, compilations culled from multiple sources, etc.), a table or the {{tl|Track listing}} template may be a better choice.}}, and that certainly applies to [[Stampede (Orville Peck album)]], where each song has different performers.  This is not just a meaningless style change, it is an informed style change related to the addition of information to the article. [[User:Walsh90210|Walsh90210]] ([[User talk:Walsh90210|talk]]) 01:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
**:::And for all the other articles? ―[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''<span style="color:black">v</span>f</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 01:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
**:::: This complaint is a mess and I am not going to keep digging on your behalf for possible malfeasance by another editor. [[User:Walsh90210|Walsh90210]] ([[User talk:Walsh90210|talk]]) 01:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
**:::::What could I do to make the complaint less of a mess? ―[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''<span style="color:black">v</span>f</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 01:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
**:::::For added/further context, one of the other article he is also disputing ([[Psychopath (album)]] is one regarding an album from August of 2023, which he created in December of 2023, and I just TODAY came by and added the songwriting credits to the tracklisting. So, in short, he created an article over 7 months ago and never even bothered to complete the tracklisting in question, but has the time and energy instead to complain that I did it differently than he would have, had he actually done it himself in the first place. [[User:CloversMallRat|CloversMallRat]] ([[User talk:CloversMallRat|talk]]) 01:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
*:The way that it's relevant is that "When either of two styles is acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." and this user is just going to articles to change styles repeatedly. If I went to all instances of {{tl|track listing}} and just removed them and replaced them with plain lists, would that be appropriate? ―[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''<span style="color:black">v</span>f</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 01:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
*::Why would the presentation of the track listing fall within the scope of CITEVAR? [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 01:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::It doesn't. I appealed to [[MOS:VAR]]. ―[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''<span style="color:black">v</span>f</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 01:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

::I haven't looked through all of the evidence presented here but the diffs I have looked at show that [[User:Koavf|Justin]] makes a lot of demands on experienced editors to revert their edits when he disapproves of them or he will "escalate" the situation. You might feel that you are providing guidance to other editors who, like I said, are experienced editors but it reads like you are telling them what to do according to your interpretation of policy without considering their perspective might be different but equally correct. Your attitude seems absolutely certain and unyielding which is not a good way of working with editors who also edit in the area you focus on. Have you ever considered that you might be wrong and they just have a different point of view? You might not be right 100% of the time. 
::I don't know enough about the music guidelines to say whose right and whose wrong here (if there is a right and wrong) so I'm just looking at how you choose to interact with other editors which seems less than optimal. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 01:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
:::I have, yes. ―[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''<span style="color:black">v</span>f</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 01:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
* An idea, perhaps. Does the style change actually harm anyone? And by that I mean, does it actually make it harder to read? If yes, that seems like something that needs to be elaborated on (because all I'm seeing is a slight bit of changing in a list?). If no, then does it actually matter? We really could do with a page about "no one should be expected to know the Manual of Style". The closest I can find is [[WP:MOSCREEP]], but the length of the MoS is ridiculous, so holding anyone to it is equally ridiculous. As for ArbCom, it's worth noting that in years like 2005, you could become an admin with [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rholton|13 people supporting and 3000 edits]], and rulings from back in that day aren't exactly the most widely perused today. Regardless of all that, and the idea that maybe we should stick a bit closer to [[WP:IAR]] when it comes to the MoS, this seems like a content dispute with a couple people getting a bit out of hand, and should probably be taken to [[WP:3O]] or [[WP:DRN]] instead of continuing lectures on talk pages. [[User:EggRoll97|EggRoll97]] <sup>([[User_talk:EggRoll97|talk]]) </sup> 08:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
*:If you think there's a better venue, then I am willing to use that instead. The problem is that ''I'' could go around changing styles to whatever ''I'' prefer, too and someone else could go around changing them to another, etc. It causes a waste of time to change from one arbitrary style to another and to bicker over a certain date format or a certain citation style instead of just sticking to one within an article and being consistent for that article. CMR knows this and yet he just changes things to whatever he wants. Would I be justified in changing things to however I personally prefer, too? ―[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''<span style="color:black">v</span>f</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 10:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
*::You continue to keep insinuating this idea that I'm just arbitrarily changing styles for fun or to cause you immense "grief", but in at least two of the instances under dispute, I expanded the tracklisting in question with provided reasoning because you failed to properly provide all the information yourself, and the information was not something that could easily be slotted into the style you had chosen to use. If your grand takeaway from this is to just go around changing things without actually adding info or improving articles on Wikipedia, then you're completely missing the point, and several people seem to have already responded to you above addressing this superiority complex you seem to enjoy flexing on others. Like I said above in one of my responses, you have literally chosen to exert more time and energy into being upset with me, than you have at actually properly adding information that you could've just included in the first place. When your priorities are focused on how I edit "your" articles over actually making meaningful additions to Wikipedia, your heart is in the wrong place. [[User:CloversMallRat|CloversMallRat]] ([[User talk:CloversMallRat|talk]]) 18:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::This is--who knows?--the eighth time I've asked you this. We'll see if you decide to answer this time. Why did you change the established style [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ain%27t_My_Last_Rodeo&diff=1196337555&oldid=1196335580 here] other than "I like it"? And if "I like it" is enough of a justification for you, surely it's enough of one for me to change all instances of styles I don't like too, correct? Looking forward to you actually answering these questions. Also, your allegations are false. ―[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''<span style="color:black">v</span>f</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 21:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
*::::The answer to your question, which I am not obligated to provide because you are not a superior to me and boldly rehash the number of times you've harassed me with them, is that I edited it to reflect the format of his prior album for consistency's sake, something that [[User:TenPoundHammer]] himself (the creator of the article in question) had referenced in one of your previous "gotcha" attempts: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Your_Life_Is_a_Record]. The fact that you are once again concerned and focused exclusively on that -- an instance you only discovered after you'd launched your initial demands that I undo my edits for ''Stampede'' -- and continue to constantly evade addressing that I've improved two articles you created that you never properly put the appropriate work in to finish their tracklistings (''Stampede'' and ''Psychopath''). I find it curious that you never have anything to say about that, perhaps because you have no explanation why you never finished your job. Once again, if you dedicated this much time and energy into editing Wikipedia for the better instead of trying to police me on my editing Wikipedia for the better, you'd be way better off. [[User:CloversMallRat|CloversMallRat]] ([[User talk:CloversMallRat|talk]]) 02:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::::What is it in principle you want me to say about the constructive edits you've made? It's like you deliberately miss the point: no one is arguing that ''everything'' you have done is inappropriate, so I don't know why you keep on talking in circles about how "I added songwriters!" Great. Thank you for your service. There's nothing to discuss there. Instead, you keep on droning on about irrelevant noise and complete lies. The fact is, as pointed out below, you keep on changing styles based on your arbitrary standards which we should not do. That standard could be "But I like it" or "It looks cooler" or "The only time that style <var>x</var> is allowable is under the following conditions..." but they are all made up by you, not decided by any consensus, and the exact opposite of what the MoS says repeatedly, which is when there are multiple acceptable styles, changing them arbitrarily is not acceptable. And then you seem to think that abusive and berating language that you post about me everywhere is okay. ―[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''<span style="color:black">v</span>f</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 09:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
*Like others who have commented here, I haven't looked at everything cited in the walls of text above, but generally, the MOS is not enforceable, and ArbCom principles from seventeen and eighteen years ago are not justification for anything in the contemporary editing environment. The committee was a ''very'' different beast back in 2006. It took dozens of cases a year, screwed up at least as many as it got right, and did not have a well-defined scope. [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|<sup>from this world ..... today</sup>]] 19:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
*:I'm also finding the section title to be deliberately misleading. [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|<sup>from this world ..... today</sup>]] 03:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
*@Koavf: The above is too long. If ''new'' examples of arbitrary style changes occur, please let me know. {{ping|CloversMallRat}} Like others, I haven't examined this but despite responses above, changing the style of anything in an article without good reason is very disruptive. As pointed out above, it is obviously not going to work because what one person likes will be quite different from what others like. Churning from style changes will be prevented. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 02:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
*:Good reasons were given; they were just ignored and/or deemed insufficient by the complainant. One such example was given above and [[User talk:Walsh90210]] declared it was indeed a legitimate reason for the stylistic change. He has leveraged this entire thing to look like I'm making disruptive edits, when in reality my edits have been purely to improve and expand upon missing vital information from the articles in question. [[User:CloversMallRat|CloversMallRat]] ([[User talk:CloversMallRat|talk]]) 03:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
*::I'm finding [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CloversMallRat/Archive_3#Track_listing_formats this discussion] linked to above by Justin as evidence that CMR is the problem here, shows instead Justin seeming to just get angrier and angrier when the answers are not to his liking, eventually resorting to both '''{{big|bolding and enlarging}}''' his comments to basically yell at CMR. [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|<sup>from this world ..... today</sup>]] 04:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::An interesting find that prompted me to enter into a state of deja vu, because I could've sworn that Koavf was just a guest on this noticeboard only slightly over six months ago, and I was right. They are subject to a 0RR restriction by community consensus [[Special:Diff/1194679025#Proposal:_0RR_with_no_unilateral_unblocks|here]], and have apparently [[Special:Diff/1225143187|found it difficult to comply with this mandate]]. This isn't even to mention that they also violated it [[Special:Diff/1221300523|again]] by reverting an addition of a CSD tag (though in all fairness, they have self-reverted). [[User:EggRoll97|EggRoll97]] <sup>([[User_talk:EggRoll97|talk]]) </sup> 05:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
*::::In the interests of good faith and ensuring compliance, I have reverted myself. Note that the tag says "This status should be changed if collaborative activity resumes." so I thought what I did was consistent with the tag that the user placed there. I have also removed tags like {{tl|cn}} when the request is met. Does that constitute a violation of 0RR? It seems like when someone places {{tl|cn}} on a page that person is actively soliciting someone to remove it (by completing the request for a citation itself). I have tried to be strict about the 0RR ban and have solicited feedback here about what could even constitute a "revert": obviously, trying to use the revert tool is unacceptable, but things that could inadvertently result in basically undoing someone's work I have tried to avoid entirely. I have been careful to not remove content or even undo vandalism in the interests of being as conservative as I can or [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Marcello_Hernandez&diff=1218927533&oldid=1218921285 self-reverting on times that I have been negligent], as you noted above. ―[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''<span style="color:black">v</span>f</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 09:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
*Recidivism noted. See: [[WP:RECIDIVISM]]. Also noted that, but for {{u|Ritchie333}}'s {{tq|cowboy}} unblock (pretty roundly [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive358#Koavf_unblocked|condemned at AN]]) in January this year of {{u|Bbb23}}'s original indef from the previous November, Koavf would not be able to continue the trolling that we are once again enjoying. Noted; a site ban was very much on the cards; the refrain was "How many times does Koavf need to be blocked?" rolling alongside "How often does the community have to put up with this?". Altho the site ban did not pass, the closing admin, {{u|Extraordinary Writ}}, noted that {{blockquote|text=It should be abundantly clear that Koavf is on very thin ice, and even editors opposing the siteban describe this as "one last shot", "a final chance", "pretty much a last chance", etc. I don't think it's likely that the community will give any more last chances in the future.}}The walls-of-text battering ram approach taken to editor interaction, noted by {{u|EggRoll97}} and {{u|Just Step S'ways}} here reflect an earlier comment by {{u|Bishonen}} that she and {{u|Doug Weller}} had been {{tq|comprehensively attacked by Koavf}} in November. This is only a few months ago. I'm not sure what's worse, these perennial discussions or our ''in''ability (or is it refusal?) to do anything about the root cause.  [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:red">——Serial Number 54129</span>]] 12:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
*::{{ec}} {{re|Serial Number 54129}} Was that AN discussion ever formally closed with a disposition? Your link just shows it sort of ending.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 12:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::Thanks {{u|Bbb23}} and apologies; I unhelpfully linked to a post halfway through the discussion. I've updated it to the final score. While the SBan proposal lost traction, the closing admin made some pretty choice remarks, which I've added to my post.  [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:red">——Serial Number 54129</span>]] 12:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
*:I appreciate that you disagree with the premise of my post and I also appreciate that the tag that I changed explicitly says to change it if necessary and that others may understand the manner in which I did that being inappropriate (hence I have undone it and posted to talk). I do not think that characterizing my post as trolling is fair. I am making a good faith post that is not an attempt to be [[Troll (slang)|disingenuous or inflammatory or provocative without any reason]]. I made an actual attempt to discuss what I thought was behavior that contradicts an ArbCom ruling and which involved making personal attacks against someone and hounding that person across the site. I also appreciate that some of the language that I used discussing on my talk with Bishonen and Doug Weller was inappropriate. Have I engaged in similar inappropriate behavior since then or in this conversation? ―[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''<span style="color:black">v</span>f</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 12:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
*:Would [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Julie_Byrne&diff=prev&oldid=1235824220 removing deprecated parameters from this template constitution reversion]? (Note that it was a blank field before I entered text, but still, I removed the entire field.) Would removing [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nomiki_Konst&diff=prev&oldid=1232852709 a request for a photo from a talk page] contradict 0RR if there was a photo present on the article? These are genuine questions and not trolling. If the tag or request explicitly says "Remove it if [thing happens]" am I not allowed to remove it if [thing happens]? E.g. a PROD tag says "remove this if you disagree with the proposed deletion": it's ''soliciting'' me to remove it. Am I not allowed to as that's breaking 0RR? ―[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''<span style="color:black">v</span>f</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 12:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
*Frankly, I'd forgotten about the AN discussion and Koavf's restriction. I'd refrained from commenting in this thread because "disagreeing" with Koavf is exhausting and there were enough editors here who were taking him to task. But now that I'm reminded of what happened last January, the reason for Koavf bringing this complaint becomes much clearer to me. If he weren't subject to the 0RR restriction, He would have reverted CloversMallRat; instead, he wants some poor schlep of an editor to agree with him and revert for him. This thread should have been closed a while ago or Koavf should have been blocked for bringing the thread and for digging his heels in after getting negative feedback from many people.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 12:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
*:Okay, I officially withdraw the complaint. To the extent that anyone wants to discuss the thread itself or my behavior broadly, then I won't try to intervene in that, but I otherwise request that this original topic be closed. ―[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''<span style="color:black">v</span>f</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 12:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
*::The above initial complaint is '''withdrawn''': community consensus is obviously against me and this topic as such has no purpose in being a topic of discussion here or elsewhere. To the extent that discussion should continue about my behavior or the thread's merits itself, it remains open; if and once that topic is done, I '''request closure'''. Upon my withdrawal, I note that I should not have made this complaint, several community members (including admins) have asked me to change my tone when talking with other editors and to be extremely mindful of the editing restrictions I have, and I will not make future requests at AN regarding issues of personal editing disputes. Thanks to all for the time involved and my apologies. ―[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''<span style="color:black">v</span>f</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 13:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Unblock request of [[User:Devlet Geray|Devlet Geray]] ==
{{atop|result=There is a clear consensus to unblock Devlet Geray. Their topic ban will remain and must be appealed separately. —[[User:Ingenuity|Ingenuity]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Ingenuity#top|t]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[Special:Contribs/Ingenuity|c]]) 17:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)}}
The following is the statement of Devlet Geray, who is requesting the removal of their [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=1007746542&oldid=1007745540 community imposed block]. They are also under a topic ban but will deal with that separately at a later time. I bring this as a courtesy, and make no endorsement in doing so. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 13:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Dear Community Members,

I am writing to request a review of the block that was placed upon me. I understand that the actions leading to this decision were not in line with the community's standards, and I deeply regret any disruption or negativity my actions may have caused.

I acknowledge that I was wrong and behaved incorrectly when communicating with other users. I was young then and lost my temper because of ''now proved'' sockpuppets and trolls that I had to communicate on ruwiki (i became paranoic then because of it, but after many of my concerns regarding those accounts were proved by ruwiki check-users). 

Besides, I acknowledge that I was especially wrong and incorrect on Iranian topics, now I am not going to repeat those mistakes and will refrain fully from editing anything related to those topics. Some years have passed since the block was imposed on me with a statement that I "can appeal the block and the ban in six months", I am hopeful that I can demonstrate to the esteemed Community that my approach has significantly improved and ask the community to give me a chance. Furthermore, I have been an editor and rollbacker on Ukrainian Wikipedia for several years without any issues; on the contrary, I have authored both good and featured articles there. I pledge to make only beneficial and constructive contributions (I am going to start with creating articles on Crimean topics - without going into modern politics; for instance, I am going to translate my article [[:uk:Сім планет у звістках про царів татарських]] which is now nominated to ''good articles'' and my article [[:uk:Джаніке]] which is a good article there) to the community and to English Wikipedia moving forward.

