Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Total
CfD	0	0	0	2	2
TfD	0	0	0	6	6
MfD	0	0	2	1	3
FfD	0	0	1	14	15
RfD	0	0	17	30	47
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 6 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 5 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 14 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 2 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 32 sockpuppet investigations
• 45 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 4 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 4 requests for RD1 redaction
• 45 elapsed requested moves
• 3 Pages at move review
• 20 requested closures
• 60 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 7 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (25 out of 9048 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Unbelievable Gwenpool 2024-12-20 04:54 2025-12-20 04:54 edit Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate Template:Gwenpool 2024-12-20 04:49 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate User:Johnj1995 2024-12-19 22:03 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated by users other than Johnj1995 Isabelle Belato Thunivu 2024-12-19 11:36 2025-01-19 11:36 edit Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Template:Müzik sanatçısı bilgi kutusu 2024-12-19 00:47 indefinite create Turkish for "Infobox musical artist", attracts mistaken creations Tamzin Khaled Nabhan 2024-12-18 22:07 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Draft:Windows 7 On A Virtual Machine 2024-12-18 21:44 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated UtherSRG Mikhail Shatsky 2024-12-18 20:09 2025-12-18 20:09 create WP:GS/RUSUKR ToBeFree Igor Kirillov (general) 2024-12-18 20:08 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/RUSUKR ToBeFree Template:Certification Table Entry/Sales/NewZealandPeriod 2024-12-18 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2617 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories 2024-12-18 02:17 indefinite edit,move Requests should not be posted here; please use WP:AFC/R or WP:AFC/C Queen of Hearts Lucky Ekeh 2024-12-17 20:17 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz Leroy Cronin 2024-12-17 17:16 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:BLPCT / This page has repeatedly been misused as a battleground by users with apparent undisclosed conflicts of interest ToBeFree Dmitry Rybolovlev 2024-12-17 15:40 2024-12-27 15:40 edit Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts Less Unless KMFDM 2024-12-17 11:23 2025-01-17 11:23 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: Wisconsin school shooter wearing the band's t-shirt, same as Columbine; as a GA article, there's little chance valid improvements to the article will happen in the next month from new users. Zanimum Ada and Abere 2024-12-17 08:57 2025-01-17 08:57 move Persistent vandalism The Bushranger Draft:Nicolas Atanes 2024-12-16 22:40 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Nicolas Atanes 2024-12-16 22:38 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD S-300 missile system 2024-12-16 21:35 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement -- ARBPIA and GSRUSUKR both affect portions of this article frequently subject to edit warring/disruption. Swatjester Chief of the General Staff (Bangladesh) 2024-12-16 20:35 2025-06-16 20:35 create repeated attempts to recreate using version deemed by AfD to require improvement. Force to go through AfC. OwenX Ramzy Baroud 2024-12-16 20:33 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Draft:Chief of the General Staff (Bangladesh) 2024-12-16 20:32 2025-06-16 20:32 move per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chief of the General Staff (Bangladesh) OwenX Template:If autoconfirmed 2024-12-16 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2501 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Nicolás Atanes 2024-12-16 15:09 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Malayalam 2024-12-16 13:41 2025-06-16 13:41 edit Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato

Twinkle and speedies

Looking at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth, it seems to me that perhaps we should ask the Twinkle devs to change the default for TW/CSD to "tag only" unless there's an existing CSD template. We should probably not summarily delete by default - there's no reason not to invite a second admin to review before an article is nuked, especially since we could simply uncheck the delete box for egregious cases such as attack pages. Guy (help!) 01:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

We just had a discussion about this topic at WT:CSD, for which there was no consensus for such a thing (if not consensus against the idea). --Izno (talk) 02:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Izno, consensus there is that an admin is allowed to delete without tagging. That doesn't answer the question: is it a good idea, and certainly not the question: should it be the default. Best practice should be that no article is nuked without two sets of eyes, unless it's blindingly obvious, abuse cleanup or whatever. Guy (help!) 11:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Changing the Twinkle default on this is an excellent idea. While tagging should not be required (as I also said at WT:CSD), our standard tool should encourage it. —Kusma (t·c) 22:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes an admin does need to delete immediately, but for most of what almost all admins do, two people should deal with a deletion. So this change is a very good idea.-- DGG ( talk ) 01:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I often tag untagged CSD candidates rather than deleting myself. (depends) This is not a bad idea.-- Deepfriedokra 01:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree. It's not like an extra click to insta-delete is that much of a hardship. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I am a firm believer in the 4 eyes principle in most cases, but as both DDG and Guy have noted, there can be exceptions, notably attack pages which should be removed as quickly as possible. I actually adopt a standard a little stronger than "blindingly obvious". I do a lot of copyright work, and I think I could argue that a brand-new article which is a 100% match to the "about us" section of a corporation's page constitutes blindingly obvious, but I still tag that, rather than delete that. (If somebody else has already tagged it, I will delete.) I think it's worth that to have another admin take a look. However, attack pages ought to be removed as soon as possible, and I vaguely recall I deleted something that was millions of bytes on the assumption that it would clog up the works to have it sitting around very long. The problem with removing the delete button may make it difficult to deal with those exceptions. I'll offer an alternative — if the article doesn't already have a CSD template, clicking on delete pops up a message saying something like "it is generally considered a best practice to allow two admins to take a look at an article before deleting. Does this constitute an acceptable exception?". I trust admins to make that assessment, and the purpose of the pop-up is to make sure someone working quickly doesn't accidentally delete something when they intended to tag it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

No one (that I've seen) is suggesting we remove the ability for a sysop to delete in Twinkle. Only that the default behavior would be for tag when a sysop goes into Twinkle (except if there is an existing tag). Which I would definitely support. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Take this with a grain of salt, but speaking not as the dev but as a user, I'd be against it. If sysops are abusing/misusing CSD policy, that should be dealt with swiftly, but in general part of being a sysop is being trusted not to do that. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Just want to chime in here and say this is quite doable, but I'd prefer to see a little more consensus or discussion here before I write it up and make the change. There's a Twinkle preference option to default to tagging, but only 40-50 sysops have turned it on, so this would affect a lot of people. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, I think the default should be tagging. I'm not sure when the default is delete, if the page creator is notified about the deletion. One problematic admin behavior is deleting pages without notifications to the page creator which happens more than it should and often results in complaints or confusion. But this might be happening outside of Twinkle, when pages are deleted through the Page pull down menu. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy either way provided the option remains. It's useful to choose to default to deletion rather than tagging when working through G13 candidates. --kingboyk (talk) 06:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I think having the default set to tag (if there is no tag already) is a very good one. Yes there are exceptions (attack pages being one), but they are just that: exceptions. They're less common than cases where there is no urgency to remove the content ("speedy" means that discussion may be bypassed, not that it must be deleted quickly) and encouraging review is a Good Thing. Thryduulf (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Not an admin, so I can't see what the admin version of the Twinkle prefs looks like, but how about using something like the set of checkboxes we have for "welcome page creator," "notify page creator," etc., but have it set whether you (by default) tag or summarily delete? That way, we could default to summary deletions for pages which need to go away quickly (attack pages), but also default to tagging for less-problematic pages (A7s). ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 16:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

This is what it is now – the default for sysops is delete, but users can opt to default to tag instead. About 40-50 have done so. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• I often delete things outright, but I also often just tag them, with the idea that a second pair of eyes can't hurt. I have noted that there are some people who insist that nothing should ever be speedied without being tagged first. I don't think I'd go that far. There is a "Default to speedy tagging instead of outright deletion" option in Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences, and I've got it checked. Hmm, I just noticed there's also a "Keep a log in userspace of all CSD nominations" option, which I previously had unchecked and just checked it. Transparency is a good thing. On the other hand, I often don't bother with Twinkle, I just do Page/Delete, which bypasses both of these. Given that I just turned on logging, however, I'm thinking I should stick to the Twinkle method from here on. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I unilaterally delete G3s, G10s and G12s if I am absolutely convinced they meet the criteria, although usually I'm addressing somebody else tagging them. For everything else, I tag for a second opinion. Or, basically what DGG said. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I concur with the general consensus above that 4 eyes are better than 2 and the absence of default-delete functionality is a useful speed bump for those of us that do not do a lot of deletions of articles. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Although I agree that for some things it is better that 2 pairs of eyes go through it, even without twinkle or other scripts, we can just bluntly delete pages manually (without twinkle). I do believe that we do/should not need to make this as a rule (we are not a bureaucracy) and a deletion is not necessarily a final end to stuff - we have DRV, or a second admin eyeballing the content and discussing will also do. We have rather strict rules for what is allowed to be deleted under our speedy deletion criteria - if you believe that you are edging on these criteria, you tag, if you are further away from the criteria you AfD it. The rest is a speedy for which a second pair of eyes should not be needed. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Technical specification of proposed change

Per consensus above, the proposed change will do the following:

• The TWPREF option "Default to speedy tagging instead of outright deletion" will be turned on by default. Presently its off by default.
• For pages with a speedy tag on them, TW will default to deleting, regardless of the TWPREF option.
• For pages without a speedy tag on them, TW will default to either tagging or deletion depending on the TWPREF option.
  • In both cases, you can choose to perform the non-default action using a checkbox or by switching a radio button.
• To avoid any confusion/errors, the "Submit query" button will be renamed "Tag page" or "Delete page" depending on what action you're about to perform.

