Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
response |
|||
| Line 618: | Line 618: | ||
*'''Decline''' per everyone else, and the fact that so much of her recent talk page history consists of complaints. [[User:Scorpions13256|Scorpions13256]] ([[User talk:Scorpions13256|talk]]) 21:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC) |
*'''Decline''' per everyone else, and the fact that so much of her recent talk page history consists of complaints. [[User:Scorpions13256|Scorpions13256]] ([[User talk:Scorpions13256|talk]]) 21:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC) |
||
*'''Maintain''' ban per the user's comments towards Levivich, as well as the previous commenters above. [[User:NotReallyMoniak|NotReallyMoniak]] ([[User talk:NotReallyMoniak|talk]]) 09:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC) |
*'''Maintain''' ban per the user's comments towards Levivich, as well as the previous commenters above. [[User:NotReallyMoniak|NotReallyMoniak]] ([[User talk:NotReallyMoniak|talk]]) 09:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC) |
||
* '''Withdraw''' I fucked up this unblock request (it wasn't clear that bludgeoning meant writing a lot not something else), I get that I won't be wanted here and most have not faith in me. If possible, I would like to at least edit my userpage and talkpage so as to be able to list some resources to help other wikipedians and reply to questions for me (such as about copyright) locally instead of having to reply on meta or commons talkpages.--[[User:PlanespotterA320|PlanespotterA320]] ([[User talk:PlanespotterA320|talk]]) 13:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Continued out-of-process DRV closures by King of Hearts == |
== Continued out-of-process DRV closures by King of Hearts == |
||
Revision as of 13:41, 2 August 2022
| Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. |
|---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) |
Open tasks
| V | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 7 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 6 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 7 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 24 | 23 | 47 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
- 2 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 0 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 4 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 3 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 23 sockpuppet investigations
- 46 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 1 Fully protected edit requests
- 0 Candidates for history merging
- 3 requests for RD1 redaction
- 26 elapsed requested moves
- 3 Pages at move review
- 19 requested closures
- 76 requests for unblock
- 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 11 Copyright problems
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection
Report
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Whatsupkarren / (Tariq afflaq) unban request (reopened)
- Special:permalink/1097008915#Whatsupkarren / (Tariq afflaq) unban request reopened from archive per email request
Whatsupkarren is requesting unblock/unban, and is sock of Tariq afflaq . Roy Smith noted in the prior unban request that user no longer has the original account password, and that he recommended requesting unban with this account. User is WP:3X banned as Tariq afflaq. This is, of course, a checkuser block.
- Whatsupkarren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Tariq afflaq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Prior unban request
- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tariq afflaq/Archive
Request to be unbanned
It’s been more than a year, I haven’t made any edit on English Wikipedia, used sockpuppets or anything like that since I was banned a year ago, I fully understand why I was blocked, and then banned, I admit my mistakes, I own up to my irresponsible reckless activities years ago, I apologize to all of Wikipedia community, and promise that will never ever engage in such activities again. the ban gave me a chance to acquaint myself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, I think the ban is no longer necessary because I understand why I was banned: 1. Sockpuppetry, years ago I created many socks ( 18, not mentioning non registered edits ) and impersonated some users, but I now know that I should not create accounts to mislead, circumvent blocks, or avoid any kind of sanctions. 2. Edit warring and vandalism, my approach to dealing with fellow users was rather barbaric, I now know that disagreements should be resolved through discussing the issue on the associated talk page or seeking help at appropriate venues. 3.I also know that I should remain civil and should not use improper language and should avoid responding in a contentious and antagonistic manner. I also want to add that I've created more than 50 articles on Arabic and French Wikipedias in the past year. I hope this appeal addresses all of your concerns, if not, please point them out. thanks for your time.
Carried over from user talk by --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Checkuser needed for starters, as this is a CU block and can only be considered after a CU has looked at it. No comment on the merits at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Unlikely but it's a noisy range. @Mz7: had the most luck last time and I believe it's worth a second set of eyes here in case I missed something. To be clear, barring new evidence, my findings clear the checkuser part of the block and mean this unblock request may now be considered on the merits. --Yamla (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- I haven't looked into this appeal too deeply yet, but it looks like at the previous unban request, I provided a decent summary of the background here and why I was opposed at the time: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive338#Whatsupkarren / Tariq afflaq unban request. I think at least this part of what I said back then probably still applies: If the community does want to extend leniency to this user, I would strongly suggest also attaching some unblock conditions, e.g. a topic ban from Syria-related topics, broadly construed. Mz7 (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Looking at the editting on other wikis, it appears to all be around Syria and people of Syrian decent, which appears to be part of the reason they were originally blocked. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm always up for a second chance. I do think that a TBan from Syria-related topics, to be appealed after a minimum of six months, would be necessary - on the understanding that they would need to demonstrate a capacity to edit constructively in that time, not merely wait for it to time out then appeal. There would also need to be an agreement to stick to one account. Girth Summit (blether) 23:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Unblock per WP:LASTCHANCE, with a six month Syria related topic ban and a one account restriction. Cullen328 (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Accept under the conditions of a indef topic ban for Syria, and an indef one account restriction, with either restriction being appealable after 6 months of actual editing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Decline until they show any interest in editing any other topic. When was the last time that Whatsupkarren/Tariq afflaq made any edit to a non-English Wikipedia that wouldn't have been a direct violation of their topic ban here? I mean, their most recent Wikipedia mainspace edits were a month ago on ptwiki, to pt:Moise Safra—where they were re-adding claims asserting Syrian nationality to a biography, as part of a slow-motion edit war on that article. For reference, he was trying to make essentially the same edit (since reverted) to enwiki's Moise Safra in December 2020, just hours before his original indefinite enwiki block. (And again as an IP evading his block less than a month later. And then as a sock two weeks after that. And then as another sock three months later.)