Sincerely,
[[User:Devlet Geray|Devlet Geray]] ([[User talk:Devlet Geray#top|talk]]) 21:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 13:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - The request seems promising. Topic ban can be appealed 6 months after the unblock. [[User:Orientls|Orientls]] ([[User talk:Orientls|talk]]) 17:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - I'm happy with this. No opinion on when they should be eligible to appeal the topic ban (procedurally, they have already met the standard imposed in the original discussion of 6 months, I think?), but 6 months as proposed by Orientls sounds fine. So long as their contributions have improved following the unblock, I don't see much probability that a topic ban appeal after a sufficient amount of editing following unblocking would be rejected either. I'll mention that his editing restriction for the topic ban will need to be brought back from the archive on [[WP:EDR]] by the closing admin if this finds consensus to unblock. [[User:EggRoll97|EggRoll97]] <sup>([[User_talk:EggRoll97|talk]]) </sup> 20:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

:'''Support''' - 3 years is plenty, and I am all for second chances. (Hopefully), welcome back! I would also be in favor of giving Devlet a '''trial period TBAN lift''' before fully undoing the reins, so to speak. [[User:That Coptic Guy| — '''<span style="color:black">That</span> <span style="color:red">Coptic</span> <span style="color:black">Guy</span>'''<sup>ping me!</sup>]] ([[User talk:That Coptic Guy|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/That Coptic Guy|contribs]]) 04:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support''' - I support the removal of the site-wide block. I favor leaving the time for a topic ban appeal unspecified and to instead wait for a sufficient amount of editing on other topics. I don't see why such an editing history couldn't be established in less (or possibly more) than 6 months. [[User:Garsh2|Garsh]] ([[User talk:Garsh2|talk]]) 05:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per all above. '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 09:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

*'''Support''' the unblock as exactly what an editor should show when they come back to request it. '''Neutral''' on how long they need to show an en wiki history before removal of the topic ban. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 13:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support''' unblock ~ an excellent appeal, giving reasons for previous behaviour while not attempting to excuse it, and showing both recent work elsewhere and plans for here if/when unblocked. Happy days, ~ '''[[User:LindsayH|Lindsay]]'''<sup>'''[[User_talk:LindsayH|H]]'''[[User_talk:LindsayH|ello]]</sup> 20:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support'''  All we ever ask is that the user understands what they were doing wrong and gives a credible assurance that they will be productive going forward.  Both of these have been met.  They've already stated that they'll stay away from the topic areas which were problematical before, so keeping the TBAN in place for now seems reasonable and can always be lifted at some point in the future if they request it.  [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 21:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. The request seems sincere and it seems like they will be productive in the future. No comment on the TBAN. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 12:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Proposed siteban for Koavf ==
{{atop|There is overwhelming support for a community ban.  So that future generations don't have to look below, here is the exact wording: ''{{green|For persistent disruptive and combative behavior over a prolonged period, and exhausting the community's patience, [[User:Koavf|Koavf]] is [[WP:CBAN|banned]]. This restriction may be appealed after one year, and no more than once every six months thereafter.}}'' Koavf's recently stated intentions for the next 1 to 2 years, in the box near the bottom of this thread, seem to me to be an excellent plan to increase the likelihood of Koavf rejoining the en.wiki community in a few years' time. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 12:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)}}
I'm not satisfied with [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#User_is_ignoring_ArbCom's_explicit_instructions,_is_harassing,_hounding,_and_attacking_me the above situation] being resolved by Koavf simply retracting his complaint and the thread being closed when his own behavior became the focus of an increasing number of particants.  The section title itself, ''"User is ignoring ArbCom's explicit instructions, is harassing, hounding, and attacking me"'' is a gross exaggeration that seems intended to [[poison the well]] by implying ArbCom explicitly told CMR not to do what they have been doing, when the fact is that Justin is citing an MOS page that, until just now, cited some extremely old arbitration cases, and he has been the one doing the hounding. 

:*Justin seems to have finally learned, after being blocked for edit warring... [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3AKoavf&type=block I don't even know how many times] that he should stop doing that. However, what he seems to be choosing to do instead is that when he would have previously edit warred, he resorts to relentlessly hectoring the user he disagrees with, demanding they answer all his questions to his satisfaction,threatening to escalate matters, and trying to get others to do the reverting for them by making exxagerated claims and denying that the other user has ever provided a reason for their actions. 

:*The last unblock was roundly criticized [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive358#Koavf_unblocked] and a site ban was only narrowly averted then. This was the ''fifth'' time Koavf had been indef blocked for their behavior. Part of the closing statement reads {{tq|It should be abundantly clear that Koavf is on very thin ice, and even editors opposing the siteban describe this as "one last shot", "a final chance", "pretty much a last chance", etc. I don't think it's likely that the community will give any more last chances in the future.}} Well, are we going to give a ''sixth'' last chance, or we going to impose a sanction that cannot simply be lifted by any passing admin? 

:*In [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CloversMallRat/Archive_3#Track_listing_formats this conversation], offered above as evidence that CMR is the problem, scroll down to the last posts, where Justin resorts to both '''bolding and {{big|expanding the font}}''' of his questions, basically the wp equivalent of a screaming tantrum, because he did not like the answers CMR was giving him.   

:*His [[User talk:Koavf|talk page]] has been a morass of deletion nominations of things they have created for years and years. The number of pages created by him that have been deleted has got to be in the thousands by now. 

:*Barely a week ago an admin had to remind them not to use global rollback to move pages without leaving a redirect. His [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:UserRights/Koavf user rights log] is almost as ridiculous as his block log, local pagemover permisssion was removed for cause due to his unseemly history, and he used global rollback to backdoor his way around that. Again, he obviously should have known better. 

After nearly twenty years of contributions, I think it is reasonable that we expect that a user be solving more problems than they are creating. 

I therefore propose the following:
{{ivmbox|For persistent disruptive and combative behavior over a prolonged period, and exhausting the community's patience, '''{{noping|Koavf}} is [[WP:CBAN|banned]]'''. This restriction may be appealed after one year, and no more than once every six months thereafter.}}
*'''Support''' as proposer. Far too many chances have been given to this user. By imposing a CBAN, Koavf cannot simply appeal on his talk page and be unblocked by the first admin to pass by.
[[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|<sup>from this world ..... today</sup>]] 16:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

:JSS: I appreciate several of the issues you cite, but I'm confused as to what the problem is with categories I made being nominated for merging or [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Jermaine(1980_album)&action=edit&redlink=1 me moving a page to a correct name almost 20 years ago] and the old redirect being nominated for deletion. If you look at my edits for (e.g.) the past 2.5 years, I have [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Koavf&namespace=0&tagfilter=&newOnly=1&start=2022-01-01&end=2024-01-01&limit=1000 created several hundred pages] that are totally valid and it's not reasonable to characterize my editing as consistently making junk that should be deleted. Additionally, if you could clarify about pagemover removal for cause. When Jc37 removed all of my user permissions it was just a product of the editing restriction, not because of abuse of any user right. It was a blanket action he took unilaterally and has since restored one of those rights. The global rollbacker was not something I initiated or was some end-around here (note that I have not used rollback here except on myself), but was nominated by someone else.
:Several users here will certainly have strong feelings and several of them will certainly bring up valid complaints about my behavior. I respect that there are users who have been upset by my behavior for a variety of reasons. I can't and won't try to defend myself against all of those issues, nor will I engage point-by-point, etc., but I would like to state that I have tried to abide by the editing restrictions brought up in the last discussion c. six months ago and my editing on this site is done in good faith with an attempt to make encyclopedic content. If users think that the thread I started above is itself enough to warrant en entire siteban and that's after I've said that I wouldn't bring other threads to AN, then I will obviously respect the decision, but I would hope that they would look at my recent editing history and note that at worst, there are some issues with tone, but not malice or the sort of behavior that I think warrants banning me from editing for <ins>no less than </ins>a year. ―[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''<span style="color:black">v</span>f</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 17:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''', unfortunately. Everything is an endless battleground. Badgering others to implement his preferred outcome when he can't because of 0RR isn't what was intended in January and isn't working now. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 01:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
*:Forgot I weighed in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive358#c-Star_Mississippi-20240106014300-Ivanvector-20240103210900 in favor] of 0RR in January so disclosing '''Involved''' although not in the admin way. And what I said then is unfortunately still true. ''The edits'' have changed, the conduct has not. {{tq|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/}} [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 23:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
*:Continued '''support''' even with his notice. The broader problem is someone is always willing to unblock and a self imposed ban doesn't change that when he changes his mind about time off (or changing his behavior). When multiple people support a block, an unblock shouldn't be in the hands of one requesting and one granting. That's the bigger part that needs to change. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 12:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
* The edit restriction unfortunately appears to have only stymied a symptom of collaboration issues. The point made about demanding answers to questions reminds me of a particularly perplexing discussion I had with koavf in April at [[Talk:Dependent territory#Possible vandalism]]. This discussion included koavf asking "[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dependent_territory&diff=prev&oldid=1218029712 ...You know that column headers are disallowed and you added them (back). Why?]", then an hour later stating  "[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dependent_territory&diff=prev&oldid=1218036147 I did not ask you "why", I asked you: "to be clear, you did <var>x</var>, yes or no" and you keep on not answering and then come up with demonstrably untrue nonsense about how I asked "Why..." which never happened.]" The "Why?" and the "you keep on not answering" here together with the multiple instances of "Why?" and "You've never answered this question" in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CloversMallRat/Archive_3#Track_listing_formats CMR discussion linked above] indicates that this non-acceptance of answers is a pattern, which continues still with "[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1235720462 We'll see if you decide to answer this time]" in the discussion above. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 02:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. In addition to the above evidence, note that ''following'' their withdrawal of the complaint above, Koavf has continued to hound CloversMallRat for the same behavior ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CloversMallRat&diff=next&oldid=1235857053]) and has dragged the argument to Johnuniq's talk page ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Johnuniq&diff=prev&oldid=1235868977]). This isn't the behavior of someone who actually has heard and understood the advice of others, it's just backing down from a venue where things are going poorly to try it somewhere else. [[User:Dylnuge|<span style="color: #1e79a1;font-weight:700;">Dylnuge</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Dylnuge|''Talk'']] • [[Special:Contributions/Dylnuge|''Edits'']])</sup> 02:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
**I invited Koavf's comment and the fact that he accepted the invitation should not be a factor in this discussion. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 04:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support'''.  I boggled at the last AN discussion, which had mind-bending defenses like him "only" being edit warrior, as if that doesn't already impede collaboration.  I'm all for second and third chances but Koavf is on their zillionth chance.  He probably should not have been unbanned at all, but given that he was unbanned, it was somewhat on the expectation of being on absolute best, most collegial behavior.  koavf ''chose'' to escalate the above incident.  As noted in the previous discussion, Wikipedia procedures are very, very bad at handling someone who is low-level unpleasant for a long period of time (compared to doing one really bad bannable thing).  I'm not a koavf expert, never really interacted with him, but come on, given the block log.  Let's get it right this time.  [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 04:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support''': My vote here likely doesn't matter given my experience on Wikipedia right now, as this is the first time that I'm (if I'm remembering correctly) participating in a discussion here, and I'm only really aware of this user through their contributions to music articles; I discovered this discussion when looking through their contributions after [[Alphabetland|looking at a page they were responsible for creating]]. From what I can understand, however, a block log as long as the one this user has and what seems to be an endless amount of problems with other users on Wikipedia is enough justification for such a ban, regardless of their  extensive contributions here. The way I see it, I'm sure newer users (including myself) wouldn't have received as many chances as this user has, so I'm of the belief that special treatment like this shouldn't really continue. [[User:Neo Purgatorio|Neo Purgatorio]] ([[User talk:Neo Purgatorio|talk]]) 05:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Neo Purgatorio|Neo Purgatorio]] - Every vote and every contribution to a discussion on Wikipedia matters. Being new does not nullify your vote or silence your voice :-) [[User:That Coptic Guy| — '''<span style="color:black">That</span> <span style="color:red">Coptic</span> <span style="color:black">Guy</span>'''<sup>ping me!</sup>]] ([[User talk:That Coptic Guy|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/That Coptic Guy|contribs]]) 06:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': No opinion on the general issue, but koavf has created a [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&end=&namespace=0&newOnly=1&start=&tagfilter=&target=Koavf&offset=&limit=2500 gigantic number of articles]; the most recent 500 date back less than a year. Given any reasonable base rate of any random article being nominated for deletion, say a 1% chance of being AfDed every couple years, we would naturally expect someone who created many thousands of articles to have a big list of deleted articles. Please note that this is not a suggestion that the overall issue be decided one way or the other, and I am not interested in participating in further discussion here or on any other website regarding it. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contribs/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 07:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
:* If you're not interested in discussing your comment, why did you bother posting it? [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 10:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
:::*It's a random attack on Wikipedidoxracy, by the looks of it. I guess somewhere in the secret squirrel part of their website there's a thread on Koavf or Jpxg or both where Vigilant posts their real name, address, date of birth, telephone number and salary.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 11:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Well, you can agree with it or disagree with it, I just don't have any interest in rooting through twenty years of noticeboard archives to figure out what my opinion on koavf is -- this is all I've got to say about it. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contribs/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 11:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
:::: So not only do you not want your comment to be discussed, but you don't actually have an opinion on the issue either?  Thanks for your input, I guess. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 19:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::Okay, a single-sentence explanation: Please do not interpret my comment as arguing for or against the siteban. Please do not interpret my comment as arguing for or against the siteban. Please do not interpret my comment as arguing for or against the siteban. Let me know if you have trouble understanding what I mean by this. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contribs/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 01:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:::The tone I get is that JSS' fourth bullet point is off.  Saying that someone should be sitebanned with one of the reasons being thousands of articles of theirs being deleted over twenty years when they have 688 active ones in the last year isn't a good example of a problem.  --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 21:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
::::I think even if I conceded this point and struck that part of the proposal, there is still more than enough there to merit a siteban. [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|<sup>from this world ..... today</sup>]] 21:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::Based on the two discussions, I concur.  The [[WP:FOLLOWING|only thing]] of merit in Koavf's complaint could have been resolvable through dialogue.  --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 05:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
*It's just pathetic that we haven't dealt with Koavf. If we reach consensus on a sanction, some genius will unilaterally lift it in a few months anyway, but we might as well reach for the sky. '''Support.'''—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 07:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I've been watching this editor for a long time. Yes, he has done some good work - just as there is no question he's caused a lot of problems with his editing. We've ended up indefinitely blocking better editors before. "Everything is battle ground", "zillionth chance" are good descriptors. I think the last time I checked he had had 20 blocks. I see a CBAN as the only way to stop this. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 09:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''/'''non-admin comment'''. The nominator has recognized that the edit warring issue, which appears to have been the rationale for past blocks, has improved. I also don't agree with punishing Koavf for having posted a WP:AN report. As for articles getting deleted, for those who've been around for close to 2 decades it isn't strange that many articles later end up in deletion discussions years later (as deletion standards have changed over time). --[[User:Soman|Soman]] ([[User talk:Soman|talk]]) 12:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', and I say this as someone who supported banning him last time, but I'm going insane reading the last AN complaint. Koavf's complaint about [[MOS:VAR]] is clearly correct on the merits. Granted, there may have been reasons why the {{t|track listing}} template was preferable in context, but CMR should have started a discussion on a talk page, or at least note those reasons in their edit summaries. I agree that Koavf's manner of talking has been poor, but that wasn't the issue at hand during the last site-ban discussion; that was mostly about edit warring, as I recall. [[User talk:Mach61|Mach61]] 12:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
*:{{tq|that wasn't the issue at hand during the last site-ban discussion; that was mostly about edit warring}} You are correct, this is what he is doing ''instead'' of edit warring, so I'd say it is in fact still the same problem. [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|<sup>from this world ..... today</sup>]] 15:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
*::@[[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] Fair. Clearly, a lot of people disagreed with the outcome of the last siteban discussion, and it's not as if enough time hasn't passed (during which Koavf hasn't been a saint) for an appeal to be warranted. I just dislike that what prompted this thread was a withdrawn complaint in which Koavf did have a point. Consider my oppose a very weak one. [[User talk:Mach61|Mach61]] 11:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Folks are far too lenient on the most clear-cut cases here. I mean, the bolding and font size portion really speaks for itself. For such a long term editor, who has gotten themselves into trouble again and again over the course of his wikicareer, it's disappointing. It's a shame, but I think we gotta cut our losses eventually. <small> [[User:Generalissima|Generalissima]] ([[User talk:Generalissima|talk]]) (it/she) </small>  18:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' There is inevitably, regardless of the volume of positive contributions, a point where the scales tip over to net negative.  This ''should'' have been last time Koavf was indeffed, which was overriden by what was a pretty cowboy unilateral unblock (followed by a discussion which was frankly embarrassing in a lot of places).  It ''needs'' to stick this time. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 19:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CloversMallRat/Archive_3#c-Koavf-20231017042900-CloversMallRat-20231017032000 This comment] is ridiculous, but it's clearly just the tip of the iceberg with this user. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 20:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' pretty much per my remarks on recidivism above (I agree that was an unnecessary close, tbh). To repeat much of my post, which sums up my thoughts: Also noted that, but for {{u|Ritchie333}}'s {{tq|cowboy}} unblock (pretty roundly [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive358#Koavf_unblocked|condemned at AN]]) in January this year of {{u|Bbb23}}'s original indef from the previous November, Koavf would not be able to continue the trolling that we are once again enjoying. Noted; a site ban was very much on the cards; the refrain was "How many times does Koavf need to be blocked?" rolling alongside "How often does the community have to put up with this?". Altho the site ban did not pass, the closing admin, {{u|Extraordinary Writ}}, noted that {{blockquote|text=It should be abundantly clear that Koavf is on very thin ice, and even editors opposing the siteban describe this as "one last shot", "a final chance", "pretty much a last chance", etc. I don't think it's likely that the community will give any more last chances in the future.}}The walls-of-text battering ram approach taken to editor interaction, noted by EggRoll97 and Just Step Sideways here reflect an earlier comment by {{u|Bishonen}} that she and {{u|Doug Weller}} had been {{tq|comprehensively attacked by Koavf}} in November. This is only a few months ago. I'm not sure what's worse, these perennial discussions or our ''in''ability (or is it refusal?) to do anything about the root cause.{{pb}}Unfortunately, perhaps, it's well established that however much in the right one is, one is not guaranteed a pass, particularly if being good at what one does is at the expense of so many other editors' time... who may also be good at what they do, but have to stop ''doing it'' to deal with dramah. Either way, the project loses out cos of one guy. Bad odds.  [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:red">——Serial Number 54129</span>]] 20:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Reluctant support for some sort of sanction''' - I didn't like what happened to {{u|Joe Vitale 5}}. It was similar, in that it seemed like Justin had a point, which was however much ado about nothing. Maybe the problem I have here is that to my mind this sort of drama should be reserved for articles with real-world consequences. An alternative might be banning him from music articles. We do have a lot of malicious editors, and I don't think he is one of them, so I am a bit uncomfortable with going straight to a site block. On the other hand I not familiar with the history beyond what I have seen this year. [[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby|talk]]) 00:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I didn't comment in the January discussion about their unblock, but I would have supported it. They've done a lot of good work, and seemingly deserved a fine chance. But now that final chance has been had. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 00:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' with regret. I normally am not a fan of the wiki version of capital punishment but the history here just can't be ignored. Blocked 33 times. Unblocked 9 times. Three of their blocks were initially indefinite, though one was almost immediately reduced to 48 hrs suggesting it might have been an error. When you add in all the other issues, it's time for the community to say enough. I'm a strong believer in 2nd chances, sometimes more. But not 34 chances. There is no doubt that this editor has the capacity for incredible productivity. But it is also clear that they have been a massive distraction and time sink for the community. It's time to move on. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 01:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