Is this fine with everyone? SD0001 (talk) 12:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• It's fine by me, although I'm not a Twinkle user. Given the consensus above for a change and the lack of any comment here in several days, I'd say that this is most likely fine with everyone. Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Unblock request from User:Ear-phone

Hi all,

We have received this unblock request from user Ear-phone via UTRS. I'm going to copy and paste the unblock request from UTRS below so those without access can see it.

"Why do you believe you should be unblocked?

I was blocked for being a socket puppet, more than a year ago. I was asked to apply for an unblock after six months. I did this and I was unsuccessful. I tried again after one year and I was again unsuccessful because I could not re-word substantially (English is not my first language). As I have said before, I reflected on my actions and understood it was wrong to be a socket puppet. I pledged and pledge to use only one account to edit and contribute positively.

If you are unblocked, what articles do you intend to edit?

Articles related to my interests, mainly science-related including biographies of scientists.

Why do you think there is a block currently affecting you? If you believe it's in error, tell us how.

In my view, the block was warranted but unfairly long. I have openly admitted to using socks in the past. I have mentioned that I will not use them again and will contribute constructively as I have now read the guidelines. The block has the effect of denying me voluntary participation in a worthwhile global movement.

Is there anything else you would like us to consider when reviewing your block?

Justice and fairness. English not being a primary language - therefore a limited ability to convey and re-word sentences."

I emailed Bbb23 regarding this as they're the blocking administrator. A CU check was ran and Bbb23 found some obvious logged out edits by the user and some less obvious ones. Bbb23 has said as far as they're concerned that would preclude an unblock. However, if we overlook the logged out edits they would permit an unblock after a community discussion. Bbb23 found another possible sock of User:Lucas-O'D but was reluctant to confirm the account as there's only 2 edits, the medical stuff Ear-phone is more interested in is African related and they don't think it's the same style.

Would the community be willing to accept an unblock?

I'm going to give them TPA again to allow them to respond to any questions here if someone would like to add that to their watchlist so any answers can be copied and pasted.-- 5 albert square (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose unblocking I'm glad to see that they want to turn over a new leaf and edit constructively, but part of being a constructive editor is in respecting the policies and practices of the editing community, including the sockpuppetry policy and blocking policy, which prohibit IP editing while blocked. If this user can stay away from Wikipedia without socking or IP editing for 6 months, I think that they would be a perfect candidate for the standard offer. (Non-administrator comment) OhKayeSierra (talk) 05:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose unblocking I am usually well disposed towards unblock requests for editors blocked long ago who promise not to do again what led to their being blocked. Over the years I have far more often found myself to be in a minority (not infrequently a minority of one) in supporting an unblock in this kind of situation, while others oppose, than the other way round. However, this time there are several things which give me pause. In connection with previous unblock requests, the editor lied about what sockpuppet accounts they had used. (That was clear from reading the editing history, and also confirmed by a CheckUser.) The editor is now denying any further block-evasion, but Bbb23 has "found some obvious logged out edits by the user". Why should we unblock an editor who is known to have been lying about their block-evasion for over a year, and is known to be still lying? At the very least I would want the editor to come clean now about their dishonesty in the past and recently before considering an unblock. Unless they can produce a pretty convincing explanation I am inclined to agree with OhKayeSierra, who suggests a standard offer if the editor can keep off block-evasion for 6 months. I also agree with Bbb23, who has said that as far as they're concerned the IP block-evasion would preclude an unblock. (I can see no reason why a community discussion might "overlook the logged out edits".) As for Lucas-O'D, I'm not sure. Bbb23 rightly points out that there are differences, but there are similarities too. With only two edits there is not much to go on to judge either way, so probably we should not attach much weight to that account, in view of the doubt. JBW (talk) 10:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• (Incidentally, the comments above about an unblock request being unsuccessful "because I could not re-word substantially (English is not my first language)" and "English not being a primary language - therefore a limited ability to convey and re-word sentences" are missing the point. The rquested change of the unblock request was about substantially rewriting it because it did not address the reasons for the block, not, as Ear-phone apparently thinks, about rewording sentences so as to improve the English. JBW (talk) 10:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC))
• If these logged out edits were made in the last 90 days (from the tracked IP logs) then I'd be an oppose. If they were determined by the current IP against IP-edits made more than six months ago, then I might be a weak support. Are CUs only run off the last 90 days, or can account/IP checking be done on a longer timescale? Nosebagbear (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

CheckUser data is kept for only 3 months. I suppose it would be possible for a CheckUser to check an account's current IP address for edits from longer ago, but even if a CheckUser did so, it would provide no technical evidence of its being the same editor beyond being the same IP address, and I wouldn't have expected Bbb23's reference to "obvious logged out edits by the user" to be based on no more than just the IP address. However, Bbb23 may like to clarify that issue in response to Nosebagbear's query. JBW (talk) 11:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I suspect you're right, @JBW:, not least because the CU tool is apparently particularly clunky, even by wiki standards, and I've not heard a mention of its ability to compare current IP data in the logs and IP data that's only associated with non-account edits (but has left the stored logs as too old). Nosebagbear (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• I am copying the following message from User talk:Ear-phone. Bbb23, would you care to comment on it? JBW (talk) 12:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

If you say obvious logged out edits. I give my consent for the IP addresses to be released in public so that the community can see for themselves and verify. I categorically did not edit Wikipedia. I did not lie and I addressed that previously. Ear-phone (talk) 11:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ear-phone: - I, and pretty much the entire community, are happy to accept a CU's statement on these matters - I can't see any benefit in you releasing private information onto the site, it was just a request for clarification. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

CheckUser policy permits me to disclose IPs "With the permission of the affected user". I have never done so and find myself strongly rebelling against doing it now. I believe the community should exclude the obvious logged out edits. The only thing that gives me pause is Ear-phone's categorical denial, but it's possible Ear-phone has forgotten or thinks I'm referring to something else. As for the non-obvious edits, the IP edited a non-medical, science article. Finally, another thing that makes this tough from a technical perspective is Ear-phone's very common user agent.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Ear-phone has qualified their denial of editing logged out on their Talk page: "I did not edit Wikipedia when logged out or logged in (besides my talk page)." I tend to be very skeptical about what socks say, but in this instance, without endorsing an unblock, I urge the community to treat Ear-phone's unblock request based only on their reasons and history, and assume that they have not socked in the 90 days before my check.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

My understanding since the orientation is that we're not allowed to disclose an account's IP address, even with permission from the accountholder, because the local policy differs from the global policy and overrides it in this aspect. I was told that by someone (don't recall who) but I don't see that wording in the policy as of right now. Personally I also would not reveal it from the user's private data even by their request, but also it's very obvious to anyone who looks at Ear-phone's talk page history (I did not run a check). I wouldn't consider those edits to be a violation of the policy. I don't have an opinion on what else you might have seen, though. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support unblocking - I feel that we should take the user's word for it. CheckUser has been proven to be inaccurate before, and this could easily be one of those instances. Foxnpichu (talk) 15:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not. The results require interpretation, but they're not wrong. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support unblocking the editor said that they are not going to use sockpuppets again and has appealed twice but got denied. I think the time this editor has spinned blocked is enough "punishment" for the sockpuppetery they did. Indefinite block is really too much.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Is there any decision on this yet?-- 5 albert square (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Bbb23 has given their permission for us to make a decision-- 5 albert square (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

So... are we going to wait a while before closing or what? Foxnpichu (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support unblock I am not an admin, so I appreciate I do not get a vote per se, but I'd like to add a note of support here. On the matter of block evasion, I have worked closely with the user on several wikipedia-related projects during the period of their block and they have been extremely conscientious about not editing during that time, and have clearly stated so when the topic has arisen (e.g. when other users have asked him to make an edit without realising his block status). From my observation of their off-wiki activity, they have been remarkably strict in sticking to the terms of the block, whilst remaining supportive of the movement off-wiki with an intention to eventually return to official good standing in the on-wiki community. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 11:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: this is the noticeboard for issues requiring administrator attention, but it's not off-limits to non-administrators. Unblock appeals like this one are put to a discussion among the community, not just admins, so your opinion here is most welcome. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Appeal of Arbitration Enforcement Sanction

There is a consensus to accept the santion appeal request. The sanction placed on Rusf10 relating to administrative reports is overturned. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

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

---

On January 6, 2020 user:Johnuniq placed me under a [1] that prevents me from filing "frivolous" reports at administrative notice boards. The full text of that sanction is If Rusf10 initiates an administrative report against another user in the topic area and that report is dismissed with a result of "no action" or "no violation", or otherwise deemed frivolous, a 1-month topic ban from the topic area may be imposed at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. This applies to reports filed at WP:AN, WP:AN/I, WP:AN/EW, and WP:AE. and resulted from the the discussion [2] after I filed a report against user:BullRangifer for attacking my competence.