This editor has not shown that they are capable of editing anywhere outside of their topic ban. Instead, they've spent their time outside of enwiki exporting the same 'Syrian-tagging' disputes to multiple other Wikipedia projects. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC) Comment Non-plussed by user's feeing that edit warring is not edit warring if they have a good reason for edit warring. An opinion shared by many of the edit warriors I have encountered. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)edit for the bot to not archive before close --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)- Answered adequately. Comment struck Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
--Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse Unblock per Girth Summit, Cullen328, and Dennis Brown above. Appealable-in-six-months TBan from Syria-related topics, agreement to stick to one account. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Lift ban, unblock with Syria topic ban and one account restriction as suggested by others. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment (I actually started closing, thinking it was clearcut, before realising that it's only actually slightly in favour of an unblock at the moment). @Whatsupkarren: - can you point to recent activity on another project on a topic other than Syria? What would you do here if you were unblocked but TBANNED on Syria? Nosebagbear (talk) 08:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Whatsupkarren emailing a response isn't the best thing to do - answering on your talk page with a ping is fine. Am I fine to post the content of your email response? Nosebagbear (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Drat, just when it was getting good --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Whatsupkarren emailing a response isn't the best thing to do - answering on your talk page with a ping is fine. Am I fine to post the content of your email response? Nosebagbear (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Lift ban, unblock with a TBAN on Syria stuff. WP:STANDARDOFFER. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't exactly endorse unblocking, but I am not opposed either as long as the Syria topic ban is placed as a condition for unblocking. Am interested in reading the response to Nosebagbear's question above. Mz7 (talk) 03:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose 18 admitted sockpuppets used to deceive, threatening off-wiki hacking, impersonating an editor, and a nationalistic POV pusher to boot. They had almost a week to answer Nosebagbear's question
& failed to do so. Timesink 101, can only harm WP. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)- Reply to @Bison X: carried over by me.
Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)I didn't fail to answer, I emailed the admin on July 18th. Thanks for your time Whatsupkarren (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- As was noted by admin 1 week ago Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, thank you for that. I couldn't find it on-wiki so I didn't have much to go on. I don't see how a few dime-a-dozen vandal reverts (as noted on their talk page) counters the deception, the intimidation and the masquerading. Net negative. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Whatsupkarren: Re: your response (copied from your user talk):
They’re not really a few dime a dozens,
per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Rollback "While there is no fixed requirement, a request is unlikely to be successful without a contribution history that demonstrates an ability to distinguish well-intentioned edits with minor issues from unconstructive vandalism. Rollback is not for very new users: it is unlikely that editors with under 200 mainspace edits will have their request granted.”
i did more than 600 space edits, https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Whatsupkarren&offset=20210222045519&limit=500&target=Whatsupkarren Whatsupkarren (talk) 03:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- That really doesn't clarify anything, other than turning "a few" into "600" and a quote from the rollback page. While looking into this, there are several pages of of tangled webs that were woven, what with the SPI page, the several sock contribution pages & talk pages, the last ANI, this ANI and your current talk page. Forgive me if I have overlooked anything, but I do not see where you directly addressed some concerns that were brought up by User:Mz7, specifically:
- You were accused of
pretended to be Chris O'Hare, who had just been blocked, in order to try and trick administrators into thinking Chris O'Hare was evading their block.
I could not find where you were doing this, but is this true? What is your response to this? - You also
also threatened to "hack" someone else's Facebook account.
in this edit. What is your response to this? - You continually say you didn't know the rules on Wikipedia, so you didn't know socking was prohibited. But, with the Sidoc account alone, you were trying to impose a chilling effect on another user so you could win a dispute. How can you believe that would be an acceptable action to take against another volunteer editor even if it wasn't against the rules?
- Again, since there are so many different discussions, and this was never directly addressed at the last ANI, it seems reasonable (even if you addressed these elsewhere) to address these here in this discussion. Please respond to the 3 questions. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- User answered Nosebagbear's question on their talk. I asked them to chunk it down, and in a nutshell, "reverting vandalism."Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Reply to BisonX carried over by DFO
1) Yes, it’s true that I impersonated a user and I admitted that in my appeal.
“ I understand why I was banned: 1. Sockpuppetry, years ago I created many socks ( 18, not mentioning non registered edits ) and impersonated some users, but I now know that I should not create accounts to mislead, circumvent blocks, or avoid any kind of sanctions.”