*'''Support'''. He gives Wikipedians a bad name, and picks on people for no reason other than his own ego. He’s an awful stain on our community, [[User:Joe Vitale 5|Joe Vitale 5]] ([[User talk:Joe Vitale 5|talk]]) 12:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
*:Is that really necessary? Apart from anything else, Justin has been a member of this community for nearly two decades. We should be able to show him the door without kicking him on the way out. &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 17:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' To quote myself in the unblock discussion in January: "At what point do we say as a community "it's not worth our time"?". We are at that point. Koavf has been indeffed '''FIVE''' times. Five. They have had enough "last chances". [[User:RickinBaltimore|RickinBaltimore]] ([[User talk:RickinBaltimore|talk]]) 12:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. A community ban for Koavf was [[wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive171%23The_19th_block_ever_-_Request_for_a_serious_topic_ban%2Fban_for_a_former_community_banned_edit-warrior|proposed as long ago as 2008]] (it did not pass). It was said then that he had been blocked for the 19th time. Since then, he has racked up multiple further blocks and is still demonstrating disruptive behaviour. He was in the last chance saloon, that ship has now sailed (if I may mix my metaphors) and it’s time for a parting of the ways. --[[User:Malcolmxl5|Malcolmxl5]] ([[User talk:Malcolmxl5|talk]]) 13:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Enough is enough. Koavf has been given plenty of chances and, based on the above, I don't see the justification for "just one more"... [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 15:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - I've never seen an editor as persistent and stubborn as Koavf on this project. When faced with a 0RR, they could no longer revert, so he had to change his M.O. which resulted in pestering editors to self-revert, and when that didn't work, he would wait awhile and then try to sneak in a [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hackney_Diamonds_Tour&diff=1230094619&oldid=1228756233 stealth edit] reverting to his preferred version, at least in my interaction with him. And what got him riled up in the first place, a single citation. You've earned a year off Koavf, relax and reflect on what other editors are telling you is wrong with your behavior.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 16:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - do we have any disruptive, ban worthy diffs beyond a stupid comment 9 months ago? [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 18:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
*:Twenty years worth probably suffices, GiantSnowman. I did wonder if—having kiboshed sanctions against Koavf in the last thread—you'd comment here. Interesting.  [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:red">——Serial Number 54129</span>]] 19:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
*::Say something with your chest if you have something to say. Also remember that sanctions are meant to be preventative, not punitive. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 20:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' Basically per GiantSnowman. I've read through the complaint above and am really not seeing the sort of misconduct that would be used to justify this. But then the community has always been far more willing to ban long-term contributors than I ever will be. {{pb}} And much of this ban proposal is misleading: {{Tq|His [[User talk:Koavf|talk page]] has been a morass of deletion nominations of things they have created for years and years. The number of pages created by him that have been deleted has got to be in the thousands by now. }} - the vast majority of them are either categories that became empty through no fault of Koavf's, didn't result in a deletion, or were of things he created over a decade ago {{pb}} And I find {{tq|local pagemover permisssion was removed for cause due to his unseemly history, and he used global rollback to backdoor his way around that. Again, he obviously should have known better.}} similarly misleading - all except one set of moves in July the resulting either redirect would have met G7 or G8 anyway or he went on to recreate the title so whether the move is done with or without a redirect is a distinction without a different, and I find that one set to be plausible as just a mistake rather than deliberately knowing better. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 22:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

*'''Moral oppose''', because there's too much to read through, and Koavf's approach clearly needs to change, and it hurts to see so many people I respect all supporting a cban of someone who has given so much to the project – even if it is deserved – with barely any opposition. This makes me feel sad. [[User:Folly Mox|Folly Mox]] ([[User talk:Folly Mox|talk]]) 22:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
*In an ideal world, someone (someone smarter than me) would be able to craft some kind of editing plan that would channel the enthusiasm for the project that Justin obviously has, such that we would be able to benefit from his prolific efforts without the not-great aspects that come with it. I’m not seeing such a plan, though, and I’m not very optimistic that one is forthcoming. [[User:28bytes|28bytes]] ([[User talk:28bytes|talk]]) 01:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
*:+1. I wish there was some solution between doing nothing and a community site ban. We've lost some very prolific editors over the years because of the way they handled interpersonal disputes. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 01:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
*::Liz I've been thinking about what you've said here, and at least in Koavf's case, I truly think all options have been exhausted. He's been blocked 33 times, indeffed multiple times, the last unblock was very controversial to say the least, he's under a 0RR restriction due to his prolific edit-warring that he's already violated, and at least in the CMR instance instead of reverting he just talks and talks and talks if he gets answers he doesn't like (and according to others here, it's not an isolated thing to the CMR case either). Personally I just don't know what else can be tried with Koavf. An "accept the answers you're given" solution would be novel and I wonder how that'd be enforced, but that's not workable. <span>♠[[User:JCW555|<span style="color:purple">JCW555</span>]] [[User talk:JCW555|<span style="color: black">(talk)</span>]]</span>♠ 01:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::I'm not sure if the statement on [[:User:koavf]] will affect this discussion. This isn't intended as a ping but a link to a User page. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 02:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Hopeless, passive-aggressive, and exhausting.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 01:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' a site ban. I am still of the opinion that measures less than such an absolute sanction can be effective. [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''BD2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 02:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
*:It's been tried, more than thirty times. Most people don't get more than thirty seconds chances to just meet minimum standards of behavior. [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|<sup>from this world ..... today</sup>]] 03:10, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': I am not voting because I have not adequately reviewed the evidence, but for all those opposing without actually offering viable solutions guaranteed to work: Site bans, like all other sanctions, can be appealed after the requisite amount of time. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 03:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Note''' Koafv has added this notice to the top of his userpage.
{{wikibreak
| Justin (koavf)
| begin     = July 2024
| back      = July 2026 (at the earliest and contingent on community approval)
| type      = long
| message   = There is an ongoing discussion to '''siteban''' me for no less than a year as I write this. I anticipate it will pass and if so, I will be forced by the community to not edit for ''at a minimum'' one year, possibly indefinitely. I am voluntarily stopping editing during the conversation and will not edit for a period of ''at least 24&nbsp;months'', regardless of the outcome. Any editors wishing to know more are encouraged to look at the conversation to understand what was inappropriate about my conversations, judgement, interactions, etc. I will be gone from this site for a long term and possibly for good, pending the community's assessment of how disruptive I have been and if I can be a productive member.

This is '''not''' a standard wikibreak due to external, personal, or other factors: it is a ban and a additionally a break where I will take time to engage productively elsewhere and learn more about [[non-violent communication]] strategies. I plan to edit other WMF wikis and be a constructive member there if anyone needs to reach me. If you reach out, I cannot be involved in any editing by proxy, discussion of issues, or other internal matters to the English Wikipedia and will not engage in them on-wiki or off-wiki. The community's decision is justified, reasonable, and the outcome of my choices. I accept it and am responsible for the issues.

If the community allows me to reengage here, then I look forward to editing in a constructive manner. If not, then the time here has been good and I hope that the useful edits I have made have outweighed the disruptive actions. My sincere thanks to all those who have collaborated with me and sorry to those who have been negatively impacted  by my actions. Be well and be good.
| align     =
| image     =
| noimage   =
| imagesize =
| spacetype =
| style     =
}}
Just thought participants ought to be aware.  [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 07:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I'm sick of seeing him get repeatedly blocked and unblocked. Although he left an interesting notice on his userpage, I think it is best that he be site-banned without any ability to appeal for at least a year. We have given him far too many chances to improve. [[User:Scorpions1325|Scorpions1325]] ([[User talk:Scorpions1325|talk]]) 09:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Reports against me ==
{{atop|Editors are not required to notify others regarding talk page discussions about them, even if it may be courteous. This does not count as canvassing as the administrators selected weren't predisposed to an outcome. The SPI has been actioned. This should not have been brought to this noticeboard, and there is nothing for AN to do. Closing. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 17:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)}}
I am, without my knowledge, the subject of reports to two administrators by [[User:BILL1]] for no apparent reason.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EvanProdromou#%CE%A0%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%86%CE%AF%CE%BB_%CE%BC%CE%B1%CF%81%CE%B9%CE%BF%CE%BD%CE%AD%CF%84%CE%B1 12 July] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Andrewa#Greek_sockpuppet 21 July] [[User:D.S. Lioness|D.S. Lioness]] ([[User talk:D.S. Lioness|talk]]) 17:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

:This is not something that needs admin intervention. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 17:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
::what it needs, then? [[User:D.S. Lioness|D.S. Lioness]] ([[User talk:D.S. Lioness|talk]]) 17:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== Conflict of interest VRT appointments, July 2024 ==

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to appoint the following administrators to the [[WP:COIVRT|conflict of interest volunteer response team]] following private and [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Conflict of interest reports/July 2024 appointments|public consultation]]:

*{{admin|Bilby}}
*{{admin|Extraordinary Writ}}

The [[m:Volunteer Response Team#Administrators|VRT administrators]] are asked to grant access to the aforementioned users pending signatures to the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Conflict of interest reports#Appointments|required confidentiality agreements]].

On behalf of the Committee, [[User:Sdrqaz|Sdrqaz]] ([[User talk:Sdrqaz|talk]]) 22:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
: Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Conflict of interest VRT appointments, July 2024}}'''<!-- [[User:ArbClerkBot|ArbClerkBot]] ([[User talk:ArbClerkBot|talk]]) 22:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes-->

== Block notice without actual block ==

I found a user that received the {{tl|vaublock}} notice in April 2023, but was never actually blocked: {{user|Nate Higgers III}}. –[[User:LaundryPizza03|<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b>]] ([[User talk:LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0d0">d</span>]][[Special:Contribs/LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0bf">c̄</span>]]) 16:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:LaundryPizza03|LaundryPizza03]]: No, they were blocked at the time (and remain so), but the block log entries have been redacted. [[User:Writ Keeper|Writ&nbsp;Keeper]]&nbsp;[[User Talk: Writ Keeper|&#9863;]][[Special:Contributions/Writ_Keeper|&#9812;]] 16:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
::Block log entries are not allowed to be redacted, per [[WP:REVDEL#Log redaction]]. –[[User:LaundryPizza03|<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b>]] ([[User talk:LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0d0">d</span>]][[Special:Contribs/LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0bf">c̄</span>]]) 17:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
:::{{tq|Log redaction (outside of the limited scope of RD#2 for the creation, move, and delete logs) is intended solely for grossly improper content}}. The whole purpose was not have a name that is clearly a play off Hate (you can figure it out) in the logs. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 17:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
:::More explicit policy permission for this sort of log redaction can be found at [[WP:DISRUPTNAME]]: {{tq|consideration should be given, with appropriate judgment, if the username should be redacted from any logs or edit revisions - especially if they're grossly offensive or destructive in nature, and likely to offend many editors.}} YMMV, I guess, whether this one qualifies. [[User:Writ Keeper|Writ&nbsp;Keeper]]&nbsp;[[User Talk: Writ Keeper|&#9863;]][[Special:Contributions/Writ_Keeper|&#9812;]] 17:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
:::That's never really been the case for grossly disruptive content, libellous stuff, and maybe some other categories (also may I suggest [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?page=Special%3ALog%2Fblock this link] and especially any 'unhidden' events). The RD policy is worded to prevent removal of mistaken or ordinary blocks. There's also been some recent changes to the wording in policy, which may have affected its nuance. The original policy used to explicitly allow 'blocks of attack usernames', and I suspect that probably wasn't removed deliberately. BTW, in case you come across similar cases, the most definitive place to check is [[Special:BlockList]], though even that is not 100% guaranteed to be correct. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] <sup>[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]</sup> 17:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
::::It's worth noting that block redactions like this essentially only occur when all edits have also had their username redacted, and it is prohibited by policy (and by law, under the terms of CC BY-SA 4.0) to redact usernames from substantive edits. Which means that in practice basically all block redactions will be of users who have made zero substantive edits. Perhaps that could be formalized, but there's really no reason to do this if the username is going to be visible elsewhere, so that might just be instruction creep. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]&#93;</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they&#124;xe]])</small> 20:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::I have the vague suspicion that a bunch of the rules we believe to be legal requirements of the Creative Commons license might just be folklore. For example, it's always possible for a rightsholder to release a work under a more permissive license -- which should mean that "I relicense all of my contributions as CC0, please delete my account now" ought to be legally sound -- yet we [[WP:VANISH|claim this is impossible]]. It also seems weird that we can't just include a click-through in the Terms of Use after the {{tq|you agree to license your contributions under the username you've chosen}} that says {{tq|", comma, comma, comma, unless the username you've chosen is some trash like 'I Freakin' Love Adolf Hitler' in which case we will change it to something else, comma"}}. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contribs/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 07:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::I believe the reason we "claim this is impossible" is because of the sheer headache involved in ever keeping track of it, should someone challenge the CC0 status of an edit later down the road. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 20:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
::::I agree it wasn't removed deliberately. It was copyedited out. 'blocks of attack usernames' was removed from the criteria on [[Special:Diff/320368081|17 October 2009]] (summary: {{tq|reword the hiding usernames part ...}}). Redaction of a block log entry due to an attack username was not prohibited by any language found elsewhere, and the following text remained included, and has stayed essentially the same: {{tq|... use of the RevisionDelete tool to redact block logs ... in a manner not covered by these criteria ... will usually be treated as abuse of the tool.}} (A contrario: use of the RevisionDelete tool to redact block logs in a manner covered by these criteria will ''not by itself'' be treated as abuse of the tool.) While LaundryPizza03 says that the "Log redaction" section disallows block entries to be redacted, it specifically allows them to be redacted consistent with the criteria when the content is grossly improper (so, IMO, the most explicit policy permission is already in the revdel policy). —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 01:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
*It's actually rather appropriate to delete block log entries, for example when the block was mistaken. The rules to which Tamzin refers are ill thought out and confused.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 23:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
*:Which rules, @[[User:S Marshall|S Marshall]]? The only rule I've mentioned is a tangential (and legally non-negotiable) one about redacting usernames from edits. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]&#93;</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they&#124;xe]])</small> 23:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
*::The one in your first sentence, which reduces to "only vandals can get entries in their block logs deleted". That's a problem. Non-vandals also have sysop mistakes on their permanent record. It ought to be possible to fix them.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 00:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::<small>I think you're reading as consequent what for me was the antecedent (i.e. assumed in "like this"). But it doesn't really matter. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]&#93;</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they&#124;xe]])</small> 00:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)</small>
*::::The fix for inappropriate blocks isn't RevDel; it's the unblock reason if the accoun/IP is still blocked, or an extremely short block with an appropriate reason if it isn't. RevDel-ing a block prevents the blocking admin's mistake from being visible to the public. This isn't a problem if it's the only mistake the admin makes in a significant time period, but can be a problem for an admin who is careless or hasty with blocks causing many mistakes in the process. [[User:Animal lover 666|Animal lover]] [[User talk:Animal lover 666|&#124;666&#124;]] 07:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::::There's actually two logs, Animal lover 666.  There's your block log and the sysop's admin action log.  By erasing a bad block from one log and not the other, you could correct injustice without reducing sysop accountability.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 07:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

== RD1 backlog ==
{{atop
| result = Less than ten remaining. I think we're as good as we ever get. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 01:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
}}

Hi there &ndash; we could use some help with the revdel button over at [[:Category:Requested RD1 redactions]], which has nearly 50 entries at time of writing. It would be greatly appreciated if any willing admins could chip in. [[User:Dylan620|<span style="color:blue">Dylan</span><span style="color:purple">620</span>]] [[User:Dylan620 public or mobile|in public/on mobile]] (he/him • [[User talk:Dylan620|talk]]) 12:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

:Will try to reduce the backlog a bit. [[User:Isabelle Belato|Isabelle Belato]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Isabelle Belato|🏳‍🌈]]</sup></small> 12:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
::Taking a break, but should be better now. Thanks to whomever else helped reduce the backlog. [[User:Isabelle Belato|Isabelle Belato]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Isabelle Belato|🏳‍🌈]]</sup></small> 14:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Edit Warring on “Tom & Jerry (2021 film)” ==

<nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Template:AN-notice|subst:AN-notice]]<nowiki>}} [[</nowiki>[[Special:Contributions/CriticallyThinking|CriticallyThinking]]]]

Hello, this is my first attempt at reporting a user so I may need some guidance.