I am filing this appeal for several reasons: 1. Several administrators claimed that the reports I made against BullRangifer were "vexatious" and "frivolous", but this cannot be further from the truth. In fact, don't take my word for it, in all instances that I filed an AE request against BullRangifer (including this one), the administrators found his behavior to be inappropriate and issued him warnings.

• July 20, 2018 BullRangifer is warned that if they persist in making personal attacks and treating Wikipedia as a battleground, they may be topic-banned from the American politics topic area or made subject to other sanctions
• March 13, 2019 The comment was clearly inappropriate, especially given the previous warning. BullRangifer has struck the comment and apologised and so I am closing this with no action, but this is thin ice being skated.
• April 24, 2019 Awilley has applied some specific sanctions to both editors involved. Additionally, everyone involved (and specifically Rusf10 and BullRangifer) is reminded that wikipedia is not a battleground, nor a forum for discussing politics, but a place where we summarise the world's knowledge as we find it in reliable sources.
• January 6, 2020 BullRangifer is warned that he must not speculate about the competence of other users in discussions regarding a topic under discretionary sanctions.

How is it that every single time I bring a complaint about BullRangier, he is issued a warning, but I am told the complaint was frivolous? How is it possible for a frivolous complaint to result in a warning? After four warnings, you would think some type of actual sanction would be imposed on BullRangifer, but this is not the case. Instead, the admins at AE have sanctioned me and given him multiple meaningless warnings that have done nothing to correct his behavior.

2. The sanction I was given is both unprecedented and purely punitive. To my knowledge, the arbitration committee itself has never imposed such a sanction on any other editor designed to silence him on noticeboards. The sanction imposed on me does absolutely nothing except open me to further personal attacks in AP2 because I cannot bring any complaints for fear they will be deemed "frivolous" regardless of whether they really are or not.

3. The sanction is overly vague. It states I will be topic banned if the "report is dismissed with a result of "no action" or "no violation", or otherwise deemed frivolous". With this language, even if a sanction is imposed on the editor I reported, the admins can still deem the report to be frivolous and put me under a topic ban. I have no way of knowing what is considered a "frivolous" report and am in effect banned from filing any reports for fear of administrative retribution.

In conclusion, I believe the admins have imposed a double standard here excusing BullRangifer's behavior despite recognizing it was inappropriate and sanctioning me for reporting it. It is inexplicable to aknowledge that the sbustance of my complaint has merit and at the same time tell me that it is "frivolous" and "vexatious". --Rusf10 (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq

Following is an extract from my comments at WP:AE permalink:

• My view is that some sanction against Rusf10 is warranted given these events on 21 December 2019:

• 18:02 Rusf10 changed "found" to "charged" at Donald Trump: diff.
• 18:48 MrX reverted: diff.
• 19:08 Rusf10 posted at Talk:Donald Trump objecting to MrX's revert: diff.
• 20:04 Rusf10 nominated FBI secret society (created by MrX in January 2018) at AfD: permalink.

Rusf10's other AfD nominations before and after the above were on 10 December 2019 and 26 December 2019. That is too blatant to ignore for a topic under discretionary sanctions.

The point of the above is that BullRangifer's inappropriate response (now struck here) was calling out Rusf10's pointy AfD nomination—that is why administrators issued a warning to BullRangifer rather than a stronger sanction. No one knows what is in the mind of another editor so words like "vexatious" or "frivolous" mean that actions appear to have those qualities. A basic principle is that if someone's (BullRangifer) behaviour is so bad, another editor will notice and report the problem. Rusf10 should only report problems if sure that there are no extenuating circumstances such as the above. Johnuniq (talk) 06:04, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• (na) I agree with most of that and I'd agree with all of it if BullRangifer's comments had been made somewhere other than on Rusf10's talk page. If it was on an article talk page, or ANI, or Jimbo's talk then yes, absolutely, other editors could and should take note of the personal attacks. But on the user's talk page I don't think it's safe to assume anyone other than the target and the writer of the personal attacks will see them in a timely manner. It would set the precedent that someone under a topic ban has to sit still and take insults levelled at them on their own talk page without being allowed to say or do a thing about it. Reyk _YO! 06:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (AE sanction appeal)

• Overturn – It's a logical contradiction. If Rusf's AE report appeared frivolous or vexatious, then why did it result in a warning against the reported user (and in near-unanimous agreement that the reported conduct was inappropriate)? On the other hand, if Rusf's AE report did not appear frivolous or vexatious, then why did it result in a restriction against Rusf? As was pointed out in the AE thread by some, it just can't be both. A valid report cannot be a frivolous or vexatious report–they are mutually-exclusive concepts. Levivich 04:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
• This is so vague as to be unenforceable. Many AE actions are closed as no action, just because admins don't do anything and the time expires or the diffs become stale. Forget about the ones about vexatious or frivolous. Regardless, while again, AE and ARBCOM area isn't a court, AE operates under ARBCOM guidelines and need to be a bit higher than general guidelines and sanctions, and we can't have restrictions that are extremely vague. I also echo Levivich's remarks as to how the original AE action be considered frivolous. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Rusf10 is gaming the system by nominating an opponent's page for deletion, then stonewalling when people complain about it, then reporting the opponent when they react unwisely. That has happened twice that I know about. See my comment above for the most recent case. In July 2018, BullRangifer criticized Rusf10 which led to a revenge MfD 73 minutes later: permalink. BullRangifer would be sanctioned for their comments if they were not preceded by such blatant point violations. Discretionary sanctions are vague by definition—there is no precise specification for what an editor can get away with. Johnuniq (talk) 09:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
    • @Johnuniq:I am not gaming the system, the system is broken. In what system does a person get repeated warnings (at least 4 by my count) and not get sanctioned??? A more accurate summary of events is that I nominated a page for deletion that was created by another editor (Not BullRangifer) and then BullRangifer comes to my user talk page to attack me over it completely unprovoked. Sanctions are not supposed to be vague. If the goal is to get the person under sanction to comply, then that person should have a clear understanding of what they can and cannot do. Vague sanctions are a trap designed to "game the system" so a person can be punished without a clear understanding of what they did wrong.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
    • The authority for administrators to impose sanctions at their discretion is broad in order to allow for flexibility in managing a difficult area. However it is to everyone's benefit that any actual sanctions imposed under this authority are as precise as practical, to facilitate enforcement. isaacl (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
• Honestly it looks like BullRangifer has a habit of making personalised remarks, Rusf10 has a habit of battleground editing, and the two of them have some sort of long-running feud. Rusf10 has filed four AE requests against BullRangifer in the space of about 18 months. These seem to be closed with a resolution that BullRangifer's comments were inappropriate but that Rusf10 hasn't behaved perfectly either. In several BullRangifer struck the comments in question and/or apologised, which made the result considerably less severe. It isn't true that none of these requests have resulted in any sanctions against BullRangifer, the April 2019 request resulted in a sanction against making personalised remarks. The particular request here did relate to some extremely blatant harassment by Rusf10 that definitely justifies a sanction in itself. I'm not sure the remedy which was imposed here is the best one but there does seem to be a problem that justifies a sanction. Maybe an interaction ban would be a good idea. Hut 8.5 12:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • That's what I don't "get" about this. Rusf has filed four reports against BR. All four resulted in either a warning/sanction against BR, or BR striking the comment. So, which of the four were frivolous or vexatious? None of them were. If they resulted in warnings/sanctions/striking, then they were obviously valid reports. So why is Rusf restricted from filing "frivolous" or "vexatious" reports, since he apparently has never done that before? Also, the gap between filings #3 and #4 was 10 months, so it's not really a repeated/ongoing thing; that's a big gap. It seems to be that Rusf, like SashiRolls not too long ago, is being sanctioned for doing something that they did not actually do (or did not do recently). I would encourage both those editors to appeal their sanction to arbcom; both cases seem to me to be total failures of basic procedural fairness. Levivich 19:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
    • @Levivich:I'd rather not drag this out into an arbcom case if possible. That's why I am appealing here. I have lost all faith in the group of admins that frequent AE, but I do believe that the greater community can do the right thing and rescind the sanction here at AN. I think there is a larger issue of whether AE even accomplishes its intended purpose (particularly in AP2) or if its just used as a tool for biased admins to rig the system. Though it has not been updated recently, there is documentation of this bias at AE here My purpose here is specifically to appeal my sanction, but the larger issue probably should come before arbcom at some point.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