2) Yes, I admitted that I threatened a user to hack their account, it was all talk i don’t even use Facebook, but now I know that threatening is completely forbidden on Wikipedia per WP:HAR
3) I wanted to say that at first, when i was using Tariq Afflaq, I didn’t know that using another account after being blocked is prohibited, I did know later, and continued socking using sidoc, oxforder, whatsupkarren, OhioanRCS and the other later accounts until the ban was palced on me, and I completely own up to it,for example:
When my main account Tariq Afflaq was blocked for 48 hours, I immediately created a sock ( George51725w5218 ), and returned to the same talk page that I was arguing in using Tariq Afflaq, this is some of that I said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/992247224
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/992248330If I had known that was wrong, I wouldn’t have come to the same TP and continued the discussion as if nothing happened, my point is, AT THE VERY BEGINNING, what I did was out of ignorance and not out of intended abusiveness, but I'm not arguing that I'm not guilty at all, it was my fault not informing myself with the policies.
Regards Whatsupkarren (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- You seem sincere and open about your appeal, but to me the deception you used shouldn't have been excused by ignorance; rather it shouldn't have been done out of respect to the encyclopedia and, oh yeah, the other people editing in that area. I don't know, to me it seems like a deal breaker, but several admins above are open to a T-BAN and a one-account limitation — they are the ones who would have to deal with any further disruptions. My gut says no, but I don't have to deal with it. I guess the reviewing admin can consider me a weak oppose on an unblock, but if unblocked, support an indefinite ban from Syria-related topics, broadly construed, and a one account limitation. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 00:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Block of Willbb234
Hello all. I have recently been on the receiving end of User:Doug Weller's wrath. I have been blocked from editing two pages and have been accused of attacking other editors in a personal manner, an accusation for which there are no grounds. Doug also doesn't like being called 'buddy' and apparently this was an issue even though he didn't tell me he didn't like it. Tell me Doug, how do I know that you don't like it if you don't tell me? Communication is key. I wish to be unblocked and I have used the unblock template thrice but to no avail! I also request that Doug retract his accusations that I have attacked other editors. I also believe that I have been treated unfairly by Doug and he has abused his administrative privileges to impose his wrath upon me. Please allow me to explain.
Firstly at Climatic Research Unit email controversy, I was happily going about editing and improving the article ([1], [2] among others) when I suddenly awoke the science goblins from their cave. Next thing I know, Tim, Dave and Mr Gadling had logged onto their computers and began their onslaught. Tim was at the time an undisclosed paid editor with a fat COI, something for which he barely received a slap on the wrist from Doug. Mr Gadling threw around accusations and got rather angry and uncivil ([3]) and deleted the discussion as a result of his actions. Dave was alright I guess, he could have been better. Anyway, along comes Doug and bang he blocks me from editing the page! Despite the fact that other editors were engaged heavily in some nasty edit warring, I am singled out! Can you believe it! Doug declined to elaborate on his reasoning (User talk:Willbb234/Archive 5#June 2022) and was very short with me.
Secondly, I then edit Dnepropetrovsk maniacs and I have a little edit war with Ian. We both do three reverts and so do not exceed WP:3RR and once again out of absolutely nowhere, Doug blocks me! I ask Doug on his talk page why he blocked just me but not Ian and I am ignored. Ian didn't even get a warning. If this isn't considered inappropriate behaviour by an admin then I don't really know what an admin can't do now. Ian's edits then get demolished by consensus proving that I am indeed correct, and Ian and Doug are wrong.