Despite repeated efforts to structure sections of the article properly, this user repeatedly removes sources and constructs sentences in ways that are unverifiable, evidently original research and warp the intent of the original sources. There are numerous grammatical errors and defiances of neutrality in spite of my best efforts to rework the article in a comprehensible fashion. Unfortunately the edit logs have turned into mud slinging between this user and myself, and I think this is the best way to handle the situation from here on. 

Embedded here is a link to [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Tom_%26_Jerry_(2021_film)&diff=prev&oldid=1236293169 my previous effort to structure the article properly]. 

Since then, [[Special:Contributions/CriticallyThinking|CriticallyThinking]] has removed the embedded quotes and replaced them with unverifiable and impartial sentences that I feel muddy the comprehension of the article. They have accused me of edit warring, and it is true that this is the case between the two of us; however I fail to see how their attempts at editing are conducive.

I may need some assistance with issuing a Warning or a request for a Third Opinion, thank you. [[User:Ciscocat|Ciscocat]] ([[User talk:Ciscocat|talk]]) 00:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
:No, you haven't done it right at all. The real problem is you and {{U|CriticallyThinking}} have been edit-warring at [[Tom & Jerry (2021 film)]] with an outrageous number of reverts today.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 00:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
::FWIW, there's a known LTA who works in this area & is known for using sources that aren't verifiable, among other things. [[User:Victoriaearle|Victoria]] ([[User talk:Victoriaearle|tk]]) 00:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Who?--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 00:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
::::We have a number of accounts, mostly IPs, that make up fake articles about children's films. I know one geolocates to St. Johns, Canada, another is in Missouri. They often put their work on Talk pages rather than Draft pages. You can usually identify them because they have unbelievable cast lists. Some of them have registered accounts. I haven't looked at this article diffs that closely to see if it is one of our regulars. 
::::Of course if there has been edit warring on both sides, that's a different matter. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 01:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
:Protected in lieu of blocks. If it turns out we have a sock in play, no objection to it being lowered. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 01:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I take ownership over the fact that I escalated it further than it should have gone. With that said, it was quite frustrating to actually attempt to structure a segment of the article properly, only to have it blitzed because of a very arbitrary argument. Either way, I would rather put this to bed and can only do better in the future.  <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Ciscocat|Ciscocat]] ([[User talk:Ciscocat#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ciscocat|contribs]]) 04:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:<nowiki>I don't think anyone has mentioned this, but these notice templates are not correct: the ANI notice template supposed to go at the guy's talk page, not at the board, and it should be {{subst:AN-notice}}, not {{tl|subst:AN-notice}}. It is one of those use-mention escaping things, sorry, it is kind of complicated.</nowiki> <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contribs/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 17:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

== AIV backlog ==

There's quite a heavy backlog at [[WP:AIV]], with some active vandals that need dealing with. [[User:Abminor|A<sup>♭</sup>m]] <sup>([[User talk:Abminor|Ring!]])</sup> <sub>([[Special:Contributions/Abminor|Notes]])</sub> 08:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

== Lifting topic ban on User:Rachel Helps (BYU) ==
{{atop|[[WP:UNBAN]] is clear on third-party appeals. Rachel Helps is welcome to launch an appeal of her own at any time. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 11:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)}}
I propose lifting the [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1153#Topic_ban_proposal_for_Rachel_Helps|topic ban applied on March 2024]] to:

{{userlinks|Rachel Helps (BYU)}}

Reasons why the ban should be lifted:
* She did a lot of good work before violating the COI policies. She was virtually the ONLY editor adding anything related to Mormon feminism articles, an area sorely needed. It would be good to have her back. A permanent ban would be ultimately detrimental to Wikipedia.
* It has been long enough. I seriously doubt she will make the same mistake as before. 
* Her connection to the BYU library gives access to important Mormon sources difficult to find elsewhere.
* At risk of exposing my own biases, most Mormon editors come on and are borderline vandals, putting pseudo-scientific garbage in a lot of articles. With a couple exceptions, User:Rachel Helps has not been like that. She has always been willing to talk things through though. We need that perspective here on Wikipedia.

Bottom line, I don't think the issues that happened before will happen again, and a second chance is warranted. [[User:Epachamo|Epachamo]] ([[User talk:Epachamo|talk]]) 01:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', if Rachel Helps believes she's ready for the sanctions to be lifted, she may appeal herself. There is no reason for third party appeals. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 02:05, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
*:This isn't an appeal of the punishment. She violated and was banned. It's time to let her out of prison. I'm not sure why a third party appeal matters at all. Where is that policy? Why does it matter? [[User:Epachamo|Epachamo]] ([[User talk:Epachamo|talk]]) 03:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
*::The general principle is at [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block#Appeals by third party]]. There is not even consideration of the possibility of third-party appeals at [[WP:UNBAN]]. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 03:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::Again, this is not an appeal of the ban, but about lifting the ban, "Bans imposed by community consensus or for repeated block evasion may be lifted by community discussion (unless needing ArbCom review)" This is what I'm trying to do here, get community consensus for lifting the ban. [[User:Epachamo|Epachamo]] ([[User talk:Epachamo|talk]]) 06:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
*::::You are literally [[WP:APPEAL]]ing the ban. Wikilawyering the process is unlikely to help with the goal. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 06:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
*::::"Appealing a topic ban" and "proposing the lifting of a topic ban" mean fundamentally the same thing on Wikipedia. I have no idea what you're trying to do here other than argue over semantics or [[WP:Wikilawyering|wikilawyer]], both of which are a waste of community time. [[User:Left guide|Left guide]] ([[User talk:Left guide|talk]]) 06:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
*::{{tq|This isn't an appeal of the punishment}}. What on earth do you mean by that? And then what is the purpose of this post if you're not trying to appeal the topic ban? That remark makes absolutely no sense. [[User:Left guide|Left guide]] ([[User talk:Left guide|talk]]) 05:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::I'm using the word "appeal" in the same sense that the justice system uses it, to overturn a judgement, as in I disagree with it and think she should be found innocent. Im not contending that she was innocent, just that she has served her time and should be let out of prison as a productive member of Wikipedia society. [[User:Epachamo|Epachamo]] ([[User talk:Epachamo|talk]]) 06:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''On hold'''. If Rachel Helps comes here and indicates that she is wishing to appeal, then this case can proceed with an examination of the evidence. Without her input, I don't think we should do anything. Also, it is customary in appeals for appellants to address the reasons for the ban and convince us that they would not be repeated. You can't do that on her behalf. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 05:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

*'''Oppose as not appealed by the sanctioned user.''' Epachamo, cut the pettifogging out. I know you're acting in good faith here, but the fact of the matter is we have ''never'' entertained ban appeals from anyone but the banned editor, with third-party appeals generally being grounds to reject the appeal out of hand. If Helps wants to come and appeal her topic ban she is more than welcome to do so, but it will be when ''she'' wants to make the effort to do so and not before. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color: #228B22">v^&lowbar;^v</span>]] <sup><small>[[User:Jéské Couriano/AG|threads]] [[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|critiques]]</small></sup> 07:16, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per above. Third party appeals not entertained, and the OP lawyers like a puritan hedge priest. FWIW whereas WP:TB tells us 
{{blockquote|text=For example, if an editor is banned from the topic [Mormonism], this editor is forbidden from editing not only the article [Mormonism], but also{{nbsp}}... discussions or suggestions about [Mormonism]-related topics anywhere on Wikipedia, for instance{{nbsp}}... the user's own user and talk pages.}}
:FYI [[Special:Diff/1236843460|diff]]. Conversely, it's only one bloody comment, let's enjoy ourselves.  [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:red">——Serial Number 54129</span>]] 11:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
{{abottom}}

== COPYLINK question ==

I apologize if I'm asking about this at the wrong noticeboard, but I've got a question regarding [[:WP:COPYLINK]]. I recently posted at [[:WP:RX]] asking for help tracking down potential sources for an article currently being discussed at AfD. The source was posted by another participant in the AfD but there was no link provided. Anyway, someone at RX was able to able to find one of sources, and sent me a url to a [[:Google Drive]] page where a [[NewsBank]] printout of the source can be found. Is it OK for me to add that link to Google Drive to the AfD discussion so that others can view and assess the source themselves? Would it be considered a COPYLINK violation? Is there anyway for others to use the URL to find out who created the link? I don't want to accidentally out someone. FWIW, I did respond to the email and asked the sender if it would be OK to do so, but I have yet to receive a reply. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 22:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

:{{tq|Is there anyway for others to...}} Yes, in the 3 dots and details. As to COPYLINK, the second paragraph of that does not seem to be talking only about sharing those links in articles, though I have no experience with this. &ndash; [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:80B8:501:693D:FC50:7305:D414|2804:F1...05:D414]] ([[User talk:2804:F14:80B8:501:693D:FC50:7305:D414|talk]]) 06:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
:I would say a link to someone's personal Google Drive is not allowed, even if it has sources in it. You can probably image search the Newsbank photo and get that link (if it exists). Or, similarly, if the page#, date, and publisher exists, then someone can probably use newspapers.com to find it. [[User:Conyo14|Conyo14]] ([[User talk:Conyo14|talk]]) 23:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

== [[Yarnell Hill Fire]] Article Objection  ==
*{{pagelinks|Yarnell Hill Fire}}
{{atop|reason=Not a matter for administrator attention. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: black;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 03:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)}}
To whom it may concern, I'm expressing deep concern for the article of the Yarnell Hill Fire. This article is a direct reminder of what occurred on the fateful day of June 30, 2013, along with the entire incident as a whole. however, there's a complete and utter disregard for the firefighters who lost their heroic lives, by stating the toxicology report from their autopsies. They fought for their lives and in the end paid the ultimate sacrifice, and yet the article shows how the firefighters were not only on drugs but legally drunk by state statues of the 0.08 BAC Laws. This is a great disregard for the families that have to not only live with but to read on this page. Wikipedia is supposed to provide information in ways that don't tend to disregard and disrespect our heroes who gave the ultimate sacrifice. It's bad enough that Yarnell lost 19 Hot Shots they do not need to hear about how they were under the influence fighting for their communities.

Thank you for your time and understanding of my concerns [[Special:Contributions/143.170.106.2|143.170.106.2]] ([[User talk:143.170.106.2|talk]]) 02:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

:This is not a matter for AN, The toxicology reports are what they are, and the article doesn’t actually state what you say it says in the manner you assert. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: black;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 03:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== User:Eches0's  file uploads ==
{{atop
| result = Blocked, locked and contributions nuked. #TeamWork [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 03:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
}}

*{{user links|Eches0}}

{{u|Eches0}} is a newly created account that looks to have uploaded 300+ files today alone without any kind of information about their [[:provenance]] or copyright status. This is probably just a good-faith misunderstanding of [[:WP:IUP]], but the number of files is so great it might take time to sort them all. Perhaps an admin could ask Eches0 stop uploading files at least until they've gotten a better understanding of file copyright licensing and relevant policy. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 02:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:While I was posting this, {{u|Ingenuity}} blocked Eches0 as a sock, so I guess that means notifying them of this discussion is no longer needed. There's still a incredible amoount of tiles though that need to be dealt with, and perhaps they could all just be speedily deleted per [[:WP:F9]] or [[:WP:G5]]. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 02:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
::I tried mass deleting them all per G5, but it crashed, <s>I assume because there were 300+ files</s> ''because Ingenuity got to them first''. I'll leave it for someone with more technical skills (or a better computer). [[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 02:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
::::sigh, fuzzy headed tonight.  It now appears Ingenuity and I both deleted some.  So I'm not a total waste of space tonight. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 02:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::Nuke is not working super well... after giving lots of errors, it looks like we [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File%3ADeadSummerNightsGargantuarwithImp-1-.jpg both managed to delete the same page at the same time]? —[[User:Ingenuity|Ingenuity]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Ingenuity#top|t]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[Special:Contribs/Ingenuity|c]]) 02:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::Double secret deletion.  I wonder if you'd have to undelete it twice? --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 02:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Thanks {{u|Floquenbeam}} and {{u|Ingenuity}}. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 02:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Disruptive User Lavalizard101 ==
{{Atop|No evidence of the need for administrative intervention has been presented.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 13:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)}}

[[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] has for no reason started reverting edits I have made. Mostly page merges and seems inclined to get involved in revert battles. [[User:Zigismon|Zigismon]] ([[User talk:Zigismon|talk]]) 20:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

:further this user gives no reasons for the reverts.  [[User:Zigismon|Zigismon]] ([[User talk:Zigismon|talk]]) 20:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
::Where have you attempted to discuss this with them, as advised by [[WP:BRD]]?  --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 21:42, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
::You have not made any attempt to speak to Lavalizard101 about the reverts. I would suggest instead of going to a noticeboard, you speak to them first. [[User:Conyo14|Conyo14]] ([[User talk:Conyo14|talk]]) 22:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
{{Abot}}

== [[WP:GS/CRYPTO|Crypto General Sanctions]] Review ==
{{atop
| result = There is no desire at this moment to lift the general sanctions over blockchain and cryptocurrencies. [[User:Isabelle Belato|Isabelle Belato]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Isabelle Belato|🏳‍🌈]]</sup></small> 13:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
}}

General sanctions including 1RR and ECR were put in place by the community on all pages with content relating to blockchains and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, in May of 2018, in [[Special:PermaLink/842448517#General_sanctions_proposal|this discussion]]. Disruption and general interest in the area seems to have decreased significantly since then. Should the sanctions be lessened, completely removed, or stay the same? 
*As the proposer, I support <s>lessening the restrictions to auto-confirmed</s> removing the sanctions completely. Per the block log at [[WP:GS/CRYPTO]], there have only been 3 bans/blocks in the past 4 years, compared to 22 in 2018 and 18 in 2019. The sensationalist aspect of crypto seems to have passed, and if it happens to return it the future, sanctions can be discussed at that time.<span style="background:#636363;border:solid#636363 1x;border-radius:15px;">'''[[User:JoeJShmo|<span style="color:#ffadbe">Jo</span><span style="color:#dbafff">e</span><span style="color:#afd0ff">J</span><span style="color:#aafff8">Sh</span><span style="color:#b6fcd5">mo</span>]]'''[[User talk:JoeJShmo|<sup><span style="transform:rotate(25deg);display:inline-block;">💌</span></sup>]]</span> 23:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