      Rusf10, unfortunately, the way the rules are written, nobody can take the larger issue before arbcom except for a sanctioned editor. So would one of you kindly martyr yourselves for the good of the rest of us, please? :-) I would do it myself, but while I have some good ideas for how to get properly sanctioned, I'm not quite sure how to get myself improperly sanctioned so that I can appeal it. Thanks, btw, for that link–very interesting research. Levivich 20:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

      I certainly support your request for fairness (4/4), Rusf10. I'm not allowed to comment at AE "requests", so I just watched the latest case quietly while it was going on. Given some recent "visitations" to my TP I've been made to understand I'd better keep my mouth shut if I want to survive until cherry-picking season. There's two prosecutors in that file (which I hadn't looked through recently) with absolutely remarkable 100% conviction rates. One of them is blocked. Good luck.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 22:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• I am obviously opposed to granting this appeal, but I admire the chutzpah of having reported an editor for calling out one's own blatant WP:HOUNDING behavior. Rusf10 could stand to have one less weapon at their disposal should they decide the engage in WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct again. The zeal to get Bullrangifer sanctioned for the smallest of transgressions is not healthy. - MrX 🖋 20:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse sanction - I don't regularly participate at AE nor did I participate in the discussion which enacted this sanction, but it seems clearly appropriate and had consensus among numerous reviewing administrators. For those who haven't pored through the comments, there was a sense among the participants not that Rusf's complaints have been without merit, but that they have persistently been a disproportionate response to minor slights, and in the most recent case at least they have also been disruptively forumshopped. The complaints are "vexatious" because they have consistently been reports of misbehaviour not meriting any sanction more serious than an apology or warning, and several have been accompanied by obviously retaliatory actions on Rusf's part. It also is resumption of behaviour for which they were previously sanctioned, if I'm reading the comments correctly. The effected sanction is not "overly vague", it is sufficiently broad to give admins the authority to address the problematic behaviour if it recurs. Frankly I would read that discussion as supporting a DS topic ban from AP2, but Johnuniq did not apparently see it that way. The fact that Rusf is here tossing casual insults at "biased admins" suggests they're still not getting the message, and perhaps even stronger sanctions are warranted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • @Ivanvector:There was absolutely no forumshopping on my part. Yes, I brought the complaint to ANI first, but it was promptly closed by an admin who told me I had to bring it to AE. I wasn't even sure if AE was the correct place for this anyway since the issue was on my talkpage, not an article talkpage, which I mentioned when filing at AE, but with the ANI discussion closed so quickly I had no other option. And "biased" is not a insult, but a criticism of certain admins (I will not name them) who frequently show up a AE and defend the behavior of editors who share certain political beliefs with them. Admins should strive to put aside their personal beliefs and look at disputes objectively. Look at the AE discussion, another editor alleged that I was WP:Hounding them without proof and several admins just went along with it. Hounding requires a person to following another editor around to multiple pages. Yet, only one diff ( a single deletion discussion) was ever provided as evidence. I am still waiting for the diffs that provide evidence of hounding since my multiple requests for them have been ignored.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
    • You posted a broken link (you took the Wikipedia link and added "http" to it, which doesn't work; it should be [3]) but here is the text of El C's close: "I guess my advise was not heeded, so I'll make it official. I do not deem the comment in question to constitute a personal attack. AE is a better venue because we don't want AP2 to spillover at ANI. It's too chaotic. If admins at AE have failed to address the issue in question, then that could also be because the requests themselves were not potent enough. Rusf10 is free to relist this as an AE request, but I don't know if it is going to amount to much. Meanwhile we seem to have another dispute going on in this thread that seems to just be a waste of everyone's time and energy. Putting a stop to that. (posted by El_C 23:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC), emphasis added) So, you were told by an uninvolved closing administrator that your complaint was not actionable, that if admins don't act on your requests it's because your complaint merits no action, and that your persistent requests bring drama that is a waste of everyone else's time. In response you made the same request in a different forum anyway, and when you didn't like the result there you decided to try a third venue, this one, albeit with the complaint masked behind a complaint about process. And in your response to me you have again alleged with no basis that administrators have sanctioned you solely because of your political views, not as you have been repeatedly told because of your behaviour. As for hounding, seeing the timeline of you nominating one of your opponent's articles for deletion minutes after getting into a new dispute with them is all the evidence I need to see.

    Frankly the existence of this thread on this page, not to mention your responses in it, suggest that the sanction you're challenging should indeed be overturned, but to a topic ban from the area of dispute, and/or an interaction ban with BullRangifer. I don't see how anything less will limit the disruption. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

    • @Ivanvector:I apologize for the broken link, but what an absurd response. Since when is an appeal ForumShopping????????? Read the appeal process which gives me the option of request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"). I have every right to bring my appeal to this forum. And as for WP:HOUNDING, it defines hounding as Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. (emphasis mine), a single nomination of an article for deletion cannot be hounding by definition.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
      • Personally I would think a strategy in defending an obviously retaliatory AfD nomination in response to a content dispute with someone you're known to be enemies with would not involve wikilawyering the definition of harassment, but here we are. It is not promising that you think there can be any justification for that behaviour, nor that you believe there is a minimum number of incidents that must occur before admins can act on obviously inappropriate conduct. And I see that since my reply above you've again alleged that someone's comment on your vexatious behaviour is due to political ideology, not because you're continuing to be a vexatious litigant. Is it your position that anyone who identifies an issue with your behaviour must be a political opponent? In your mind does it follow that you can do no wrong? Or is there any way that you will hear that your abuse of the noticeboards to win advantages in content disputes is textbook tendentious editing? These complaints and this sanction are about your behaviour, and have nothing to do with your or anyone else's political positions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

        Ivan, how is you repeatedly accusing Rusf of being a vexatious litigant or making vexatious filings, any different from Rusf accusing admins of being biased? You two are just trading aspersions here, which I suggest is not productive. Levivich 18:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn Given how that last AE went and how vague the sanction is I am not sure there is much other choice. If a sanction is so vague that a reasonable person may not understand it then that is unenforceable. As for the biased admin bit, I can see where they are coming from. When an admin like JzG is pushing for a topic ban of an ideological opponent that is just wrong. PackMecEng (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

It's weird how far the Overton window has moved. I am a centrist. My beef with Rusf10 is not about ideology, it's about vexatious complaints - trying to use Wikipedia processes to gain an advantage in content disputes. The TBAN I was arguing for was, as should be obvious from context, from making reports about BullRangifer. There's ample evidence that this has been a problem, IMO. Guy (help!) 09:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I am a centrist. are you sure you're not a leftist moderate? --JBL (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Joel B. Lewis, oh I might be, I suppose. Guy (help!) 18:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

You are well known for your red vs blue rants, that does not need explaining.[4] Second when you say Rusf10 TBANned for 1 month from AP2.[5] it seems fairly clear you are trying to TBan them from AP2. Apologies if I missed some context where what you wrote meant TBan from making reports on BullRangifer. PackMecEng (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@PackMecEng:After reading this, I now see what Guy's problem is and why he is incapable of being neutral. He believes that whatever his views ae must be centrist and everyone else to the right or left of him has some type of fringe view. Problem with this is that there are very few to the left of him and a large number of people to the right. At least in US politics, his starting point is that the "Democratic Party is a centre-right party", meaning that the Republicans must be far-right. He believes the Republican party is run by "white nationalists" and "people who want to go back to the 1950s, when it was fine to be racist". Someone with these views needs to stay the hell away from AP2, especially in any administrative role.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah it is kind of crazy that they were acting as an administrator on a topic that Arbcom warned him not to do.[6] PackMecEng (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