I am asking that Doug's actions are brought under the microscope as they are clearly inappropriate and that my blocks are reversed. That is all. Thanks everyone and happy editing :)Willbb234 20:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Make an unblock request on your user talk page and it will be reviewed by an uninvolved administrator. Take care to read WP:GAB. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- I just saw this on my talk page with the message “ Hi Doug. I now hope that you receive the consequences of your actions. here's the discussion. thanks”. I’m in bed planning to read a bit and then go to sleep. See their talk page. Also User:Deepfriedokra may want to comment as they posted their about the unblock request. I don’t think Ian has been notified. Doug Weller talk 20:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Malcolm, please see the final statement of my reasoning. This isn't just about an unblock. Thanks. Willbb234 20:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm curious if "Doug and his Lego" is the snide comment I think it is; is there another meaning I can't think of? If it is, then let's just close this as a time sink. Also, I realize that eventually a bot archived them, but aren't declined unblock requests supposed to be visible if you make a new unblock request? Reading recent edit summaries and comments, I'm inclined to leave both page blocks in place, and caution Willbb234 that they need to change their approach or blocks could start becoming sitewide. Keep in mind I know about this because I watchlist Doug's talk page, and am friendly with him, so I won't be doing any of what I'm suggesting myself. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm bemused by the title of this thread (and fairly unamused by "I now hope that you receive the consequences of your actions"), so would appreciate being clued in here.. — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 20:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
"The Lego Group estimates that in five decades it has produced 400 billion Lego blocks". Doug is the Lego Group. Willbb234 20:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Riiiight... well that doesn't make any sense does it :) I've renamed the thread. — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 20:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- He's not your buddy, pal. nableezy - 20:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not your pal, buddy. Willbb234 21:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- I declined an unblock. When OP complained on my talk page, I sent them here. I'll let the folks here decide if the partial blocks can be lifted. I think OP is overly invested in the articles in question. There are about 6,000,000 other articles to edit. I don't think the partial blocks are anything onerous.Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, the vindictiveness, the seeming seeking of revenge noted by Doug in " I now hope that you receive the consequences of your actions", inclines me to feel I was right to decline. It suggests a battleground mentality not compatible with this project. Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see the issue with this comment. I believe Doug acted unfairly and used his administrative tools in a way in which they should not be used. Isn't it fair that I therefore believe that there should be consequences for his actions? Willbb234 21:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Now, what was I saying about inappropriate use of terms of familiarity? Ah, yes. It was OP's talk somewhere. Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Where is the evidence or admission that Tim is paid for his contributions to Wikipedia? If there are none, you should strike that. I don't see much in Mr Gadling's comments that lead me to believe he is angry. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- On Tim's talk page, he says he works for the Climatic Research Unit which was targeted by the hackers. Also, I believe Mr Gadling's comments on his talk page sounded quite aggressive almost to the point that he was angry. Willbb234 21:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- working for Climatic Research Unit does not mean Tim is compensated for his edits (which is a much more serious issue). EvergreenFir (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that being paid by an employer regardless of whether it is for editing or not still consitutes WP:PAID. Willbb234 21:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- You are mistaken. Many editors are employed and receive some form of compensation for that employment. That does not mean we are WP:PAID because the compensation is not for the editing. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- At this point, I'm not sure whether the two of you are talking about the same thing, but if you edit an article related to the organisation you work for, intern for or even volunteer for, you are WP:PAID with respect to that article. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, that's WP:COI. You are only WP:PAID if your editing is directed by your employer as part of your employment. Black Kite (talk) 10:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Looks like a lot has changed on both WP:COI and WP:PAID since I first read up on them. Anyway, it's a distinction without a difference. You need to declare and you are strongly discouraged from direct editing, in both cases. Regardless, there's no call to call him a UPE in 2022 when he'd disclose his employment in 2011 (after, to my surprise, the most casual OUTING by an admin, ever). Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Wow, now I'm confused but not overly. COI states (my bold underline):
Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships.
How do you think it would pan out if your employer saw a comment by you that was out of line with their business philosophy? The financial part of COI is extremely important and could very well be what drives a person to assume a particular position. I have no dog in this fight, and what matters most to me is making sure we are all on the same page relative to PAGs. My question now is whether or not that COI creates an issue for the editor who commented on that article? I will also add that I did not see an issue in the diffs provided but if those edits led to PAs against the editor, then we have a problem. How it is handled is up to our admins to decide, and the latter is why I want to make sure my thinking is on the same page as our trusted admins. Atsme 💬 📧 15:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)- It's a difference between "I'm going to clean up the article on my employer because I'm familiar with them" (COI) versus "My employer is literally paying me to edit the article towards a specific goal" (PAID). The former, while a conflict, is not necessarily in bad faith, while the latter is almost always meant to skew the article in favor of the employer. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- +1. --JBL (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for sharing your thoughts, but I'm not convinced by that argument. It does not automatically make a COI go away. In order to eliminate a COI, it's important to have uninvolved editors approve/oversee what you've written, and if challenged, it can be discussed. Simply knowing someone does not make the relationship a COI, but earning a living from them most certainly does. People get fired for talking against their employer or the employer's philosophy. I don't think it applies in the same manner on Mars, or on the Starship Enterprise since they are out of the jurisdiction of WP:PAGs.
Atsme 💬 📧 12:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for sharing your thoughts, but I'm not convinced by that argument. It does not automatically make a COI go away. In order to eliminate a COI, it's important to have uninvolved editors approve/oversee what you've written, and if challenged, it can be discussed. Simply knowing someone does not make the relationship a COI, but earning a living from them most certainly does. People get fired for talking against their employer or the employer's philosophy. I don't think it applies in the same manner on Mars, or on the Starship Enterprise since they are out of the jurisdiction of WP:PAGs.