:Are you sure about the extended-confirmed restriction? While the linked closure does refer to "[[WP:ARBPIA]]-equivalent" sanctions and some pages have been extended-confirmed protected in response, a topic-wide extended-confirmed restriction never really existed nor was asked for in the discussion as far as I can see. There is thus no way to lessen something that doesn't exist, and "lessening the restrictions to auto-confirmed" would <em>add</em> a restriction.
:I'm fine with removing the 1RR as I personally didn't see it as helpful in practice. Someone comes and writes something promotional, is reverted and reverts the revert: all allowed. And then the removal may not be re-done? That just hurts recent changes patrollers rather than advertisers. [[User:ToBeFree|&#126; ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 06:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
::Although not every article has the protection in place (although such protection is warranted under the current sanctions), there are a number of articles that are under ECR because of this sanction, and the discussion is therefore relevant. I do agree with you that the sanctions should just be removed completely in light of the fact that most articles in the space aren't even auto-confirmed protected&ndash; good point. <span style="background:#636363;border:solid#636363 1x;border-radius:15px;">'''[[User:JoeJShmo|<span style="color:#ffadbe">Jo</span><span style="color:#dbafff">e</span><span style="color:#afd0ff">J</span><span style="color:#aafff8">Sh</span><span style="color:#b6fcd5">mo</span>]]'''[[User talk:JoeJShmo|<sup><span style="transform:rotate(25deg);display:inline-block;">💌</span></sup>]]</span> 07:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Those would be page level sanctions if logged at [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies]]. As I understand it, removing the general sanctions will not lift the protection for any of these pages since [[WP:ECP]] is a valid form of protection for any page nowadays. The only difference is it will allow the protection to be lifted or reduced by any admin instead of only by or with the permission of the protecting admin, or after discussing here. Note I'm fairly sure this already applies to any page where it isn't logged on the general sanctions page (and isn't protected under some other CTOP, general sanctions or other process), the protection there is not under the general sanctions system therefore is just an ordinary ECP. To be clear, this also means if there is any page protected under general sanctions, where any editor feels ECP is no longer justified, there is no need to lift the GS system for the removal or reduction of the protection. Instead they can ask the protecting admin, or open a discussion here, about that particular page. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 12:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
::::There is one other difference between CTOP/GS ECPs and regular ECPs, which is that the latter can only be done if semi-protection hasn't worked. At least in theory. I'm not sure how often that rule is followed anymore. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]&#93;</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they&#124;xe]])</small> 21:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
*Argh, mobile diffs! Those are my kryptonite. Anyway, I'd '''oppose''' lifting the mild restrictions, such as they are, in the absence of evidence that they're doing any harm.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 08:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
*:What brought this to my attention was a particularly long edit request posted by a user on one of the ECR pages. I wouldn't call it 'harm' exactly, but keeping sanctions in place does have the effect of newer editors being unable to edit that area, so if there's no good reason for the sanctions they end up just being a waste of other editors' time. <span style="background:#636363;border:solid#636363 1x;border-radius:15px;">'''[[User:JoeJShmo|<span style="color:#ffadbe">Jo</span><span style="color:#dbafff">e</span><span style="color:#afd0ff">J</span><span style="color:#aafff8">Sh</span><span style="color:#b6fcd5">mo</span>]]'''[[User talk:JoeJShmo|<sup><span style="transform:rotate(25deg);display:inline-block;">💌</span></sup>]]</span> 09:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
*::If you're talking about [[Talk:List of bitcoin companies#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 July 2024]], note that [[Special:Contributions/Domglu]] is not even confirmed [//en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=1&username=Domglu]. Perhaps they would have made the 10 edits to earn auto-confirmed (the account was created back in 2017 but doesn't seem to have edited here until now), but I'm not sure how likely this is. And I'm unconvinced we want [[Talk:List of bitcoin companies]] to be unprotected whether the GS exists. I suspect semi-protection is the bare minimum for such a list as it will be a magnet for spam and good-faith but non-notable additions. So in that particular example, I'm not sure anything would be different with or without GS. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 12:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
*I am happy to see some discussion of a community GS as I think the community would do well to periodically review its sanctions. In this instance, would prefer to see no blocks/bans for at least a couple of years in order to rescind and so I would be in favor of keeping the restrictions on Crypto/blockchains the same at this time. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 15:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Cryptocurrency/archive|cryptocurrency spam has not gone away]]. The reduction in spam is a sign of the sanctions working. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 16:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Note''' - [[User:JoeJShmo|JoeJShmo]] is currently blocked for 1 week for a topic-ban violation, unrelated to this discussion. As such, he will be unable to respond to comments here. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 17:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - While it has diminished from its 2023 peak, there're still no shortage of people trying to prop up currencies [[exit scam|to take "investors" for a ride]], and Wikipedia pages would be a huge boon to those efforts. The increased vigilance is still necessary. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color: #228B22">v^&lowbar;^v</span>]] <sup><small>[[User:Jéské Couriano/AG|threads]] [[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|critiques]]</small></sup> 20:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose procedurally''', an established editor can make this request but JJS has had trouble in other contentious areas and I don't think this is an area where it should be lowered <s>so he can edit, which I assume is the unspoken behind this request.</s> [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 01:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC) Partially struck at [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JoeJShmo&oldid=prev&diff=1237486650 subject's request], although I think this remains a bad idea. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 02:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Crypto promotion isn't going away while people think they can make money. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 02:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Scammers promoters of get rich quick schemes are still active in this topic area. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 02:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== AIV backlog ==
{{atop
| result = Dealt with. Thanks to all who helped. [[User:Isabelle Belato|Isabelle Belato]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Isabelle Belato|🏳‍🌈]]</sup></small> 22:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
}}

There is currently a huge backlog at AIV, with 29 comments and multiple LTA reports that need dealt with. [[User:Jdcomix|Jdcomix]] ([[User talk:Jdcomix|talk]]) 14:16, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

:Hacking away at it. [[User:Isabelle Belato|Isabelle Belato]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Isabelle Belato|🏳‍🌈]]</sup></small> 14:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks. [[User:Jdcomix|Jdcomix]] ([[User talk:Jdcomix|talk]]) 14:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== LTA attacking noticeboards ==
{{atop
| result = Being discussed [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#So_what_are_we_doing_about_that_IP|here]]. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 02:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
}}

Not sure who it is, but there is a very persistent LTA attacking our noticeboards with constantly changing IP addresses. I've blocked a half dozen or more and protected a number of the targeted boards. Unfortunately, it is getting a bit late where I am and I need some sleep. Extra eyes would be appreciated. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 06:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== No action taken on stockpuppet and vandal [[User:NairaMahiHDPaakhiAadhya]]  ==
{{atop
| result = Handled by [[User:Extraordinary Writ|Extraordinary Writ]] <small>([[Wikipedia:Non-admin closure|non-admin closure]])</small> — [[User:DaxServer|DaxServer]] ([[User talk:DaxServer|t]]·[[Special:Contributions/DaxServerOnMobile|m]]·[[Special:Contributions/DaxServerEverywhere|e]]·[[Special:Contributions/DaxServer|c]]) 09:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
}}

{{Userlink|NairaMahiHDPaakhiAadhya}}
* This account is a sockpuppet of [[User: Kairakairav]], who has a history of adding factually incorrect information on [[WP: Hinduism]] articles by making 100s of sockpuppets. 
* They gets banned everytime for vandalism, despite attempts made by other users to guide them.
* However, they make another account and continue the same type of vandalism. 
* This cycle has been in continuation for more than a year.
* Like previous sockpuppets, Kairakairav has returned as NairaMahiHDPaakhiAadhya and constantly irritating users by adding "fanfics", replacing the well sourced info from articles like [[Kunti]], [[Pandu]], [[Eklavya]], [[Madri]], [[Sahadeva]], [[Yudhishthira]], [[Nakula]] and many more.
* I had opened an stockpuppet investigation [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kairakairav]] but no action has been taken even after 3 weeks.
* Earlier [[User: Redtigerxyz]] had reported this user at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1161#User:NairaMahiHDPaakhiAadhya]], but it was archived without any action taken.
[[User:245CMR|<span style="background:maroon;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;">.<span style="color:yellow; background:maroon;">''245'''''CMR'''</span>.</span>]]•<sup>[[User talk:245CMR|👥]][[Special:Contributions/245CMR|📜]]</sup> 06:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
:Blocked. [[User:Extraordinary Writ|Extraordinary Writ]] ([[User talk:Extraordinary Writ|talk]]) 04:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

==Request to start a page==
{{atop
| result = Handled by Jake Wartenberg <small>([[Wikipedia:Non-admin closure|non-admin closure]])</small> — [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 21:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
}}
I request permission to create a page, [[Thulani Victor Mbuyisa]], a Roman Catholic bishop in South Africa. I thank you. [[User:SiniyaEdita|SiniyaEdita]] ([[User talk:SiniyaEdita|talk]]) 11:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
:Please see [[Help:Your first article]]. All the best, [[User:Miniapolis|'''''<span style="color:navy">Mini</span>''''']][[User talk:Miniapolis|'''''<span style="color:#8B4513">apolis</span>''''']] 22:20, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
::A "first article" page is not relevant here (the user then requested assistance at [[Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit]] where the request was [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Edit&diff=prev&oldid=1238003397 removed] with a suggestion to "try the Article wizard" in the edit summary). The reason an article or draft could not be created is because of the title blacklist: <code>.*thula.*(victor|makhubu).* # [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nokuthula27]]</code> - it looks like this could be changed to <code>.*thula.*(victori|makhubu).* # [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nokuthula27]]</code>. [[User:Peter James|Peter James]] ([[User talk:Peter James|talk]]) 13:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
:::Looking at these sockpuppets in 2020, it looks like they were all focused on creating an article for a South African model, Thula victorious, I'm not sure how this other page title got caught up in this title blacklist. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 19:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
{{ping|SiniyaEdita}} I have made the change to the Title Blacklist proposed by Peter.  You should be able to create the page now. ⇌ [[User talk:Jake Wartenberg|Jake Wartenberg]] 20:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Undo ==
{{atop
| result = Handled by Black Kite <small>([[Wikipedia:Non-admin closure|non-admin closure]])</small> — [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 21:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
}}
please undo this [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mr_Gay_UK&diff=prev&oldid=1166330727] and [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mr_Gay_UK&diff=prev&oldid=1213899067], this is vandalism, thanks [[User:Rafael Ronen|<span style="font-weight:700;background-image:linear-gradient(90deg,#FF0018,#FFA52C,#ffdf00,#008018,#0000F9,#86007D);color:honeydew;border-radius:4px;">&nbsp;Rafael&nbsp;Ronen&nbsp;</span>]] 09:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

:I see IP vandalizing this article seriously, need to undo to February 10, 2022 [[User:Rafael Ronen|<span style="font-weight:700;background-image:linear-gradient(90deg,#FF0018,#FFA52C,#ffdf00,#008018,#0000F9,#86007D);color:honeydew;border-radius:4px;">&nbsp;Rafael&nbsp;Ronen&nbsp;</span>]] 09:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:: {{done}} and revision-deleted. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 10:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Black Kite}} thanks [[User:Rafael Ronen|<span style="font-weight:700;background-image:linear-gradient(90deg,#FF0018,#FFA52C,#ffdf00,#008018,#0000F9,#86007D);color:honeydew;border-radius:4px;">&nbsp;Rafael&nbsp;Ronen&nbsp;</span>]] 01:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Appeal of a 6 year old topic ban on closing/relisting deletion discussions ==
{{archive top|status=Successful appeal|result=There is consensus to lift {{np|Jdcomix}}'s topic ban from closing and/or relisting any deletion discussion. [[User:DanCherek|DanCherek]] ([[User talk:DanCherek|talk]]) 01:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)}}
I was indefinitely topic banned from closing/relisting any deletion discussions in February of 2018. Since it has been 6 years since the topic ban was enacted, and the enforcing admin said I could appeal in 3-6 months, I would like to appeal my topic ban long after that time. I have gained a lot more experience on AFD policy in that time through observation, and don't plan on closing any non-SNOW/speedy discussions. My focus is almost entirely on RC, edit filter, and new page patrol now, so to be honest, I just want a clean slate after so much time even though I don't plan on closing many (if any) AfDs. [[User:Jdcomix|Jdcomix]] ([[User talk:Jdcomix|talk]]) 23:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
*Convenience link to the ban discussion: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=826748199#Many_non-admin_AfD_closures_by_User:Jdcomix].  I note Jdcomix has been around for quite a while, took a hiatus from 2021, and has returned to active editing 2 months ago. I feel quite comfortable wiping his slate clean via a formal '''unban''', given his assurances above. I'd also suggest that if he does any NAC at all, including crystal clear and appropriate ones, he go slow and start off doing one at a time. That would be good practice for any NAC, doubly so given his history here. [[User:Martinp|Martinp]] ([[User talk:Martinp|talk]]) 06:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

*I took a look at their block log and discovered they've had exactly one block; [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=89188724 by me, during the aforementioned discussion].  I have zero recollection of the details.  In any case, that was 6 years ago, which is a long time.  Their user page says they are currently in college; without intending to pry into any private details of their life, most people in college are very different from the person they were 6 years previously.  I can't see any reason to deny this request.  [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 14:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

*'''Support''' reasonable appeal and next steps. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 03:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' reasonable timeframe. Appears remorseful. Etc. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 14:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 03:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''', per above. &spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 01:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

== Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Sennalen ==
{{discussion top|There is '''no consensus''' (not even [[WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS]]) to either unblock outright or to convert the block to topic ban/s. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 13:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)}}

<small>''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Enforcement|here]]. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.''</small>

<small>''To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors.  Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see [[WP:UNINVOLVED]]).''</small>

; Appealing user : {{userlinks|Sennalen}} – [[User:Sennalen|Sennalen]] ([[User talk:Sennalen#top|talk]]) 21:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

; Sanction being appealed : Indefinite site block made by Galobtter as an AE action.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?oldid=1189167307#%E0%B6%A2%E0%B6%B4%E0%B7%83_and_Bon_courage] An appeal was declined at AE.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?oldid=1213589857#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Sennalen]

; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|Galobtter}}

; Notification of that administrator : [[Special:Diff/1236676427]]