In fairness, take Guy's !vote out of the equation, and there are still a number of admin in favor of the sanction. This wasn't a unilateral admin action by Guy, or by the closer Johnuniq; it was the consensus of a number of admin at AE (though some dissented). To make the case that any one of the supporting admin acted out of political bias requires far more evidence than has been put forward so far; to make the case that all the admin involved were acting out of political bias would take several arbcom cases' worth of evidence. I'm not convinced political bias was an issue. I am convinced that there is a culture at AE that simply does not value procedural fairness (other values are held higher, such as reaching "the right outcome", and efficiency), and that needs adjustment. Levivich 04:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Overall I agree. The bias is a side issue here that can be addressed elsewhere. PackMecEng (talk) 04:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn per PackMecEng and Hut 8.5. I was confused by the close as well, there seemed to be consensus that the reported user's conduct was inappropriate, and I think that the case was closed prematurely. Jdcomix (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn Either the complaint was frivolous or it was justified. If a cross-section of admins at AE find the complain was justified and warn the person against whom it was filed, you cant then turn around to the person who filed it and accuse them of making frivolous complaints. Its outright stupidity. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn per the OP, and more importantly, per the fact that I don't believe we should ever prohibit any editor from filing an administrative complaint in good faith, for fear that it will not be actioned. A result of "no action" or "no violation" is always subjective, and has absolutely no correlation with whether a report was legitimate and made in good faith, and such a result should absolutely never be used to assume bad faith on the part of the reporting user. Worst case scenario, in these situations, the status quo is maintained. There is no disruption to the project. So I don't see why we should use that to justify sanctions. Yes, if an admin complaint is obviously disruptive, unjustifiable, or trolling, that's one thing, but that inherently has nothing to do with an admin report that doesn't get actioned. We're pretty lenient, so equating "no action" to "frivolous report" is actually pretty insane. I'm extremely concerned with any attempt at "chilling" the threshold that users will file admin reports. We should always err on the side of seriously considering any complaint, even if we find it to be inactionable. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
• Hmm per Hut8.5. I am usually with Swarm, and it is true we shouldn't prohibit any editor etc., but it's the good faith that was questioned here. If four AE reports result in a few warnings, one might say the reports were more or less justified--but one might as well say that going to AE for things that don't result in more than a few warnings is like aiming a cannon (four times) at a mosquito. That is the vexatious part. Editors who run to AE this frequently and with so little result, that's disruptive. I don't know what a good measure is here, though, but I do not support overturning this. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

  Drmies, exactly. The options at this point should be: (a) grow a thicker skin or (b) leave each other alone. Guy (help!) 18:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) @Drmies: Guy's suggestion above is to ban Rusf only from making noticeboard complaints about BullRangifer; I only kind of disagree. It's true that the most recent few of Rusf's complaints have been against BullRangifer and have resulted in no more serious action than a warning, and that the reviewers at AE are exasperated by that behaviour. But from Johnuniq's comments at the start of this section it's apparent that Rusf's disruptive behaviour is not only targeted at BullRangifer, but seemingly against any editor who opposes them within the AP2 sphere. It seems to me the prescription is a simple topic ban, not an exotic restriction like any that have been proposed thus far. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:04, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

  • I don't see why people are treating the incivility as if it is exceptionally petty, and the reports unreasonable, as you suggest. I really don't understand it. The reported diffs consistently show that BR engages in direct, unsubtle personal attacks, in a contentious DS area, again and again, and has been doing so for well over a year, at least. I really don't understand why AE admins are sketchily staring at the ground as if we're unsure what to do at every turn. The complaints 100% have merit every time, and we just keep warning and warning, and now we're at the point that it keeps happening in spite of the warnings, and the complaints keep coming in, and we're really going to draw a line in the sand for the complainant, while offering yet another useless warning to the offender? Dealing with protracted moderate incivility, this is probably the biggest use that AE has, yet for some reason we're acting like our hands are tied here and that Rusf needs to quit "poking the bear", when objectively, he's not doing anything wrong and getting punished for it. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
• Since I was pinged and emailed regarding this, note that I've been aware of this discussion, though I have yet to read it closely. I should also note that I am also not familiar with the history of and between the participants, so I have yet to form an opinion, one way or another. El_C 19:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
• Disclaimer, I participated in the AE discussion that ended with the above sanction, and I was largely responsible for its wording. I understand the argument that a report that results in a warning cannot be considered frivolous, but I think it's a bit more nuanced than that. If it happens once or twice, fine. But if you are making the same report time-after-time and the result is consistently "Meh, this doesn't rise to a level that needs admin intervention, but please be more civil" then it starts becoming disruptive. And when you report the same user for the same thing 4 times in a row ([7] [8] [9] [10]) for progressively less-uncivil comments (compare the single offending diffs that were reported on 12 March 2019 vs. 22 December 2019) it's getting into WP:Hounding territory. I would disagree with Swarm's assertion that no-action reports are not disruptive to the project. They can be very disruptive, and the 13,000-word 10-day long AE thread that led to this sanction is an example of that. In any case, the WP:Boomerang is a well-established part of Wiki-culture, and putting it into the form of a warning shouldn't be that controversial. If you look closely at the wording of the sanction it doesn't prevent the user from filing reports, nor does it make the sanction automatic when a filed report is deemed frivolous. It says the boomerang sanction may be applied at the discretion of an uninvolved admin, which is basically just an explicit statement of how things already work for everybody. ~Awilley (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Which of their previous filings would you apply that sanction too? Suppose any of those you listed were a new filing would any of those qualify as crossing the line for this sanction and why? PackMecEng (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

  Awilley, you applied a No Personal Attacks sanction on one of the editors after AE #3. Are you saying that the conduct you sanctioned for didn't rise to the level that needed admin intervention? If the comments were progressively less-uncivil, then why did you apply a sanction after the third AE report? Also, if they were progressively less-uncivil, that means in your view, the comment that gave rise to AE #4, which I will paraphrase as "Do you have Aspergers?", was the least un-civil comment of the four AE reports? The prior three were worse? Levivich 03:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: Why did I take action after AE#3? Because I saw an unhealthy pattern emerging and I wanted to disrupt it. If I hadn't taken action on my own the report would have most likely been closed with no action. (You had Sandstein, Masem, and T. Canens, all saying "no action" with a couple mentions of a possible boomerang.) ~Awilley (talk) 05:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Awilley, and it worked, for ten months, where previous warnings did not. All I'm saying is, we can't now rewrite history and pretend like there was nothing to those earlier reports, that they were "frivolous" or "vexatious". Those were real PAs like "When Rusf10 agrees with you, you're beyond merely partisan and fringe" (AE #1) and "Their lack of competence is quite evident because they show they are more interested in pushing fringe theories found in unreliable sources than in following policy" (AE #3). I'm not saying throw the book at BR or anything, and I agree with the viewpoint that the comments involved in AE #4 were a good-faith mistake and not a malicious personal attack, and BR struck the comments in #2 and seems to have taken on board feedback from #4, so that's all well and good. But it's really not accurate to say that Rusf's reports didn't have merit. (It's also not accurate to say that this happened frequently; 4 reports, or 4 uncivil remarks, in 18 months, is not many, especially among users who are very active editors in the same DS topic area. I note that the time between report #1 and report #2 was 9 months, and the time between reports #3 and #4 was 10 months. That's not frequent, and if the reports are "frequent", then that means the underlying PAs were "frequent", too.) Levivich 05:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• This is a bizarre response. Every single one of Rusf's complaints were found to be legitimate (and formally logged as such). It's insane to simultaneously railroad him for "frivolous reports". Incivility is a policy violation under the purview of discretionary sanctions, "don't be so sensitive" is not. Reporting legitimate violations is not harassment, and saying it is both makes excuses for policy violations and denigrates actual harassment victims. Perhaps if BR actually respected the repeated warnings he was given, we wouldn't have so many complaints. Perhaps if AE admins actually took the purpose of DS seriously, we wouldn't have so many excuses. I give zero damns if someone thinks Rusf is needs to "grow thicker skin", our job as an admin is to enforce policy. If you find legitimate good faith complaints to be a nuisance, you should step away, not punish good faith users for literally doing what they're supposed to be doing. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• Over at the portals disaster you are arguing that an admin who repeatedly breached CIVIL should not have been desysopped. I agree because the background to reports should be investigated and taken into account. Arbcom disagreed and operated on a principle of "who cares about the background, bad words = sanction". The background at the AE report is outlined in my statement above. Admins agreed that BullRangifer needs to shut up regardless of provocation, but the provocation in this case was sufficient to give the result that occurred. Do you have any comments about that? Johnuniq (talk) 06:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Johnuniq: What provocation are you talking about??? There is no possible way I provoked bullrangifer. I don't know why you can't understand the facts. Bullrangifer came to my talk page to attack me over a dispute about an afd that didn't involve him at all. There was absolutely no provocation on my part. Stop trying to turn Bullrangifer into a victim.Rusf10 (talk) 06:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
• My point was that part of taking civility enforcement seriously is not blindly enforcing CIVIL, but realistically examining the context of incidents of incivility, and differentiating between humans being humans in contentious circumstances and people with actual behavioral problems. This does not mean incivility gets a free pass, but incivility in heated content disputes where it may have been provoked and is voluntarily resolved should be taken into account in mitigation. BHG should not have been desysopped for incivility confined to a singular subject area which she pledged to resolve voluntarily. I'm not sure what the comparison is here. BR is a user who was not unfairly sanctioned by way of Arbcom, but instead repeatedly warned to no avail. BR does not appear to be taking the warnings seriously, nor do I see Rusf's actions as in bad faith and/or unreasonably provacative. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn - A filing that results in the accused receiving a warning cannot be deemed frivolous, else a warning would not have been administered. OID put it well: It's outright stupidity (apostrophe added by me). Mr rnddude (talk) 07:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn The AE filings can't both be frivolous and result in warnings to the accused party. It's a shame that (to be intellectually honest) differences in ideology led to this sanction being placed at all. - DoubleCross (talk) 07:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn. Many things on wiki are falsely characterized as mutually exclusive when they are not. This is one of the few instances where things should be mutually exclusive but painted to be not as such. I am having a really difficult time trying to understand how a "frivolous" report leads to the respondent being warned (unless you're suggesting that the warnings were inappropriate in the first place? But I don't see anyone entertaining this idea). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