- +1. --JBL (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's a difference between "I'm going to clean up the article on my employer because I'm familiar with them" (COI) versus "My employer is literally paying me to edit the article towards a specific goal" (PAID). The former, while a conflict, is not necessarily in bad faith, while the latter is almost always meant to skew the article in favor of the employer. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Wow, now I'm confused but not overly. COI states (my bold underline):
- Looks like a lot has changed on both WP:COI and WP:PAID since I first read up on them. Anyway, it's a distinction without a difference. You need to declare and you are strongly discouraged from direct editing, in both cases. Regardless, there's no call to call him a UPE in 2022 when he'd disclose his employment in 2011 (after, to my surprise, the most casual OUTING by an admin, ever). Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, that's WP:COI. You are only WP:PAID if your editing is directed by your employer as part of your employment. Black Kite (talk) 10:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- At this point, I'm not sure whether the two of you are talking about the same thing, but if you edit an article related to the organisation you work for, intern for or even volunteer for, you are WP:PAID with respect to that article. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- You are mistaken. Many editors are employed and receive some form of compensation for that employment. That does not mean we are WP:PAID because the compensation is not for the editing. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that being paid by an employer regardless of whether it is for editing or not still consitutes WP:PAID. Willbb234 21:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- working for Climatic Research Unit does not mean Tim is compensated for his edits (which is a much more serious issue). EvergreenFir (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- On Tim's talk page, he says he works for the Climatic Research Unit which was targeted by the hackers. Also, I believe Mr Gadling's comments on his talk page sounded quite aggressive almost to the point that he was angry. Willbb234 21:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
I decided to ask for a request for comment at Talk:Dnepropetrovsk maniacs because it was clear that we were going round in circles and going nowhere fast. However, I was unhappy about this edit summary. I would be happy to see Willbb234 unblocked, but only on condition that edit summaries and language like this are not used.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Willbb234, you appear to have been blocked for edit warring as well as the use of intemperate language in edit summaries. Neither alone would be probably be enough for admin action but the two together is what has brought you to this point. I don't really see anything "unfair" in Doug's block and my suggestion is that you just fess up in an unblock notice, perhaps throw in a graceful apology to ianmacm, and see what happens. Complaints about "lego" blocks or leveling accusations of "wrath" are not going to be helpful. --RegentsPark (comment) 22:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- As I said on their talk page about an unblock, "The request doesn’t seem to show good faith and doesn’t deal with the personal attacks, so I wouldn’t. We need firm commitments on those issues and no attempt to suggest others may be to blame. " Doug Weller talk 07:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Willbb234 admits edit warring and even if comments like "what a load of shit, buddy. Are you capable of reading WP:ONUS?" [4] aren't personal attacks they definitely aren't civil. Would you use that kind of language in, say, a workplace with a colleague you don't know well? Probably not, and I imagine that if you did sooner or later your manager or someone from HR would tell you to stop. This block could probably have be lifted if Willbb234 made it clear they understood what was wrong with their behaviour and that they wouldn't do it again, but instead they reacted by claiming the block was down to the "wrath" of the blocking admin and opening this thread in an apparent attempt to get some sort of revenge [5]. I suggest the OP withdraw this, wait a bit, and then file an unblock request dealing with the issues in their behaviour. Hut 8.5 12:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- At Climatic Research Unit email controversy, the edits in question aren't egregious, and largely come down to some copyediting, removing "grossly" from "grossly mischaracterized", and swapping "climate change denial" framing for "global warming sceptics". These are recurring sorts of minor POV edits in the climate space on Wikipedia. The word choice of "grossly" is a perfectly valid conversation to have, but rather than have a conversation (Willbb234 didn't use the talk page at all), he edit warred against three other people. Edit warring isn't allowed here. When called on it, he went on offense:
Or do you only ban users you don't like? I understand you might be a bit angry, but try not to throw your toys out the pram. You're a big boy now and we can all behave ourselves.
, followed by a couple pretty terrible unblock requests. Now we're here, and people are calledscience goblins
, etc. Edit warring isn't allowed, even if you stay away from 3RR. Probably could've been a fixed-length block rather than indefinite, but it's the sort of thing that should be very easy to get unblocked from. "My bad. Shouldn't have edit warred and gotten angry. I won't edit war further and will use the talk page to find consensus" yada yada... bam, unblocked. Over at Dnepropetrovsk maniacs (oof, wish I hadn't looked at the content of the diffs), it doesn't seem like there's any POV issue -- it's mainly just edit warring again. You went past 3RR there. Being right isn't a good excuse. Doug would've also been justified blocking Ianmacm there, but i suspect what Doug saw was that you were engaged in edit wars on multiple articles, and even broke 3RR on that one. I'm surprised it wasn't a typical ~24h block at that point. Regardless, these are justified blocks. Just stop edit warring. Don't point at other people. If you see other people edit warring, that has nothing to do with whether you should be; just report them for edit warring and/or resolve it on the talk page. As above, this should be very easy to get lifted. Or, well, they should've been very easy. Now, with this thread and the lousy unblock requests, admins may want to see a more elaborate demonstration of clue. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)- 👍 Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Indefinite is not infinite. I could have unblocked yesterday had OP done as you suggest. Instead we are here. I find the bit about throwing toys out of prams to possibly be ironic. YMMV. Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- I also agree 99.9%. Is that a first for us Rhododendrites? 😀 Atsme 💬 📧 15:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Indefinite is not infinite. I could have unblocked yesterday had OP done as you suggest. Instead we are here. I find the bit about throwing toys out of prams to possibly be ironic. YMMV. Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- +1. JBL (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- 👍 Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- This all could have been avoided if Willbb234 had handled it the right way. Instead, what would have been a simple appeal has exposed a deeper behavioral problem and a combative attitude that is inherently incompatible with a collaborative project. Trying to play the victim, using condescending language towards others, and essentially tirading around WP is not the way to handle things. They have clearly been around long enough to know better. If they had bothered to take the appeal process seriously, they probably could have been unblocked by now. If they seriously do not see a problem with the way they flippantly approached the appeal process, then that's an indication that there is no recognition of what has gone wrong here and behavior is not likely to change. Past performance is indicative of future results. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have been watching this post and it seems that Willbb234 has some issues with WP:CIV Seems to me the next action is to expand the block for the user until they can follow basic expectations of behavior on Wikipedia. Jeepday (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- I would hope that the frustration caused by the behavior Willbb234 encountered is taken into consideration because nobody's hands in this edit dispute are sparkling clean. Just my
2¢worth. Make that $1.00 in consideration of today's inflation – which is really hurting folks on Bonaire, my little island paradise of inflate-the-price. Atsme 💬 📧 15:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- I would hope that the frustration caused by the behavior Willbb234 encountered is taken into consideration because nobody's hands in this edit dispute are sparkling clean. Just my
- I endorse Doug's actions and I believe Willbb234 needs to revisit their compliance with policy. Andrevan@ 16:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the contributions everyone. Firstly, I would like to make clear that I recognise that I acted incorrectly on the two articles in question both through edit warring and civility issues. What I don't believe editors here seem to understand is that I have an issue with Doug's conduct which certainly should be scrutinised in the context of a lack of action against other users. This is why I have an issue with Rhododendrites saying Don't point at other people. If you see other people edit warring, that has nothing to do with whether you should be
. Sure, in the context of my block that is a perfectly reasonable thing to say but when considering the actions of Doug, this is wrong. How Doug decided to act in these two situations is important both through what he did to me and, importantly, what he did not do to other editors. If Doug was truly acting in the best interest of the project as a whole, and wished to uphold his endeavour to tackle 'battleground' behaviour on this project, then he would take action (most likely in the form of a block) against other editors, Mr Gadling and Ian come to mind. But no, he was not acting in the best interest of the project and singled me out. This is not fair.
I'm yet to see how I performed a personal attack. I lacked civility and as Atsme has said, I believe the language from other editors should be taken into account when reviewing my response; when someone acts rudely towards you, rudeness can be expected back even if it is not the correct thing to do. After all, everyone makes mistakes and loses their heads. Of course, consistent lack of temperament is a cause for concern but one off occasions can surely be excused. What I still fail to see, though, is how I made personal attacks against other editors. I do not enjoy being accused of things I did not do and I believe Doug made a mistake here. Basing blocks off of accusations that are false seems very flimsy which is why I came here after my latest unblock request was refused.
Alright, if users are questioning why I come back here then I will summarise: I believe Doug has unfairly taken sides in the incidents above and I am not satisfied that anyone here has justified his actions. All you lot have given him is a pat on the back and to me that doesn't seem right. Willbb234 22:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Can I use a techalt?
I have used both this account and my legitimate alternate account, NotReallySolak, to revert TheCurrencyGuy's currency-related changes which do not have consensus (a rollback precedent done by Kashmiri is here). I would like to get a go-ahead before I continue using NotReallySolak as a TECHALT. Thanks. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- This is of some significance since I have found around tens of these changes on a cursory glance. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for pinging. I'd say, using an alternative account would be perfectly legit here – Wikipedia has no policy prohibiting multiple accounts as long as they are disclosed and not used for illegitimate purposes. — kashmīrī TALK 15:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- My primary concern is creating an alt account purely for the purposes of reverting another editor. Primefac (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Primefac: The NotReallySolak account was created in April 2021 (Special:Log/NotReallySolak). NotReallyMoniak (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Using two different accounts to make reverts that don't meet the exceptions for WP:EW could appear to be attempting to evade the 3 revert limit. You should use one or the other. Schazjmd (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. Regardless of when it was created, it (currently) specifically states "NotReallySolak is for reverting TheCurrencyGuy's edits", which is therefore (to quote myself)
an alt account purely for the purposes of reverting another editor
. Primefac (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC) - @Schazjmd: I never used both account at the same time. I made two reverts on this account before switching to my alt. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 05:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. Regardless of when it was created, it (currently) specifically states "NotReallySolak is for reverting TheCurrencyGuy's edits", which is therefore (to quote myself)
- Using two different accounts to make reverts that don't meet the exceptions for WP:EW could appear to be attempting to evade the 3 revert limit. You should use one or the other. Schazjmd (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Primefac: The NotReallySolak account was created in April 2021 (Special:Log/NotReallySolak). NotReallyMoniak (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- My primary concern is creating an alt account purely for the purposes of reverting another editor. Primefac (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for pinging. I'd say, using an alternative account would be perfectly legit here – Wikipedia has no policy prohibiting multiple accounts as long as they are disclosed and not used for illegitimate purposes. — kashmīrī TALK 15:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think using an alt for a mass revert can be reasonable if that revert is non-controversial (I am admittedly biased, having made about 1,500 such edits), but agree with Schaz and Primefac that it should be avoided in the case of a bona fide content dispute. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think User:NotReallySolak (and User:'zin is short for Tamzin for that matter) fall into that grey area of "Not something you're going to get blocked for, but still kind of dubious" Why are those accounts needed? What legitimate purpose do they serve?