===Statement by Sennalen===

Since the original closing only alleges "disruption" without identifying specific acts, I look to Galobtter's comment[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?oldid=1213589857#Statement_by_Galobtter] on the appeal as the definitive statement of what I am supposed to answer for.
* I did not use a news source to undercut a scientific source. I wrote the entire [[Zoonotic origins of COVID-19]] to give priority to peer-reviewed journal articles over news and opinion. By design, only the final 6 KB "Views" section[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Zoonotic_origins_of_COVID-19&oldid=1187018623#Views] of this 61KB article included news sources at all. Part of that was a neutral summary about congress calling a paper into question. The paper itself was outdated for the purpose of presenting current scientific understanding regardless. I used the news source in an appropriate way, and furthermore, the choice to pick this minor aspect of the article to characterize my overall attitude towards the topic is highly misleading.
* I did not push a lab leak point of view. In the article, I wrote that scientists consider a natural origin more likely than a lab origin. I also presented several new lines of evidence, which had never been cited on Wikipedia before, against lab theories. Galobtter cited some isolated Talk comments seven months older than my article edits.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=1150541753][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=1151668320] I did express belief in a lab origin at that time, but also principally argued for following sources. My beliefs evolve over time to account for new evidence. Having a belief is not a behavioral infraction. Every edit I made to article space was verifiable from peer-reviewed journals and given balanced weight. There was no violation.
* In the months since I was blocked, proposals to delete[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zoonotic_origins_of_COVID-19] or merge[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2&oldid=1231778480#Proposed_merge_of_Zoonotic_origins_of_COVID-19_into_Origin_of_COVID-19] closed with no consensus. In particular, there was no consensus that my article was a PoV fork of [[Origin of SARS-CoV-2]]. Several editors noted that I wrote mainly about science whereas the existing article was mainly about political inquiries. In short, I wrote a good article in a valuable unfilled niche.
* In a matter Galobtter raised after the block, I agreed that I should not have [[WP:OVERCITE]]ed seven reliable sources to support a contested claim on [[Western Marxism]]. Nevertheless, the wording of the claim and the choice of which page to present it on were based on prior consensus.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marxist_cultural_analysis&diff=prev&oldid=1060833128][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory/Archive_19#Western_Marxism_is_another_name_for_cultural_Marxism] When new arguments were made, I withdrew voluntarily to work on better edits incorporating on that feedback.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Western_Marxism&diff=next&oldid=1186248998] The situation resolved positively on its own. Nothing about these events explains why I was indef site blocked.
* Finally, Galobtter made some statements about race and intelligence that continue to be of unclear relevance. It is a fact that I was an uninvolved commenter on an RfC and then in some related ANI threads about the RfC. Old threads keep being linked without any indication why they are supposed to be a problem in relation to me. This, more than any other part of this ordeal, feels like a [[WP:SMEAR]].
* To address {{u|Seraphimblade}}'s concern about whether I understand [[WP:FRINGE]], I wrote an overview of the history and meaning of the guideline [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sennalen#The_meaning_of_fringe]. Hopefully that puts those concerns to rest. I have never promoted any kind of pseudoscience or conspiracy theory on Wikipedia. Though I have edited in some contested topics, I have always done so while using appropriate sources and writing from the perspective of the scientific and/or historical establishment. Policy says, {{tq|Editors may present active public disputes or controversies documented by reliable sources; citing a viewpoint stated in a mainstream scholarly journal, textbook, or monograph is not per se disruptive editing.}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Distinguished_from_productive_editing]
The case against me was based on routine edits that are of no significance without a context of already assuming bad faith. I have observed all Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and as ever remain committed to observing all policies and guidelines in the future. It's not necessary to like me personally or agree with all my content positions. All that matters per [[WP:Blocking policy]] is that blocking me does not prevent any disruption; therefore the block is against policy. I look forward to writing many more quality articles on diverse subjects in the future. [[User:Sennalen|Sennalen]] ([[User talk:Sennalen#top|talk]]) 21:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
:I'm sorry if anyone finds my tone too defensive or not apologetic enough. There is an appropriate order to things: an act is alleged, evidence for it is presented, a rule or principle the act violated is identified, and only then is it possible to reflect on the error of my ways. I can't just skip to the end without the previous steps. If I have made a pseudoscientific edit, I really want to know what it is. If there is one, I will be deeply embarrassed and disappointed in myself. As a matter of [[WP:ADMINACCT]] it shouldn't be a guessing game for me. 
:
:I'm glad people are starting to notice some other editors have avoided scrutiny, but I disagree with saying they are on the opposite side of a conspiracy theory from me. We are all on the same side against the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. It's a false, dangerous, and anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. I was the first person on Wikipedia to try to systematically explain why the conspiracy theory is factually wrong[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1104389307] (rather than just asserting that it's a moral outrage.) This follows [[WP:EVALFRINGE]], {{tq|describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas}}. There is a timesink, and it comes from editors whose feelings about the topic are too strong to treat it objectively. That's especially damaging when they export their feelings about the conspiracy theory to ordinary articles in history and sociology. That's what I have been up against.
:
:Replacing the existing sanction with something less severe sounds like an idea worth exploring, but there is no reason to split the difference between truth and falsehood. The truth is that I have no problematic agenda. The value of a sanction is what it prevents. A topic ban from covid would stop me from supplying requested sources. For cultural Marxism (broadly construed) it would stop me from planned expansions on the theory of communicative action or the aestheticization of politics. That's not serving the community's interests. [[User:Sennalen|Sennalen]] ([[User talk:Sennalen#top|talk]]) 15:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
:(additional statement by Sennalen pasted from talk page by me) [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 17:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
::Thank you to {{u|XOR'easter}} for taking the time to investigate my comments. I only tried to document the evolution of the policy over time, not to argue that it was better or worse at any stage of that evolution, so I'm sorry if I gave that impression. There is no "editor cabal", but some editors mis-apply the policy, as recognized for example by {{u|DGG}}.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?oldid=1052943597#Amendment_request:_Fringe_science] My behavior when unblocked will be as always to follow the policy as written.
::To reiterate to {{re|S Marshall}}, I don't cast doubt on academic consensus about any of the topics. I have presented the academic consensus in every CTOP I have been involved in. All content I added was accurate, verifiable, and neutral. When challenged, I listened and built consensus. It's not that I'm treated more harshly for breaking the rules than my opponents. I'm treated more harshly for '''following''' the rules than they are for breaking them. I don't doubt that it takes a lot of time to generate novel reasons to cast doubt on reliable sources. Since Wikipedia is [[WP:NOTMANDATORY]], no one actually has to spend time doing that.
::[[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks]] says that showing evidence no violation took place is a valid form of appeal. I have demonstrated that Galobtter's accusations were false, and she says she has nothing more to add. The timesink here is persisting with disproven allegations. [[User:Sennalen|Sennalen]] ([[User talk:Sennalen#top|talk]]) 18:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
::<small>I copied the third statement [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 08:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)</small>

===Statement by Galobtter===
Re EggRoll, I don't have anything to add beyond what I said at the last appeal. [[User:Galobtter|Galobtter]] ([[User talk:Galobtter|talk]]) 16:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

===Statement by Newimpartial===
Sennalen's second statement presents [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1104389307 this diff] as showing them to be {{tq|the first person on Wikipedia to try to systematically explain why the conspiracy theory is factually wrong (rather than just asserting that it's a moral outrage.)}}
Since I reverted that inclusion, Sennalen reinserted it, and it eventually did ''not'' make its way into [[Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory]], I'd like to use it as a potential "best case" example that actually shows why Sennalen's interventions in these areas have proved to be unproductive time sinks - and perhaps to show that "moral outrage" doesn't motivate the objections to their contributions.

Sennalen presents this edit as explaining "why the conspiracy is factually wrong", and I wouldn't doubt the sincerity of that intention. However, what that edit actually does - in my view but also the consensus view on article Talk (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory/Archive_18 this archive]) - is to say, effectively, that the things Sennalen lists as "wrong" are {{tq|how Cultural Marxism in the conspiracy theory differs from real (sic.) Cultural Marxism}} (my words from the archive linked above). 

In fact, about six months after their attempt to distinguish what parts of the conspiracy theory are "factually wrong", Sennalen launched a malformed RfC (found at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory/Archive_20 this archive]) to establish that {{tq|something called "cultural Marxism" existed apart from a conspiracy theory}}. Sennalen's insistence on this POV, in spite of repeated findings of community consensus from 2014 to 2023 that there is no there, there, makes for tiresome reading on Talk and is, in my view, inherently disruptive. An editor who engaged [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1187148380 to restore] this content, alongside [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory&diff=next&oldid=1187148788 Sennalen], was the same one who later [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrative_action_review&diff=prev&oldid=1218813239 appealed] Sennalen's OWNTALK editing ban (for proxying); that editor was subsequently [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:XMcan&diff=prev&oldid=1229104934 indef-blocked for disruption]. 

The bottom line is that Sennalen's edits do not accomplish the avowed goals they have in mind as their intended purpose; they consistently cause disruption and lost editor time in various domains, and this filing shows no sign of a change in their approach to editing that would lead to less disruptive results. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 20:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

===Statement by Novem Linguae===
I guess I'm involved in COVID-19 origins so moving my statement up here. '''Oppose''' revoking the block, per HandThatFeeds and S Marshall. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 19:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

===Statement by XOR'easter===
'''Oppose''' revoking the ban, as the argument for doing so reads like a request to do more of the same civil POV-pushing that led to it in the first place. (See Galobtter's statement in [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?oldid=1213589857#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Sennalen the March 2024 appeal] for why the race-and-IQ topic was included.) I have edited in these topic areas, but not (AFAICT) in the specific disputes that led to the ban or the AE discussions about them, so I am commenting in this section to be on the safe side. [[User:XOR&#39;easter|XOR&#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&#39;easter|talk]]) 23:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

:The {{tq|overview of the history and meaning of}} [[WP:FRINGE]] does not put any {{tq|concerns to rest}}; rather the opposite. For example, it complains at considerable length about language that has been stable for a decade and a half, while selectively quoting the older text, e.g., omitting [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories&oldid=97412552 the qualification] that the guideline won't even {{tq|attempt to create a rigorous philosophical demarcation between "mainstream" and "non-mainstream", which may well be impossible}}. The older phrasing {{tq|somewhat discussed as being plausible within major publications}} is treated as more precise than the newer {{tq|departs significantly from the prevailing views}}, despite the obvious vagueness of every qualifier. It then advances without evidence a claim that {{tq|a new interpretation of "fringe theory" has gained ground on Wikipedia}}, accusing a nebulous editor cabal of refusing to read sources. Far from allaying any concerns, this "overview" is a promise to sealion more. [[User:XOR&#39;easter|XOR&#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&#39;easter|talk]]) 23:27, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

===Statement by TarnishedPath===
I started an AFD on [[Zoonotic origins of COVID-19]] and have participated in a merge discussion concerning it, so I guess that makes me involved. This unblock request is mostly defensive and there is a severe lack of acknowledgment for what led to the block or what they will do differently in regards to those issues. I'm not convinced that their previous disruption will cease and therefore '''oppose''' unblocking them. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 05:35, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

===Statement by (involved editor 1)===

===Statement by (involved editor 2)===

===Result of the appeal by Sennalen===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved editors. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request (once there is a consensus) use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} if at AE, or an archive/discussion box template if on AN, inform the user on their talk page and note it in the contentious topics log below where their sanctions is logged. -->
*Sennalen, I mean this in all good faith, but I don't think this is a well-crafted request at this time.  By putting "disruption" in quotes and evincing skepticism as to the basis of the block, it does not engender confidence that a return would be smooth.  I am in no way saying you have to agree with the block, but I think it would be wise to take on board that there was at least a reasonable basis.  Again, you don't have to agree, and you're welcome to argue against it.  But the tone here strikes me "this obvious injustice must be undone" rather than what I think would lead to success, which would be more along the lines of "I don't think it was an appropriate punishment, but I also know I can do better."  Just a thought from the peanut gallery, and whatever happens, all the best. [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 01:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
*I just wanted to note that this appeal was post here by [[User:JJMC89]]. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 03:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
*Neutral on substance, but will note that only the first year of the block is under CT and after a year it becomes an "ordinary" admin block. No difference here because the block was in December but might matter for future appeals if this is declined. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 03:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
*I don't see necessarily much of a problem with this, and I could be completely missing something (or many things?), but it seems as though the indef was taken as a way to circumvent the fact that AE can't impose topic bans on areas outside CTOP, and while I will wait for {{u|Galobtter}}'s response on the substance, I'd be fine with repealing the sanction at AE, and replacing it with a community-issued topic ban on pseudoscience, fringe science, and Cultural Marxism, broadly construed. That would allow for Sennalen to make contributions outside of those areas, while lifting the site-block itself. [[User:EggRoll97|EggRoll97]] <sup>([[User_talk:EggRoll97|talk]]) </sup> 03:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
*I commented at the giant trainwreck AE thread that resulted in Sennalen's ouster last December, although I was not involved in the dispute which that thread arose from. Does anyone know if that makes me involved here or not? If so, I will go say my crap in the section above this; if not I will say it here. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contribs/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 07:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
*:{{replyto|JPxG}} while I would not personally consider you involved, I'd suggest best just to comment above like some others have done with varying levels of involvement. But whatever you do, might be wise to comment soon since this has already been opened for a while so might be closed soon. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 08:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
*I'm seeing cultural marxism, zoonotic origins of Covid-19, and race and intelligence.  These show every sign of being sincere, non-trolling edits.  Sennalen seeks in good faith to cast doubt on the academic consensus on those topics.   EggRoll97's proposed alternative will founder on the fact that Sennalen doesn't grok that these ''are'' pseudoscientific edits, and that this editor's going to be a massive timesink in areas where volunteer time is precious.  I can see the injustice to Sennalen here: we're not treating her as we've treated others, and we're kinder to editors on the opposite side of these conspiracy theories to her.  But I'd place the encyclopaedia's interests first, so I'm at '''endorse indef and deny appeal.'''—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 07:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
*:[Later] I've seen Sennalen's additional remarks and considered them. I remain of the view that we're not being evenhanded and we haven't treated Sennalen particularly fairly. We're here to get an encyclopaedia written, and the resources of volunteer time it would take to deal with an unblocked Sennalen are substantial. Volunteer time is Wikipedia's limiting resource, so this would be an expensive unblock, if you follow me. I'm disinclined to pay that price.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 17:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
*Skimming those earlier discussions, I actually do think she was treated somewhat unfairly (in particular, I see no evidence they've done any disruption in the Race and IQ area). Unfortunately, her(very defensive) appeals indicate that she won't change her mode of communication in contentious areas at all. An unblock with CBANs on Cultural Marxism and Fringe science seems reasonable. [[User talk:Mach61|Mach61]] 12:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
* I'm a bit unconvinced by {{tq| I look forward to writing many more quality articles on diverse subjects in the future}}.  As far as I can see, in their 2000 edits Sennalen has written only two articles; [[Zoonotic origins of COVID-19]] which they would now be topic-banned from, and [[Muppet Theory]] which was non-notable and was redirected to its author. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 13:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' revoking the ban. Sennalen was a massive time sink on the pages in question, the definition of a polite POV-pusher. As evidenced by the appeal above, Sennalen absolutely does not believe she did anything wrong, and would be just as much of a time sink at any other article where she was convinced she was in the right. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 17:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' for the reasons already nlaidnout by others. Their appeal shows nothing has changed. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 20:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
*:As a second choice in case of the SB being lifted a TB should cover COVID, Marxism and fringe science. Rather than a narrower version. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 16:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support TB''' / '''oppose indef SB''' I rarely disagree with Galobterr (indeed, I don't say his wrong, ''per se'' now), but in this case, there's sufficient interpretative leeway to allow for the imposition of an AE topic ban rather than the full-on indef site ban. Per the Egg Roll. As noted above, this might be because the options are limited at AE, whereas we (the community, [[Right Here, Right Now (Fatboy Slim song)|right here, right now]]) are not tied. I think it fair to say that if that discussion had taken place here rather than there, an indefinite site ban would have been seen as [[Who breaks a butterfly upon a wheel?|breaking a butterfly on a wheel]], with the lesser sanction being imposed. I can't prove it, of course, but there's sufficient possibility to allow it now. I think we would be [[cutting off one's nose to spite one's face]] if we lose an otherwise productive editor in other areas when we could keep the editor on board just away from the boiler room. It certainly seems worth a try; if their approach remains abrasive, then we can revisit it. But it could be that the tone is a reflection of the—red blooded?—topic area and that working elsewhere might temper it.  [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:red">——Serial Number 54129</span>]] 10:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support shift to TB''': While I'm no personal fan of Sennalen, I do not think that there's enough evidence of actual disruption, as opposed to disagreement, that an AE indef is justified. Being on the wrong side of consensus over and over is not by itself grounds for a ban. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 00:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support overturn indef.''' It seems clear that Sennalen edits in good faith, and I don't see an argument for supporting an indef, or any ban really, because of perceived 'time sink' or 'polite pov pushing'. These characterizations are almost entirely subject to the POV of the beholder. Also, I will note that the crux of this appeal isn't "I'll be better in the future", it's an argument that she never deserved the indef in the first place. Bypassing her arguments and assuming she definitely did something block-worthy and then going on to take issue with the perceived defensive tone and lack of apologies, and quoting that as a reason to support indef, seems like an absolute non-argument to me. <span style="background:#636363;border:solid#636363 1x;border-radius:15px;">'''[[User:JoeJShmo|<span style="color:#ffadbe">Jo</span><span style="color:#dbafff">e</span><span style="color:#afd0ff">J</span><span style="color:#aafff8">Sh</span><span style="color:#b6fcd5">mo</span>]]'''[[User talk:JoeJShmo|<sup><span style="transform:rotate(25deg);display:inline-block;">💌</span></sup>]]</span> 01:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
* Oppose per S Marshall.  --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 18:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
{{discussion bottom}}

== This user is abusive Materialscientist ==
{{atop|reason=Warning editors about poor sourcing is not abuse. The OP is advised to read [[WP:RS]] as Materialscientist has advised, and then to learn how to include citations in the article, rather than putting them in edit summaries where readers of the article will never see them. Citations must be easily findable. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: black;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 13:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)}}
I tried editing a page and he said no that there was no links provided but i did explain to that person i provided links. [[User:Viking Fox Queen|Viking Fox Queen]] ([[User talk:Viking Fox Queen|talk]]) 11:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
: You are meant to notify users if you start a discussion about them. This is NOT OPTIONAL.  I have now notified User:Materialscientist [[User_talk:Materialscientist#AN|here]].[[User:Nigel Ish|Nigel Ish]] ([[User talk:Nigel Ish|talk]]) 12:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
:Very difficult for {{noping|Materialscientist}} to abuse anybody, considering he has an... inexemplary track record for communication, shall we say. [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<b style="color:#7a0427;">SerialNumber</b>]]''[[Special:Contributions/Serial_Number_54129|<b style="color:#17662c;">54129</b>]]'' 13:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Histmerge ==
{{atop
| result = Cryptic has waved their magic wand. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 17:48, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
}}

Could an admin perform a histmerge of [[Wikipedia:Robert Dell (Engineer)]] and [[Robert Dell (engineer)]]? 

Thanks. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 22:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
:I s'pose. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 22:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== [[Russell Brand]] revdel request ==

:''[[special:diff/1238545130|Diff (admins only)]]''

-thx [[User:Kcmastrpc|Kcmastrpc]] ([[User talk:Kcmastrpc|talk]]) 13:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

:Yeah, an edit like that deserves an indef block and revdel. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 16:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

:{{an3|b|indef}}: [[User talk:IronMike6#Indefinite block]]. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 11:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

== Closure review of {{section link|Talk:MeToo movement#Proposed merge of Weinstein effect into MeToo movement}} ==

In any merge discussion, the bare minimum requirement for the pages to be kept separate is for those opposing to articulate and agree on distinct scopes. That did not happen here. The vast majority of editors felt that the terms were synonymous — I count 12 supports to 4 opposes, with a few IPs on both sides — and among the minority who did not, there was never agreement between even two editors on how the content of the two articles should differ. The secondary oppose argument, that the MeToo movement article is too big for a merge, was dispatched with the counterargument that the article ought to be trimmed down and that there's not much worth merging.