---

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

Move request

Wondering if someone can close this move request. Talk:2019–20_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak#Requested_move_2_February_2020

The article is getting about half a million pageviews a day. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@Doc James: I was going to close this but all requested moves are supposed to run for a minimum of one week (similar to AfDs). Given the absence of a clear consensus as well as RM-closing policy, let it be open for a week, I (or someone else) can close it when it elapses. --qedk (t 桜 c) 12:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I would still close this now as a "no consensus" – the thread is huge, shows no sign of getting to a consensus, and is only distracting from the work going on. Britishfinance (talk) 13:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

4 days is enough for consensus to emerge (WP:CCC e.g. Ergo Sum's RfA), although I doubt it will. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

We actually have an interesting situation here. It's possible in a few days another title may be preferred by most currently supporting the change [11] [12]. Looking at the discussion, it sounds likely the concerns of some of those currently opposing may be addressed too. (But not all.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

It is hard to argue that WP:SNOW should apply to this discussion. A SNOW to No consensus would be strange. In any case, the continuing discussion is useful and may lead to better names. Though the claim that MOS favors the official name should carry some weight, the present official name seems to be viewed as temporary. EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

While we are on the subject, two related articles Wuhan Institute of Virology, and their lead virologist Shi Zhengli, have been the subject of internet conspiracies (and even propagated by Washington Examiner – which should be deprecated on WP), and have been discredited (e.g. The Guardian, Washington Post), and contain BLPviolations that led Twitter to ban Zero Hedge over trying to repeat it (e.g. CBS). This will need more eyes (and potentially page protection) as IPs/new editors are trying to push them. Britishfinance (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I think we are going to need admin help on these two pages now as we have a new editor, DavidGeorge1977, restoring conspiracy theories with these BLPviolations (and has been reverted several times by various editors). Can an admin sort here (or do I need to repost ANI/3RR? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

3RR not withstanding, editor has stopped for the moment and moved discussion/plea to my talk page. I have directed them to the talk pages of the relevant articles (looks like in one case they have posted there) and to provide sources for other editors to review as consensus is currently fringe/conspiracy; not valid controversy Slywriter (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable to close the move request and simple request a new one. But no worries either way. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I have blocked the editor from editing the two pages in question for 1 week for the edit warring. Talk pages or elsewhere on the encyclopedia are naturally permitted. --Izno (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Izno, am discussing it now on the TP and they are listening. There are some wild stories on the internet on these two subjects. Britishfinance (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

A move request on a similar topic is taking place at Talk:Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) and is due to be closed (after a full 7 days) at around 19:00 UTC. That page as well has about 2 million views in the last 3 weeks, so it would be helpful if that could be processed quickly by an uninvolved closer once it's expired. Best, Dekimasuよ! 05:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Following up, I'd like to request help with a close at Talk:Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)#Requested move 31 January 2020. I am involved, so I can't do it myself. Dekimasuよ! 02:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Doc James and Dekimasu: Closed both, let me know if there's more clarification warranted on the closes. -qedk (t 桜 c) 08:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• A bit of a hijack, but could someone please handle the copy-paste move of 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak that's lurking in the page history of 2019–20 novel coronavirus outbreak. There are some really strange activities happening with respect to individuals protesting the no consensus closure of the RM, and an admin with a trout would be greatly appreciated. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

  I've cleaned up the page history. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

  Like Thanks for the fast action! 199.66.69.88 (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Need revdel

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

---

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

---

An IP has named the "whistleblower" in this diff. I believe the revision should be deleted. SPECIFICO talk 02:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• I see that someone has conducted the revdel. On a side note, WHOIS for the IP address does not appear informative. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• The IP is persisting [13] and [14] Not sure where this is headed. SPECIFICO talk 02:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

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

What policy on Wikipedia protects US whistleblowers when identities are known and RS are reporting it? Just because you don't like it, is not policy reason to hide the information and block people. As people mentioned, we're not Congress. If RS is reporting the name, and I've seen it, then we can include it. I certainly don't see a need to block this user, he's participating on the talk page as he should. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: Which WP:RS/P? Mdaniels5757 (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: Please name and cite the reliable sources using the name. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:15, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: I am pinging you to pile on with everyone else. Have a nice day please. PackMecEng (talk) 04:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, I saw it mentioned in the Dallas News, iirc. Regardless, what policy of Wikipedia says it should be revdeled and the user blocked? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The policy is that we don't include material not supported by a reliable source, and in this case, the material at issue is specifically potentially harmful to a living person. Please link to the article in the Dallas Morning News which uses the alleged name. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I found it but dont want to get blocked. Also there is a Fox17 and RealClearInvestigations. Though not sure the status of RealClear stuff. PackMecEng (talk) 05:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The Dallas Morning News article you are apparently referring to does not say that any person is the whistleblower - it mentions a person that, according to the article, is "suspected" by "conservative circles". The apparent fact that anonymous right-wing partisans suspect something is proof of literally nothing, so, moving on. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah it is a RS naming them as the suspected source. Literally what you are asking for. Also yeah every source mentioning a suspected someone for something will list them as suspected until confirmed. Also there are the other two I mentioned. PackMecEng (talk) 05:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng, no, it's mentioning the speculation in the conservative media bubble. "Unreliable sources have speculated X. A Senator named after Ayn "I Got Mine, Fuck You" Rand mentioned the speculation on the Senate floor".

I think this is simple. We wait until top tier sources identify the alleged whistleblower as such. When it's in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times or Washington Post, then we can talk about including it. Otherwise we talk about the harassment campaign without contributing to it. Guy (help!) 17:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

You need to calm down a little bit. PackMecEng (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• What happened to WP:NOTCENSORED? I'm afraid to post a link to the article here too since someone will most certainly propose I be banned for it. But there is a Dallas Morning News Article that lists witnesses that Louie Gohmert believes should be called in if the senate decides to have witnesses in the impeachment trial. He names four people, according to the article one of them is "********* (they use the actual name), the former Ukraine director for the National Security Council whose name has bounced around conservative circles for months as the suspected whistleblower." Real Clear Politics also quotes part of a Rand Paul interview where he used the name. The Boston Herald also published an op-ed by former NY lieutenant governor Betsy McCaughey that names the alleged whistleblower. The name has been out there for months, I don't he can't be referred to as the "alleged whistleblower" and what policy is being used to justify censorship.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLP. As editors we have a moral obligation to members of the general public to be correct when reporting information that could potentially threaten someone's safety. The fact that someone suspects a private citizen is a certain individual is not sufficiently reliable for us to risk harming an innocent bystander. This same principle is applied to all instances of attempted outing of editors; if the New York Times wrote an article alleging that person X is the editor who goes by Wugapodes, including that on the article for person X would be (and has been) removed and oversighted. That same right to privacy should be extended to all private citizens. If and when coverage becomes more reliable than "person X said y is the whistleblower" it can be included. We are not at that point. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and it doesn't need to include every accusation that appears in the press. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid to post a link to the article here too since someone will most certainly propose I be banned for it

For good reason. Rightfully so. --Calton | Talk 08:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I think what you are trying to get at is WP:BLPNAME? Otherwise it looks like you are trying to suggest that suspects should never be named and that is clearly not the case. PackMecEng (talk) 06:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The person in question is not a "suspect," they are a whistleblower and a witness. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

"Suspect"? What crime are they a "suspect" in, here? Your use of the term tells me everything I need to know about your lack of fitness to edit or comment on political articles. --Calton | Talk 08:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Calton, suspect is used here as a verb, not a noun. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh calm down. PackMecEng (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• They're not a "suspect", meaning they're not suspected of a crime, but I believe they are still a suspected whistleblower, meaning they have not identified themselves as a whistleblower, nor have the consensus of RSes confirmed their identity as a whistleblower. I think "should we name the whistleblower" sounds like a content question that should be resolved by an RfC somewhere other than WP:AN. For my part, I'd want to see an international or national media outlet name them (like WSJ or WaPo), or a number of smaller regional outlets, like Dallas Morning News, but Boston Herald and Fox TV affiliates are too local and partisan for me to accept them, alone, as evidence of the "consensus of RSes". Levivich 07:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• Why yes, "suspected whistleblower" doesn't sound dodgy or hinting at criminal activity AT ALL. --Calton | Talk 08:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

  Calton, the closest analogy I can think of is this:

  We're standing in the smoking remains of a building, looking at a pile of jerrycans and a Zippo with the arsonist's fingerprints clearly visible in the soot. His associates are standing round us. They freely acknowledge that he brought the cans, poured out the fuel, and lit the fire.