- I've got an alternate account, RoySmith-Mobile. My legitimate reason for having it is I use it on my phone. If my phone gets stolen or lost, not being logged into it with my regular (admin) account reduces the security exposure. What's your legitimate reason? -- RoySmith (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- @RoySmith: I used my alt to make those 1,500 reverts because I felt that doing them on this account would make it harder for people to look through my contribs and hold me accountable as an administrator. Imagine you're trying to get a sense of if the newest admin is acting prudently, you get a page back in her contribs, and then it's 30 consecutive pages of the exact same edit. That seemed unfair. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- To be honest, I'm having trouble following this logic. How is curating your edit history making it easier for other people to understand what edits you're making? -- RoySmith (talk) 00:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Looking at Tamzin's alt, I can see the merit for that particular mass revert. Nothing controversial, just a large mopping up in user talk space. I'm not sure the same logic supports using an alt in mainspace for mass reverts unless community consensus supports the action and the alt is just serving as conduit(bot like) for the community. Slywriter (talk) 01:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- To be honest, I'm having trouble following this logic. How is curating your edit history making it easier for other people to understand what edits you're making? -- RoySmith (talk) 00:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- RoySmith, I understand that my "legitimate reason"s might be weak, but:
- TCG did not have the consensus before making their changes; ergo, my reverts only serve to restore the version with consensus.
- As I said in the original comment, there's already precedent with rolling back TCG's changes.
- I am not a rollbacker, but if I were one, then item 5 of ROLLBACKUSE would come to play.
- Thank you. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 05:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- @RoySmith: I used my alt to make those 1,500 reverts because I felt that doing them on this account would make it harder for people to look through my contribs and hold me accountable as an administrator. Imagine you're trying to get a sense of if the newest admin is acting prudently, you get a page back in her contribs, and then it's 30 consecutive pages of the exact same edit. That seemed unfair. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Two separate notes:
- A TCG RfC on Is it ruble or rouble? (and kopek or kopeck) has recently been SNOW closed with "no prejudice against opening a move request". The closer (HTGS) also left this message to TCG.
- I see three main possibilities out of this thread:
I may continue using NotReallySolak to revert TCG.(see below - NotReallyMoniak (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC))- I may revert TCG but I cannot use NotReallySolak for the purpose.
- I must cease reverting TCG altogether.
- I contend that my reverts themselves are legitimate (if Kashmiri was rolling TCG back, I should be able to revert without rolling back), but I have no preference as to the above possibilities. Either way, both this account and NotReallySolak will hold back from the reverts until there exists clear consensus for me to continue.
- NotReallyMoniak (talk) 06:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- There's three totally distinct issue here. One is whether the edits by TCG should be reverted. That's a content issue, which isn't going to be resolved at WP:AN.
- The second is, assuming you do revert the edits, what's the best procedure. There's a few different ways to do that, such as manually reverting, using the undo link, or using the rollback tool. There's no huge difference between them, but rollback generally has the connotation of being
used to undo problematic edits such as vandalism
, and some people will object to using rollback for things that aren't strictly vandalism. - The last is which account to use. On that, I'll just repeat what I said above, but somewhat more emphatically. I suggest you use a single account for all of your edits. I don't see any legitimate reason to create a alternate account just to do rollbacks. You're being up-front about it, so there's no issue with it being considered socking, but I certainly wouldn't call it best practice. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- @RoySmith: My alternate account was created a year ago. Other than that, I agree with you, especially your suggestion that I "use a single account for all [my] edits". NotReallyMoniak (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- While I share others' concerns about how this could be perceived as "hiding" one's edits, my understanding is that the editor, not the account, is behaviourally responsible for their edits. So it doesn't matter if, for a made-up example, they use 3 different accounts to revert a particular edit once each; that editor is considered to have reverted 3 times, and would be thereby accountable for their edits. Just be aware that using multiple accounts, even declared ones, could "colour" your seeming intentions as perceived by others, as - as some have done here - some may question "Why?". - jc37 06:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
English language versions
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- This website is a schizophrenic mess. All I was doing was pointing out the sheer pigheadedness of imposing the American English form everywhere. I sincerely believe we need to separate the English Wikipedia into American English and Commonwealth English versions. There are just too many variables to attempt to "compromise", invariably this results in a mere popularity contest based on the fact that most editors are American. American English and Commonwealth English are not nearly as mutually intelligible as is supposed. Any intelligibility beyond the most basic communication often proves difficult. There is greater distinction between Commonwealth English and American English than between, say, Norwegian and Swedish or Bulgarian and Macedonian, and those examples all have their own Wikipedias. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- "American English and Commonwealth English are not nearly as mutually intelligible as is supposed. Any intelligibility beyond the most basic communication often proves difficult."
- I've yet to encounter an American who was legitimately unable to understand "the colour green" and "fish and chips", nor a Commonwealth person unable to understand "the color blue" and "Burgers and fries".