The closer initially justified a no-consensus close in part by stating, erroneously, that {{tq|Consensus for both sides had about equal numerical support}}. He then modified the close once [[Special:Permalink/1238368578#Closure_math|challenged on his talk page]]. Still, given the overwhelming numerical support for merging, and that without a baseline agreement on distinct scopes there is no hope for the pages to evolve in a useful direction, this nomination clearly should have succeeded. <span style="border:3px outset;border-radius:8pt 0;padding:1px 5px;background:linear-gradient(6rad,#86c,#2b9)">[[User:Sdkb|<span style="color:#FFF;text-decoration:inherit;font:1em Lucida Sans">Sdkb</span>]]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Sdkb|'''talk''']]</sup> 15:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' to a merge, as nom. <span style="border:3px outset;border-radius:8pt 0;padding:1px 5px;background:linear-gradient(6rad,#86c,#2b9)">[[User:Sdkb|<span style="color:#FFF;text-decoration:inherit;font:1em Lucida Sans">Sdkb</span>]]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Sdkb|'''talk''']]</sup> 15:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': To be clear, the error was in phrasing, not in my actual evaluation of the numbers of people supporting/opposing in general. Also, the specific arguments here about my evaluation of consensus were not presented on my talk page. In any event, those arguments would not have persuaded me to change my mind, so I think it's fine to proceed with this close review. I'll let my close speak for itself. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 16:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

== Backlog ==

There is a tremendous backlog of RD1 requests. I just thought I'd drop a note. [[User:Scorpions1325|Scorpions1325]] ([[User talk:Scorpions1325|talk]]) 13:13, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

:As one of the people contributing to the backlog (in the good way, not the adding copyright violations way!) I just want to say thank you to @[[User:DanCherek|DanCherek]] for dealing with it. It's much appreciated. [[User:GreenLipstickLesbian|GreenLipstickLesbian]] ([[User talk:GreenLipstickLesbian|talk]]) 04:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
::+1 [[User:Scorpions1325|Scorpions1325]] ([[User talk:Scorpions1325|talk]]) 08:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

== IP user 24.50.25.163 ==
*{{userlinks|24.50.25.163}}

Hello, this anon is removing my warning for not assuming good faith in the edit summary for [[Toy  Story 2]]. I am getting  tired of reverting their talk page edits. [[User:Felicia777|Felicia]] [[User Talk:Felicia777|(talk)]] 15:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

:They're allowed to remove warnings from their own talk page (see [[WP:NOTWALLOFSHAME]]). I've reported at [[WP:AIV|AIV]] for persistent vandalism and block evasion, though. [[User:Dylnuge|<span style="color: #1e79a1;font-weight:700;">Dylnuge</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Dylnuge|''Talk'']] • [[Special:Contributions/Dylnuge|''Edits'']])</sup> 15:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

== Administrators' newsletter – August 2024 ==

[[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter|News and updates for administrators]] from the past month (July 2024).
<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">

[[File:Wikipedia Administrator.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Administrator changes'''
:[[File:Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg|20px|alt=readded|Readded]] [[Special:Permalink/1234583465#Resysop request (Isabelle Belato)|Isabelle Belato]]
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] {{Hlist|class=inline
|[[Special:Permalink/1231919678#Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2024#July 2024|Ian.thomson]]
|[[Special:Permalink/1234739660#Desysop request (Modussiccandi)|Modussiccandi]]
}}

[[File:Wikipedia Interface administrator.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Interface administrator changes'''
:[[File:Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg|20px|alt=readded|Readded]] [[Special:Permalink/1235541419#Int admin (2) for Izno|Izno]]

</div>
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">

[[File:ANEWSicon.png|right|150px]]

[[File:Checkuser Logo.svg|20px|alt=]] '''CheckUser changes'''
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] [[meta:Special:Permalink/27134064#Barkeep49@enwiki|Barkeep49]]

</div>
</div>

[[File:Octicons-tools.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Technical news'''
* [[:meta:Global blocks|Global blocks]] may now target accounts as well as IP's. Administrators may [[Special:GlobalBlockWhitelist|locally unblock]] when appropriate.
* Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via [[Special:GlobalVanishRequest]]. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.

[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Arbitration'''
* The Arbitration Committee [[Special:Permalink/1238795146#Conflict of interest VRT appointments, July 2024|appointed]] the following administrators to the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Conflict of interest reports|conflict of interest volunteer response team]]: {{noping|Bilby}}, {{noping|Extraordinary&nbsp;Writ}}

----
{{center|{{flatlist|
* [[Wikipedia talk:Administrators' newsletter|Discuss this newsletter]]
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Subscribe|Subscribe]]
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Archive|Archive]]
}}}}
<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 16:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1238586059 -->

== Refresh of arbitration policy and procedures ==

The Arbitration Committee has been working on a refresh of the [[WP:ARBPOL|arbitration policy]] and [[WP:AC/P|procedures]]. We invite interested editors to participate in the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/2024 Review|community consultation]], which will be open until at least 16 August. [[User:Maxim|Maxim]] ([[User talk:Maxim|talk]]) 20:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
: Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Refresh of arbitration policy and procedures}}'''<!-- [[User:ArbClerkBot|ArbClerkBot]] ([[User talk:ArbClerkBot|talk]]) 20:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes-->

== IP User 23.241.114.84 Threatening Messages ==
{{archive top|result=Blocked, TPA revoked, edits cleaned up. —[[User:Ingenuity|Ingenuity]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Ingenuity#top|t]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[Special:Contribs/Ingenuity|c]]) 00:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)}}
The IP User 23.241.114.84  has left vaguely threatening messages on my talk page with links to 4chan about how they're watching me. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BrocadeRiverPoems&diff=prev&oldid=1239028645 Here]. Given that the recently blocked [[User:Nocomputersintexas]] shared [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Corporate_Memphis&diff=prev&oldid=1237496548] edit history with the IP [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Corporate_Memphis&diff=prev&oldid=1230539961], I'm inclined to believe they are related incidents.  <b>[[User:BrocadeRiverPoems|<span style="font-family:vivaldi; color:Purple;">Brocade River Poems</span>]]</b> 23:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
:Blocked. Given the attacks and their [[Special:Diff/1223127874|lulz edit]] their motivation is clear. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 00:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

== Draftified an RTOA attempt ==

Would an admin mind taking a look at {{no redirect|Cornelius (Planet of the Apes)}} to make sure I didn't make a mess when trying to draftifying the attempt of another user to create and article titled "Cornelius (Planet of the Apes)" as [[:Draft:Cornelius (Planet of the Apes)]] with [[:Special:diff/IAmTheMuppetMan/1239060827|this edit]]. I didn't realize this was [[:WP:RTOA]] attempt until after I draftified the page. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 06:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

== Replacement needed ==

Due to an undocumented bug in the MassMove script, where it occasionally just decides to execute a dozen page+talk moves with a broken find+replace, I have been spending the last half-hour or so trying to repair this clusterfuck:
{{ctop}}
<pre>(change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:35:54 diff hist +94‎ N Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of transport ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of transport to Environmental impact of transport: User:Plastikspork btw -- dont know why the script did this but i am having to manually fix like a dozen error pages current Tag: New redirect
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:35:54 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Environmental impact of transport ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of transport to Environmental impact of transport: User:Plastikspork btw -- dont know why the script did this but i am having to manually fix like a dozen error pages current rollback: 2 edits
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:35:45 diff hist +93‎ N Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of shipping ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of shipping to Environmental impact of shipping: User:Plastikspork btw -- dont know why the script did this but i am having to manually fix like a dozen error pages current Tag: New redirect
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:35:44 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Environmental impact of shipping ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of shipping to Environmental impact of shipping: User:Plastikspork btw -- dont know why the script did this but i am having to manually fix like a dozen error pages current rollback: 2 edits
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:35:36 diff hist +90‎ N Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of paper ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of paper to Environmental impact of paper: User:Plastikspork btw -- dont know why the script did this but i am having to manually fix like a dozen error pages current Tag: New redirect
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:35:36 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Environmental impact of paper ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of paper to Environmental impact of paper: User:Plastikspork btw -- dont know why the script did this but i am having to manually fix like a dozen error pages current rollback: 2 edits
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:35:25 diff hist +90‎ N Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of paint ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of paint to Environmental impact of paint: User:Plastikspork btw -- dont know why the script did this but i am having to manually fix like a dozen error pages current Tag: New redirect
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:35:25 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Environmental impact of paint ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of paint to Environmental impact of paint: User:Plastikspork btw -- dont know why the script did this but i am having to manually fix like a dozen error pages current rollback: 2 edits
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:35:12 diff hist +91‎ N Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of mining ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of mining to Environmental impact of mining: User:Plastikspork btw -- dont know why the script did this but i am having to manually fix like a dozen error pages current Tag: New redirect
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:35:12 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Environmental impact of mining ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of mining to Environmental impact of mining: User:Plastikspork btw -- dont know why the script did this but i am having to manually fix like a dozen error pages current rollback: 2 edits
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:34:27 diff hist +95‎ N Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of irrigation ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of irrigation to Environmental impact of irrigation: User:Plastikspork btw -- dont know why the script did this current Tag: New redirect
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:34:27 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Environmental impact of irrigation ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of irrigation to Environmental impact of irrigation: User:Plastikspork btw -- dont know why the script did this current rollback: 2 edits
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:34:15 diff hist +113‎ N Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of illicit drug production ‎ JPxG moved page Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of illicit drug production to Talk:Environmental impact of illicit drug production: User:Plastikspork btw -- dont know why the script did this current Tag: New redirect
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:34:15 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Talk:Environmental impact of illicit drug production ‎ JPxG moved page Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of illicit drug production to Talk:Environmental impact of illicit drug production: User:Plastikspork btw -- dont know why the script did this current rollback: 2 edits
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:34:14 diff hist +108‎ N Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of illicit drug production ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of illicit drug production to Environmental impact of illicit drug production: User:Plastikspork btw -- dont know why the script did this current Tag: New redirect
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:34:14 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Environmental impact of illicit drug production ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of illicit drug production to Environmental impact of illicit drug production: User:Plastikspork btw -- dont know why the script did this current rollback: 2 edits
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:34:01 diff hist +92‎ N Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of bitcoin ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of bitcoin to Environmental impact of bitcoin: User:Plastikspork btw -- dont know why the script did this current Tag: New redirect
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:34:01 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Environmental impact of bitcoin ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of bitcoin to Environmental impact of bitcoin: User:Plastikspork btw -- dont know why the script did this current rollback: 2 edits
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:33:45 diff hist +115‎ N Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of aviation in the United Kingdom ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of aviation in the United Kingdom to Environmental impact of aviation in the United Kingdom: User:Plastikspork btw -- dont know why the script did this current Tag: New redirect
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:33:45 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Environmental impact of aviation in the United Kingdom ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of aviation in the United Kingdom to Environmental impact of aviation in the United Kingdom: User:Plastikspork btw -- dont know why the script did this current rollback: 2 edits
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:33:24 diff hist +93‎ N Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of aviation ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of aviation to Environmental impact of aviation: User:Plastikspork btw -- dont know why the script did this current Tag: New redirect
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:33:24 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Environmental impact of aviation ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of aviation to Environmental impact of aviation: User:Plastikspork btw -- dont know why the script did this current rollback: 2 edits
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:30:59 diff hist +107‎ N Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of transport in Australia ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of transport in Australia to Environmental impact of transport in Australia: WHY IS THE MASSMOVE SCRIPT EXECUTING WITHOUT VERIFYING THE FIND-REPLACE?????????? current Tag: New redirect
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:30:59 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Environmental impact of transport in Australia ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of transport in Australia to Environmental impact of transport in Australia: WHY IS THE MASSMOVE SCRIPT EXECUTING WITHOUT VERIFYING THE FIND-REPLACE?????????? current rollback: 2 edits
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:59 diff hist +133‎ N Talk:Environmental effects of transport in Australia ‎ JPxG moved page Talk:Environmental effects of transport in Australia to Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of transport in Australia: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current Tag: New redirect
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:59 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of transport in Australia ‎ JPxG moved page Talk:Environmental effects of transport in Australia to Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of transport in Australia: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current rollback: 1 edit
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:59 diff hist +128‎ N Environmental effects of transport in Australia ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental effects of transport in Australia to Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of transport in Australia: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current Tag: New redirect
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:58 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Environmental impact of transport in Australia ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental effects of transport in Australia to Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of transport in Australia: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:58 diff hist +120‎ N Talk:Environmental effects of transport ‎ JPxG moved page Talk:Environmental effects of transport to Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of transport: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current Tag: New redirect
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:58 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of transport ‎ JPxG moved page Talk:Environmental effects of transport to Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of transport: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current rollback: 1 edit
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:57 diff hist +115‎ N Environmental effects of transport ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental effects of transport to Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of transport: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current Tag: New redirect
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:57 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Environmental impact of transport ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental effects of transport to Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of transport: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:56 diff hist +119‎ N Talk:Environmental effects of shipping ‎ JPxG moved page Talk:Environmental effects of shipping to Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of shipping: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current Tag: New redirect
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:56 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of shipping ‎ JPxG moved page Talk:Environmental effects of shipping to Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of shipping: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current rollback: 1 edit
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:56 diff hist +114‎ N Environmental effects of shipping ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental effects of shipping to Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of shipping: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current Tag: New redirect
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:56 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Environmental impact of shipping ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental effects of shipping to Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of shipping: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:55 diff hist +116‎ N Talk:Environmental effects of paper ‎ JPxG moved page Talk:Environmental effects of paper to Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of paper: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current Tag: New redirect
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:55 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of paper ‎ JPxG moved page Talk:Environmental effects of paper to Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of paper: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current rollback: 1 edit
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:54 diff hist +111‎ N Environmental effects of paper ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental effects of paper to Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of paper: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current Tag: New redirect
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:54 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Environmental impact of paper ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental effects of paper to Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of paper: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:53 diff hist +116‎ N Talk:Environmental effects of paint ‎ JPxG moved page Talk:Environmental effects of paint to Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of paint: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current Tag: New redirect
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:53 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of paint ‎ JPxG moved page Talk:Environmental effects of paint to Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of paint: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current rollback: 1 edit
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:53 diff hist +111‎ N Environmental effects of paint ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental effects of paint to Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of paint: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current Tag: New redirect
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:53 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Environmental impact of paint ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental effects of paint to Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of paint: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:51 diff hist +117‎ N Talk:Environmental effects of mining ‎ JPxG moved page Talk:Environmental effects of mining to Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of mining: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current Tag: New redirect
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:51 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of mining ‎ JPxG moved page Talk:Environmental effects of mining to Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of mining: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current rollback: 1 edit
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:50 diff hist +112‎ N Environmental effects of mining ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental effects of mining to Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of mining: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current Tag: New redirect
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:50 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Environmental impact of mining ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental effects of mining to Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of mining: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:49 diff hist +121‎ N Talk:Environmental effects of irrigation ‎ JPxG moved page Talk:Environmental effects of irrigation to Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of irrigation: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current Tag: New redirect
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:49 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of irrigation ‎ JPxG moved page Talk:Environmental effects of irrigation to Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of irrigation: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current rollback: 1 edit
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:48 diff hist +116‎ N Environmental effects of irrigation ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental effects of irrigation to Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of irrigation: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current Tag: New redirect
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:48 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Environmental impact of irrigation ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental effects of irrigation to Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of irrigation: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:47 diff hist +134‎ N Talk:Environmental effects of illicit drug production ‎ JPxG moved page Talk:Environmental effects of illicit drug production to Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of illicit drug production: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current Tag: New redirect
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:47 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Talk:Environmental impact of illicit drug production ‎ JPxG moved page Talk:Environmental effects of illicit drug production to Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of illicit drug production: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:47 diff hist +129‎ N Environmental effects of illicit drug production ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental effects of illicit drug production to Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of illicit drug production: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current Tag: New redirect
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:47 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Environmental impact of illicit drug production ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental effects of illicit drug production to Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of illicit drug production: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:46 diff hist +118‎ N Talk:Environmental effects of bitcoin ‎ JPxG moved page Talk:Environmental effects of bitcoin to Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of bitcoin: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current Tag: New redirect
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:46 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of bitcoin ‎ JPxG moved page Talk:Environmental effects of bitcoin to Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of bitcoin: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current rollback: 1 edit
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:45 diff hist +113‎ N Environmental effects of bitcoin ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental effects of bitcoin to Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of bitcoin: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current Tag: New redirect
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:45 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Environmental impact of bitcoin ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental effects of bitcoin to Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of bitcoin: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:44 diff hist +141‎ N Talk:Environmental effects of aviation in the United Kingdom ‎ JPxG moved page Talk:Environmental effects of aviation in the United Kingdom to Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of aviation in the United Kingdom: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current Tag: New redirect
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:44 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of aviation in the United Kingdom ‎ JPxG moved page Talk:Environmental effects of aviation in the United Kingdom to Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of aviation in the United Kingdom: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current rollback: 1 edit
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:44 diff hist +136‎ N Environmental effects of aviation in the United Kingdom ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental effects of aviation in the United Kingdom to Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of aviation in the United Kingdom: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current Tag: New redirect
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:44 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Environmental impact of aviation in the United Kingdom ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental effects of aviation in the United Kingdom to Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of aviation in the United Kingdom: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:43 diff hist +119‎ N Talk:Environmental effects of aviation ‎ JPxG moved page Talk:Environmental effects of aviation to Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of aviation: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current Tag: New redirect
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:43 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of aviation ‎ JPxG moved page Talk:Environmental effects of aviation to Talk:Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of aviation: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current rollback: 1 edit
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:42 diff hist +114‎ N Environmental effects of aviation ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental effects of aviation to Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of aviation: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing current Tag: New redirect
 (change visibility) 2024-08-06T18:25:42 diff | thank hist 0‎ m Environmental impact of aviation ‎ JPxG moved page Environmental effects of aviation to Environmental impactEnvironmental effects of aviation: Per Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_impact (47) and Special:PrefixIndex/Environmental_effects (11), former is overwhelmingly more common; I've reviewed articles and they seem appropriate at either (and have no RM history), boldly synchronizing </pre>
{{cbot}}