  And they are loudly insisting that the real scandal is that the guy who called 911 had "ties" to the fire department.

  One might justly infer motives from this. Loyalty. A sincere and principled belief that the arsonist has a God-given right to burn houses down if he wants. But I cannot find any trace, anywhere, of a single good-faith explanation for wanting to publicly identify the whistleblower. It's like public announcements of investigations. Whatever the merits of the underlying case, all the plausible non-corrupt reasons for doing the thing would demand that it not be made public. Guy (help!) 16:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• George Takei said it best: "Trump has lit the damn house on fire, but the GOP just wants to go after whoever pulled the fire alarm." -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• Levivich, and notice how Guy thinks discussing this would be considered ban-worthy by some, and he considers himself someone in the center. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Huh. I am sure there was supposed to be an edit filter preventing the addition of this name - did it bug out? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• It's filter 1008, but it looks like it only recognises the person's full name, not just their surname. Pinging @ST47 and Zzuuzz:. Black Kite (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

This information is in the public record. Rand Paul stated a name on the Senate floor, which RS have linked to the alleged whistleblower [redacted]. Paul has repeatedly stated he does not know who the whistleblower is, but would like to look at the relationships between NSC staffers and Schiff staffers. It is entirely appropriate for the Congress to look into something that may have contributed to an impeachment inquiry. If someone blew the whistle on Obama and may have been connected to Nunes or Gowdy staffers then Wikipedia would have named them day 1. I'm wearing out all my shoes putting them on the other feet for how this Congress acted during impeachment. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, neither of those sources actually names the whistleblower. Sir Joseph and Mr Ernie, please email me links to several RS which actually do name the whistleblower, and NO, Fox News is not a RS for AP2 subjects, so I'd need MORE than just Fox News (but include it anyway). -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

They don’t name the whistleblower explicitly. My point is that Paul mentioned a name on the Senate floor, and the RS say this person is the alleged whistleblower. Paul deliberately made no reference to any whistleblowing and maintains he doesn’t know who it is. Paul’s concern was that there was potentially improper coordination between an NSC employee and a Schiff staffer. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, so there's speculation on the Senate floor that the Chief Justice thought was completely inappropriate to air publicly, and that's a great reason for us adding it?

Explain to em again how that's a good idea.

Or, possibly a better idea, drop the stick. Because I actually think that continuing this line of argument would be considered ban territory by quite a few people here. Guy (help!) 17:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, I think you are wrong, but if we did, it would be because reliable independent sources did so. One may reasonably speculate as to whether the Washington Post would name a protected individual under the circumstances you describe - I personally doubt it, but it is possible. However, right now, it's a campaign of harassment and intimidation carried out by distinctly non-reliable sources.

Let's not forget that someone arrived with a gun to shoot up a pizza parlour to free the children imprisoned in the basement it doesn't have. Guy (help!) 17:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

From Trump–Ukraine scandal

From Talk:Trump–Ukraine scandal:

For the avoidance of doubt, Wikipedia will not include the name of the whistleblower until it is the subject of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources (RS). Inclusion in RS is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for inclusion. To understand what Wikipedia means by reliable in this context, please review the list of perennially discussed sources. Note that partisan websites - left or right - are not acceptable for contentious claims about living people.

Please note that those trying to add the name have repeatedly triggered Special:AbuseFilter/1008. Several users and IPs have been blocked for this. Log entries are being suppressed by Oversight. There have been about a dozen int he last 24 hours alone.

On Wikipedia, we typically understand the difference between what is in the public interest, and what interests the public. We're usually also quite good at not being part of off-wiki harassment campaigns, however prominent the harassers might be. Wikipedia 101: Reliable. Independent. Secondary.

Repeatedly trying to add this name is a truly terrible idea, people should be ashamed of themselves for trying it, and I suspect that if it continues, ArbCom may take an interest. See also m:DICK. Guy (help!) 16:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

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

DeltaQuad CheckUser and Oversight permissions restored

Following a request to the committee, the CheckUser and Oversight permissions of DeltaQuad (talk · contribs) are restored.

Support: AGK, Beeblebrox, Bradv, Casliber, GorillaWarfare, KrakatoaKatie, Maxim, Mkdw, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy, Worm That Turned, Xeno

Oppose: None

Not voting: David Fuchs, DGG, Joe Roe

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katie^talk 14:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#DeltaQuad CheckUser and Oversight permissions restored

Steward elections

Steward elections are open at m:Stewards/Elections 2020. Most people who are active here meet the criteria to vote, so alerting the community on our largest project. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Kautilya3 is ambitious on me and trying to Block me

Dear Admins, [User:Kautilya3] is removing the contents with proper Reference from the page Golla (caste) by using the reason This article is full of WP:OR so Admins please check the page and take the decision and also he is having some ambitious on caste contents. take an action on him Admins please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sathyanarayana naidu (talk • contribs) 10:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Sathyanarayana naidu You need to stop edit warring and discuss the issue on the article talk page with other editors. 331dot (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I believe we have a WP:CIR problem with the UP. They are in fact discussing on article talk, but seem to have difficulty taking on what they're told. Bishonen | talk 11:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC).

Images being added & no response to concerns.

• Lennox Theodore Anderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I wasn't certain where to make this request, so I came here. Would an administrator review the images that @Lennox Theodore Anderson: has been adding to articles, over these last few weeks. He's been adding them without consent & doesn't answer any posts at his talkpage. PS: I'm just not certain how to approach 'any' editor, who refuses to communicate. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Note = He's been getting a lot of visits from MifterBot, lately. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Shilow Tracey

I wanted to move Shilow Tracy to Shilow Tracey however someone seems to have added a stub article there, hoping an admin could sort it for me. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The someone who created a stub at the correct spelling is me - so why didn't you ask me? I just happened to see this post on my watchlist. GiantSnowman 19:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/QEDKbot

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

---

There is a BRFA open with the following task description:
General:

• The bot will go over all categories with no members.
  • If the category does not exist, it will skip the page (this is necessary due to a lag in DB replicas).
    • If it exists, it will check that the category has 0 members.

Tagging:

• If the category is a category redirect, it will check for backlinks.
  • If it has a talkpage and 1 backlink or if it has no talkpage and 0 backlinks, it adds the category Category:Empty categories with no backlinks, which can be assessed for CSD#G6 by other editors. A lot of these cat-redirects of these nature are implausible typos (which if in the article namespace would be eligible for R3) or meant for utility where this is none.
• If the category is tagged with {{Db-c1}}, {{Possibly empty category}}, {{Disambiguation category}} or its redirecting templates, it will skip the page.
• If the category is not any of the above, it will nominate it for deletion under CSD#C1.

Deletion:

• It will check the Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion category.
• If the latest revision is from 7 days ago, and does not meet any above criteria (of being possibly empty or a redirect category), it will delete the page.

Listing here per WP:ADMINBOT. Interested editors can also see User:QEDKbot/Catlog which is a dry-run of the first few articles. Any feedback is appreciated. Best, --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Discuss this at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/QEDKbot

Killing of Harambe

A recent edit to Killing of Harambe added the name of the boy who fell into the cage. Is there a way to get that edit removed? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done. But next time, please ask for revdeletion more discretely — this noticeboard is too visible for that. El_C 00:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Cross-wiki spammer

I found an editor on wikiHow publishing articles promoting their own website. I was attempting to clean up some of their damage on wikiHow then encountered the same spammer over here on Wikipedia. I think I smell something fishy over here, so wanted to report Stemfie3D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) here. [15] (must be logged in to view this user's contributions on wikiHow) [16] [17] and on Wikimedia commons [18]. I have reverted all of their edits here and gave a warning of the username policy, but I think this is a WP:SPA. Aasim 00:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Adding link to wikiHow forum post as it may be relevant [19] Aasim 00:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC) Post was closed Aasim 01:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Need help with MfD item

I need your help with the MfD item below. I tried to contact BD2412, but didn't get a reply yet. please advise. thanks.

LINK: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Brianboulton/drafts#User:Brianboulton/drafts

thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 03:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes pls someone step in here ...now moving pages in a dead user's namespace.--Moxy 🍁 03:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

....yes, in direct response to a direct request by the longest-standing admin, that other editors please review the sandbox drafts left by this cherished individual's erudition. my edits were meant to assist anyone who might wish to come along later, and work on these drafts as originally requested. --Sm8900 (talk) 03:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

This is simple drama that can be handled by the community and doesn't need immediate admin attention. I would make one simple plea to all involved: please don't do anything that will turn it into something that does require immediate admin attention. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

My concerns (which I began communicating, last month) are going to (regrettably) eventually come to pass :( GoodDay (talk) 07:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate thanks for your helpful reply. no worries, we are handling it. we will keep you posted should anything arise. we appreciate it. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Anyone up for a team admin close?