Anyway, I managed to manually move the 22 pages, and then delete the 22 asinine redirects from the erroneous pagenames. But on the third task, which is to retarget the original page titles that are now redirecting to redlinks, I cannot: because for some reason, an insource search is bringing up nothing. Can someone, please, for the love of Christ, figure out how to do this? The search URL is https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?go=Go&search=insource%3A%22Environmental+impactEnvironmental+effects%22&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1&ns1=1&ns2=1&ns3=1&ns4=1&ns5=1&ns6=1&ns7=1&ns8=1&ns9=1&ns10=1&ns11=1&ns12=1&ns13=1&ns14=1&ns15=1&ns100=1&ns101=1&ns118=1&ns119=1&ns710=1&ns711=1&ns828=1&ns829=1 and the search string is <code>insource:"Environmental impactEnvironmental effects"</code> -- this needs to be changed, on the 22 applicable pages, to "Environmental effects" -- for some reason the search is just proudly wrongly displaying nothing. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contribs/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 01:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

:Sounds like 'MassMove' is one to avoid! Go to the red linked page and in the LHS menu, click on 'What links here'. -- [[User:Malcolmxl5|Malcolmxl5]] ([[User talk:Malcolmxl5|talk]]) 02:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::Fixed them all. 11 of them plus talk pages. -- [[User:Malcolmxl5|Malcolmxl5]] ([[User talk:Malcolmxl5|talk]]) 03:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:::A bot will sort out the double redirects. Also amended 'effects' to 'impact' in the lead section of the articles where appropriate. -- [[User:Malcolmxl5|Malcolmxl5]] ([[User talk:Malcolmxl5|talk]]) 04:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:Pretty sure it doesn't show with insource: because redirects are excluded from the search results ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?search=intitle%3A%225P%22&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns4=1 intitle:"5P"] brings the redirect target, but not the redirect itself, for example). &ndash; [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:8084:CE01:A996:9C0C:8A14:B176|2804:F1...14:B176]] ([[User talk:2804:F14:8084:CE01:A996:9C0C:8A14:B176|talk]]) 03:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::"intitle:" is appropriate for redirects, eg [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?search=intitle%3A%22Environmental+effects+of+transport%22&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1&ns1=1 intitle:"Environmental effects of transport"] but those redirects that had "Environmental impactEnvironmental effects" in the title were deleted so there’s nothing to find. -- [[User:Malcolmxl5|Malcolmxl5]] ([[User talk:Malcolmxl5|talk]]) 04:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:I tell page movers that they should leave a redirect when moving pages from bad page moves or else you end up with a lot of broken redirects. You can always delete the mistaken "bad" page later but the bots need a redirect to correct all of the existing redirects to the articles or talk pages. For some reason, many page movers tend not to leave redirects behind when they move articles. Luckily, because there is such a gigantic time replag going on right now, Anomie Bot III hasn't issued broken redirects reports for days so no pages got deleted accidentally. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 04:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::My plan was to go through and AWB the old titles to semi-manually correct the redirects to go to the new titles, which I seem to recall doing before to fix redirects -- I figured it was some sort of weird database lag thing, but I guess redirects just don't show up in searches at all(?) so maybe I was just misremembering the entire thing. So it goes, I guess. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contribs/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 06:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:In the future, [[WP:VPT]] may connect you with technical editors and technical solutions quicker than AN. The insource question, and fixing the MassMove script, would be perfect topics for VPT. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 10:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:There is now also a discussion at [[WP:ANI#Environmental impact of bitcoin]] that appears to be related to this. [[User:Left guide|Left guide]] ([[User talk:Left guide|talk]]) 21:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

== Arbitration motions regarding My very best wishes ==

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by [[Special:Permalink/1239237654#Motion 2: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland|motion]] that:
{{ivmbox|[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland#My very best wishes bans|Remedies 5.1 and 5.2 of ''World War II and the history of Jews in Poland'']] (the topic and interaction bans on [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]], respectively) are repealed.}}
And it has resolved by another [[Special:Permalink/1239237654#Motion #: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland|motion]] that:
{{ivmbox|[[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]]' [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive319#My very best wishes|topic ban]] from World War II in Eastern Europe and the history of Jews in Eastern Europe, imposed under [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Motion: contentious topic designation (December 2022)|the ''Eastern Europe'' contentious topic procedures]], is repealed.}}
For the Arbitration Committee, [[User:SilverLocust|SilverLocust]]&nbsp;[[User talk:SilverLocust|💬]] 06:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
: Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Arbitration motions regarding My very best wishes}}'''<!-- [[User:ArbClerkBot|ArbClerkBot]] ([[User talk:ArbClerkBot|talk]]) 06:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes-->

== User:Kierandude ==

*{{userlinks|Kierandude}}

Perhaps an admin could take a look at this user's contributions? Everthing they've uploaded and created seem to be associated to some kind of "fan fiction" they're working on. This could be a [[:WP:YOUNG]] user who's just not aware of [[:WP:NOT]], which is why I'm asking about this here instead of [[:WP:ANI]]. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 20:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
:Yikes. This looks like a walled fictional garden. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: black;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 20:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
::They've even created a category for their fiction. [[:Category:Fiction_by_Kierandude]] (swiftly deleted) [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 20:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
:::They're making some edits [[:Special:diff/Kierandude/1238419636|that seem OK]], but then are also creating pages like [[:User:Kierandude/When an AI writes Wikipedia]], [[:User:Kierandude/Soulhouse Your In Bird]], [[:User:Kierandude/Ruin This Page]], [[:User:Kierandude/Catulia]], [[:Template:Not actually fair use]] and [[:Template:Kierandude]]. They seem to have made the "Not actually fair use" template just so that they could post it on my [[:User talk:Marchjuly#Fair use image|user talk page]]. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 21:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
::::[[User:Kierandude/Soulhouse Your In Bird]] are mangled lyrics of [[Birdhouse in Your Soul]].  So mangled that I don't even know if they're a copyvio anymore. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 22:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::I've got no idea what the point of [[:User:Kierandude/Ignore all rules]] is supposed to be. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 00:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::Neither do I, but I don't see a reason for any other actions right now. It would be nice if they were a little more responsive though. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: black;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 15:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::{{ping|Acroterion}} I understand and thank you for what've you done so far. This probably can be closed now (I guess) since several administrators seem to be monitoring the situation and Kierandude has been advised how to best move forward on their user talk page. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 06:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

== Block request ==

Posting here because AIV is currently protected, but {{vandal|DK1964}} is very obviously [[WP:LTA/D86]] continuing to block-evade, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Cross_FM&diff=prev&oldid=1236225146], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Yarona_FM&diff=prev&oldid=1236225165], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Jrobb525/Body&diff=prev&oldid=1238753979]. Please do ''not'' protect that last page {{redacted|as it functions as a [[honeypot (computing)|honeypot]] to see which IP ranges they use frequently enough to be worth blocking, and as an obscure userpage it does not matter if it stays vandalized for a few weeks or even months.}}[[Special:Contributions/2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:641C:8D6D:8AF:85B9|2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:641C:8D6D:8AF:85B9]] ([[User talk:2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:641C:8D6D:8AF:85B9|talk]]) 15:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
:DK1964 has been indeffed by another admin. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 08:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

== Rollback abuse by [[User:Jasper Deng]] ==
{{atop|Initial complaint about an abuse of rollback has been shown to not be substantive. Discussions about individual pages should take place at their respective talk pages. Users are also reminded that AN is for repeated, serious, or otherwise intractable issues that cannot be resolved during the course of normal discourse on a user talk or article talk page. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 12:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)}}
This user misuses MediaWiki rollback by using it to make unexplained/vague/disruptive reversions of good-faith edits as [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Magnetic_field&diff=prev&oldid=1239251942 he did in Magnetic field]. [[User:Jeaucques Quœure|Jeaucques Quœure]] ([[User talk:Jeaucques Quœure|talk]]) 07:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:Nope. This is [[WP:Twinkle]], not [[WP:Rollback]]. You also ought to have discussed it with me on my talk page ''before'' trying to raise it here, ''and'' when you did, you failed to notify me as clearly required by procedure.--[[User:Jasper Deng|Jasper Deng]] [[User talk:Jasper Deng|(talk)]] 07:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::Your userpage says the otherwise. [[User:Jeaucques Quœure|Jeaucques Quœure]] ([[User talk:Jeaucques Quœure|talk]]) 07:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::: Just because an editor can use Rollback, doesn't mean that they used it for a particular edit.[[User:Nigel Ish|Nigel Ish]] ([[User talk:Nigel Ish|talk]]) 07:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::::Anyway, he is abusing his rights. [[User:Jeaucques Quœure|Jeaucques Quœure]] ([[User talk:Jeaucques Quœure|talk]]) 08:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::You are wrongly assuming I used them here in the first place. Since it seems like I wasn't clear the first time, let me be a bit more blunt: if you do not drop this frivolous complaint, you are in for a [[WP:BOOMERANG]] especially in light of your earlier and now-continuing [[WP:IDHT]] behavior.--[[User:Jasper Deng|Jasper Deng]] [[User talk:Jasper Deng|(talk)]] 08:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::To remind you my behavior was a case of [[WP:Edit warring]] not [[WP:IDHT]]. Also, I have already apologized in my talk page for the same. Now better not try to change the subject [[User:Jeaucques Quœure|Jeaucques Quœure]] ([[User talk:Jeaucques Quœure|talk]]) 09:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::You ''did'' engage in IDHT behavior in response to my edit warring warning and are now engaging in it again here. The time to drop this [[WP:STICK]] was as soon as it was explained to you that I didn't use rollback in this instance. Drop it now. Otherwise this conversation will indeed become a [[WP:BOOMERANG]] and be about you and your (in addition to [[WP:IDHT]]) childish behavior (examples: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1239260900 unhelpful]; "better not try to change the subject").--[[User:Jasper Deng|Jasper Deng]] [[User talk:Jasper Deng|(talk)]] 09:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::How? [[User:Jeaucques Quœure|Jeaucques Quœure]] ([[User talk:Jeaucques Quœure|talk]]) 09:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Look at the length of this conversation and the one at [[User talk:Jeaucques Quœure#August 2024]] and how resistant you are in both cases to what you are being told.--[[User:Jasper Deng|Jasper Deng]] [[User talk:Jasper Deng|(talk)]] 09:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Smh I asked you how to drop the [[WP:STICK]]? [[User:Jeaucques Quœure|Jeaucques Quœure]] ([[User talk:Jeaucques Quœure|talk]]) 09:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Please read the essay, and just stop commenting here.--[[User:Jasper Deng|Jasper Deng]] [[User talk:Jasper Deng|(talk)]] 09:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::The edits at [[Magnetic field]] show that Jasper Deng did a single revert with a comprehensive edit summary. That is model editing, not abuse. See [[WP:ROLLBACK]] for the details; an edit using rollback is tagged in the page history. Please discuss article content at the article's talk page and bear in mind that many edits are reverted: it's part of life here. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 08:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::Could you explain what was comprehensive about that edit summary?
::::::*Disregarding the diagrams.
::::::*Labelling vector equations are "useless".
::::::[[User:Jeaucques Quœure|Jeaucques Quœure]] ([[User talk:Jeaucques Quœure|talk]]) 09:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::There is no violation of rollback, and this does not belong on AN. If you don't understand Jasper Deng's explanation of his edit then ask hm for clarification on the article's talk page or his user page, not here. [[User:Meters|Meters]] ([[User talk:Meters|talk]]) 09:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Unblock ==

Why did you block me? [[User:Hippobunny123|Hippobunny123]] ([[User talk:Hippobunny123|talk]]) 05:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

:If you posted here, you are not blocked, unless you created this account to post here, thus [[WP:EVADE|evading your block]]. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 06:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
::This was their only edit.  They did create the account to post here.  Who are they?  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 07:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
:::CU shows nothing. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 08:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
:Tell us who you are and what you did.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 10:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
:Okay, here's a my possible explanation, this user used something like open-proxy when edited and showed with a block page, then they stopped using them, nothing found from Checkuser and no socks found?<br>@[[User:Doug Weller|Doug Weller]] @[[User:Hippobunny123|Hippobunny123]] [[user:Lemonaka|<span style="color:blue; text-shadow:jet 0 0.2em 0.2em; font-family:Segoe Print; font-size: 13px">-Lemonaka</span>]] 17:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::@[[User:Lemonaka|Lemonaka]] Good idea, thanks. I see they are editing now. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 17:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Doug Weller|Doug Weller]] It may be related to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Basketballupdatenz this user] that got blocked from the main space for continuously creating unsourced stub articles. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1237743349 here]. User:Hippobunny123 has been editing similar articles, including [[Draft:Southern Hoiho]] which was created by the blocked user. As User:331dot mentioned, is likely a block evasion. [[User:DaHuzyBru|DaHuzyBru]] ([[User talk:DaHuzyBru|talk]]) 04:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
::::@[[User:DaHuzyBru|DaHuzyBru]] Great catch, thanks. I ran a check and they are the same. {{re|User:Cullen328}} you need to see this. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 06:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
::::Wow, {{u|Doug Weller}}, are you telling me that somebody that I blocked tried and failed to evade their block? I wonder how often that block evasion has happened in the 21st century? [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 07:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

== User:Kingsif ==

The user is reverting edits and imposing their own opinions on the article '[[List of footballers who achieved hat-trick records]]'. This is the second time I have entered into an argument with them on the same article. The first time, he accused me of sexism just because I put a (Women) label next to each woman on the list. I ended the argument the first time because I don't like getting into too many problems. This time, he is trying to revert my edit despite me explaining the reason. I request the administrators to put a stop to this. [[User:Mishary94|Mishary94]] ([[User talk:Mishary94|talk]]) 23:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

:The first time, we had a discussion, and I did not accuse you of sexism - I said using only women as a defining category but not men, youth, amateur, could be read as sexism. This time, I have given you like three reasons why your explanations do not justify your edits. I have participated in discussion and it is a radical acceleration to come to ANI instead of just replying to me at the relevant talkpage. Especially when if you want to change the definition of a header, that's something that warrant discussion before making changes. But you made it, I reverted it with reasons, and am participating in discussion - see [[WP:BRD]]. Coming to ANI because you don't like that your edit and explanation wasn't just accepted is out of line. [[User:Kingsif|Kingsif]] ([[User talk:Kingsif|talk]]) 23:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:Mishary, you need to understand that if a revert happens, you need to discuss why it happened. Usually the edit summary provides enough reason, but the talk page exists too. Also, if Kingsif is reverting you while you aren't discussing, you risk an edit war, plus disruption, making this a [[WP:BOOMERANG]]. [[User:Conyo14|Conyo14]] ([[User talk:Conyo14|talk]]) 06:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
*I have also found Kingsif's recent edit behavior battleground in nature. During a [[Talk:Steven_van_de_Velde#RfC_regarding_the_inclusion_of_the_%22convicted_child_sex_offender%22_in_first_sentence|recent RFC]], Kingsif accused others of harassment[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steven_van_de_Velde&diff=prev&oldid=1231898978], bludgeoning[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steven_van_de_Velde&diff=prev&oldid=1231836141] and being sockpuppet[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steven_van_de_Velde&diff=prev&oldid=1231886868]. These accusations were all without merit. During this strange episode Kingsif even went so far as to template me for harrassment.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nemov&diff=prev&oldid=1231899068] It's difficult to review that in context and draw any other conclusion than the editor is making baseless accusations that are battleground in nature. That aside, this is an experienced editor who is an overall a positive contributor to the project. Perhaps a polite [[WP:TROUT]] is in order to work better with other editors. [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 18:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)