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

---

...of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (4th nomination). After reading this 151kb debate for over a hour (it also includes suggestions that the AFD be team closed, as it's contentious) I am thinking we need an admin team to determine the outcome, as the topic is controversial and well-attended. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, thanks to some problems sleeping I have now spent my own hour plus reading and would be willing to do a joint close. I agree a team approach is called for in this case and wonder if there's a third person willing to invest the time necessary to join a close team. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

It looks like Spartaz already closed... Primefac (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus, Barkeep49, Spartaz, and Primefac: ...as delete. So please, keep this in mind. That said, it's on hold until there is either a DRV or it is clear this close has been accepted. ミラP 01:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Backlog at AIAV

A bit of a backlog at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Not so bad right now but it is a Good Thing to deal with vandals quickly instead of giving them a few free hours.

Personal request: I have always held the position that anyone who allows themselves to go through RfA hell in order to do a thankless job and have a target painted on them must be nuts. I am wondering, however, if it might be worth doing it for the good of the encyclopedia if I did it in order to give AIAV another worker instead of us always relying on the same few admins. If anyone thinks I should or should not consider it, please post a comment on my talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Backlog cleared. No comment on your RfA ambitions but have you tried WP:ORCP? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@Guy Macon:, before deciding to start a candidate poll, I suggest reading Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll § Participation of commenters for cautionary advice on the potential effects of holding an optional RfA candidate poll. isaacl (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Yeah, ORCP is probably useful for new editors with little track record, but in your position, just go for it. Your page will be peppered with "thought he was already"s, etc. ——SN54129 14:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Wide blocking, but you can't edit from a registered account either

Special:Contributions/37.142.160.0/20.

The form of blocking prevents subscribers from editing. I'm writing here at User:התו השמיני request. You should change the block so that subscribers can edit. If not, give it IP block exemption. דגש חזק (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

דגש חזק, your friend התו השמיני (sorry if I messed up your usernames, the right-to-left is giving me trouble) will want to take a look at Wikipedia:IP block exemption to request a flag that will allow them to edit even with the block in place. I assume that the reason that it's a checkuser block and isn't anon-only is because there have been an overwhelmingly large number of problematic accounts editing from that range. Ping Berean Hunter as the admin who blocked that range. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 17:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Since it is a CU-block, normal adminstrators will not lift the block, Berean Hunter should have been your first point of contact. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Username backlog

There is quite a backlog at the Username page, would greatly benefit from attention from admin. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I did most of the bot reported ones. I left some that I wasn't really confident what to do with. — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Unclear delimiters of Philip Cross topic ban

I am using this forum instead of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement because I am frankly uncertain whether or not Philip Cross has breached his indefinite topic ban from post-1978 British politics, broadly construed. Accordingly, I seek clarification from administrators.

On 10 February 2020, I inquired at his User Talk page as to his block status, noting that he has had 1½ years in which to appeal. I specifically directed his attention to minor edits that day, in which he merely italicized a couple of names, to the BLP of English journalist and writer James Bloodworth.

Two days later, Philip Cross replied, "There is negligible direct reference to post-1978 British politics in the article you cite."

In response, I listed the article's following references to post-1978 British politics.

• Bloodworth is a former member of Britain's Trotskyist group Alliance for Workers' Liberty, who edited the left-wing UK political news and comment site Left Foot Forward from 2013 until 2016.
• He blogged from 2013 to 2015 at The Spectator, which Wikipedia identifies as a UK political magazine.
• He is the author of The Myth of Meritocracy: Why Working-Class Kids Still Get Working-Class Jobs (2016), whose Amazon product description states: "Hitherto, Labour and Conservative politicians alike have sought to deal with the problem by promoting the idea of 'equality of opportunity'. In politics, social mobility is the only game in town, and old socialist arguments emphasising economic equality are about as fashionable today as mullets and shell suits."
• He is the author of Hired: Six Months Undercover in Low-Wage Britain (2019), whose Amazon product description quotes Nick Timothy, former chief of staff to then UK prime minister Theresa May: "Whatever you think of the political assertions in this book—and I disagree with many of them—this is an important investigation into the reality of low-wage Britain. Whether you are on the Right, Left or Centre, anybody who believes in solidarity and social justice should read this book."
• He has praised Roger Scruton's Thinkers of the New Left (2015), a book that proved controversial (Wikipedia tells us) because of Scruton's attacks on the British Left.

In conclusion, I commented that for an article about a living British journalist that is still classified as a stub, this is an impressive amount of detail related to post-1978 British politics. Philip Cross rejected my argument.

If an uninvolved administrator could help me understand this situation, I'd be very grateful. Thank you. NedFausa (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

This is the kind of work that bots would do if they could be taught how to identify the titles of creative works. Unless an editor's been disruptively making minor edits (e.g. stalking someone else) or is causing problems with minor edits (e.g. adding italics where they don't belong), there's no good reason to sanction someone for minor edits: the rule demonstrably would be preventing him from maintaining and improving Wikipedia, so it should be ignored. Nyttend (talk) 02:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Nyttend If I understand you, then, it's OK for someone to violate his indefinite ban from a topic, broadly construed, so long as he restricts himself to minor edits. That strikes me as a very strange policy. NedFausa (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Since you don't appear to be very grateful for the uninvolved administrator, let me be firmer: this is an unambiguous improvement, and nothing matters more than improving the project, so stop tattling on him. Nyttend (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Nyttend I said I'd be very grateful if an uninvolved administrator could help me understand this situation. You have not done so. Having read the topic ban that ARBCOM carefully hashed out, I see no room for the exception you have carved out. NedFausa (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

This is an interesting one. Seems like broad should include even little things, but I also like the word tattling. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

More work than I would want to put in, but you probably should have let them do a few more edits and see if you could catch them doing something major. Probably would have worked if you hadn't tipped them off. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Peregrine Fisher Tipping him off was my whole point in posting this first to his User Talk page. I sincerely don't want to take it to ARBCOM, where the topic ban originated. I just want Philip Cross to keep within his lane. NedFausa (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

That's the whole issue with how you interpret "broadly construed" really means. Common sense (which stems from ignore all rules, or IAR) suggests that something as inconsequential as italicizing the newspaper shouldn't necessitate hauling an editor to Arbitration Enforcement. This example is a textbook case where IAR applies. I highly doubt a banned editor using sockpuppet accounts will get banned for something as trivial as this. This thread should just be closed as a time sink and nothing positive is going to come out of it. I agree with Nyttend. Spend the time on actually improving an article, don't spend the time on a dramaboard to discuss why someone should be reprimanded for improving. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. I should have known. Thank you for finally helping to make sense of this. NedFausa (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Speaking as one of the arbs who wrote the TBan remedy for Cross, the point of the TBan was to restrict Cross from being tempted to edit on politics topics (especially BLPs) where he was personally involved off-wiki with the subjects, because that had become problematic. I definitely would not consider minor markup edits to the article of a journalist, even if he does sometimes write about politics, to be a violation of the spirit of the restriction. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Note re resource

I have posted the message below at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#new_resource_created. I would not normally post the same message again at this page. however, due to the sensitivity of this item, I am posting it here.

I am posting this here simply to:a) keep you apprised of this. b) let you know in case in the future, any such situation may arise, c) willingly invite any feedback you may wish to share. if anyone wishes to comment, that's fine;' if not, no problem. I appreciate your help. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

message:

I have personally set up the following new page , populated it, structured it, and formatted it for the use of the Wikipedia community at large. This is meant as a place to list any drafts left by deceased Wikipedians, to enable and to encourage others to continue work on these cherished and valued writings, and drafts as they may wish.

• Link to page:
  • Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Drafts

All of us are resolved to highly value, to cherish and to admire the heartfelt work and efforts by those who are no longer with us, and wish up to set up this resource to commemorate their efforts. by doing so, this is one good way to make sure as a community that their work shall be cherished, and that the work of our encyclopedia shall go forward, and that our work will continue to grow, and to flourish, on behalf of future generations who will benefit from the work done here. I appreciate the help, thoughts and insights of everyone involved here. thanks!

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alex Shih closed

An arbitration case regarding User:Alex Shih has now closed. The Arbitration Committee resolved by motion last year to suspend the case, which could be unsuspended if Alex Shih requested it within one year. Because Alex Shih has not requested the case be unsuspended, the case has been automatically closed. The motion which has now closed the case is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alex Shih#Motion to Suspend.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alex Shih closed