- But Hej älskling vs Hei kjaere... well you're literally speaking two different languages. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- You deliberately cherrypicked examples where they sound the same to the ear. I'm not going to argue because I don't care anymore. I'm just expressing my opinion that this site is a burning hot mess because of its refusal to even contemplate a split. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I sincerely believe we need to separate the English Wikipedia into American English and Commonwealth English versions.
- Feel free to start your own fork then. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- I would be happy to provided I can get some help in doing so, my tech skills are not the best. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm... sorry.... I'm just extremely frustrated right now. I've had a catastrophic burnout.
- I'm just upset that Wikipedia tries to bridge the gap between two extremely distinct linguistic forms. While many of the basic words are shared by both, some aspects of the grammar and meaning of words and turns of phrase, even when there are no spelling differences, are nonsensical to the other. The exact use of words is often more important than the words themselves. This is at its most noticeable in vernacular forms one would not ordinarily write down, while the words may have the same spellings, because of dialectical distinctions phrases which make sense in one form of English may simply be gibberish or imply a very different meaning in another. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Two"? Do you know how many national varieties of English are there on Wikipedia? A few dozen at least. So, while you are at forking the English Wikipedia, please don't forget about an Australian English fork, a Kiwi English fork, a Hinglish fork, a Nigerian Pidgin fork, and so on. Please also make sure that all changes in any national variety article are immediately reflected in the corresponding articles in other varieties.
- Apart from that, I wonder whether what national variety of English you'd assign to the word, organization. — kashmīrī TALK 18:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- I would be happy to provided I can get some help in doing so, my tech skills are not the best. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Another tranche of mass-created geostubs
In random-articling I came across a group of some 500 Bangladeshi placename stubs all sourced to GEONAMES alone and created in bulk over several sessions by one editor. I understand there might be the possibility of getting these deleted en masse rather either PRODding or AfDing each one. Mangoe (talk) 03:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Not much use without details...? Which ones, who? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Depends on the circumstances. Probably there will need to be consensus to delete en masse. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed, we need significantly more information before we can determine what is the best course of action. Unless they meet a speedy deletion criterion there will need to be a consensus to mass delete (but given Mangoe is an experienced editor I presume they would have just tagged them for CSD if they did), and that will not arise without a clear indication both exactly what the issues are and what the scale of those issues is. The first thing to do is to look at a sample of them and determine whether they are mostly correct or not (GeoNames' accuracy is best described as variable) - if they are correct then we should probably look to better source them rather than delete them, especially if there is potentially useful information in there articles. Thryduulf (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, we seem to be doing these as regular bulk AfDs so I'll be going over there. Mangoe (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia used to test behaviour of Irish judges
In Irish news today ([6] [7]) it was noted that a research project at NUI Maynooth created 75 articles about Supreme Court of Ireland cases in order to test whether Irish judges were using Wikipedia to research case law when writing judgments.
It appears that most articles in Category:Supreme Court of Ireland cases were created in this project, coordinated by User:AugusteBlanqui. Most of the involved users can be found at [8] but this is not a complete or exhaustive list.
I'm a little non-plussed about Wikipedia being used this way, but the articles seem mostly OK. Just running it by my fellow admins to see if there are any views. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Let me know if anyone has questions. We had feedback from Wikiproject Law and NPP. I am familiar with WP:NOTLAB and these articles first and foremost are a valuable contribution to the encyclopedia. Before this project there were only about six articles on Irish Supreme Court cases. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 09:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- AugusteBlanqui, could you post links to the discussions you say took place at Wikiproject Law and at NPP please? Could you also describe your relationship with the project - I'm not asking you to give anything away about your private identify, but was this work done as part of your job? Girth Summit (blether) 11:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Here's the Wikiproject Law outreach: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law/Archive 23#Irish Supreme Court cases
- NPP: Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 37#Irish Supreme Court cases articles
- This project was incidental to my job.
- AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- I guess I am not understanding what the issue is here? If we have decent articles due to the actions of this group, I don't see how their motivation is relevant. NOTLAB seems to refer to things like breaching experiments or test editing. It's also not our concern if Irish judges use Wikipedia for their research- it may be a concern to the people of Ireland, but not us. 331dot (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, the media coverage is missing a bit of nuance (shocker). The issue is not that the articles are poor quality, they are not bad to some quite strong; the issue is that the judges use the articles on Wikipedia for precedent rather than other cases that perhaps are as applicable/relevant but could lead to different legal conclusions or arguments but are not on Wikipedia. Regarding being immediately brought to Admin Notice board, I do find it peculiar. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- To be clear, this experiment was based on the presence/absence of information, rather than putting potentially incorrect information up to see if it was used? That is probably the main concern here. If the intention included making accurate articles, which seems to be the case based on the Wikiproject and NPP discussions linked above, that seems fine. Perhaps the control group of articles may also see the light of day when no longer needed for research. CMD (talk) 12:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, exactly. The research looked at the impact on citations in legal decisions of a case having a Wikipedia article. The articles we created help fill a lacuna on Wikipedia--the almost complete absence of Irish Supreme Court cases. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- To be clear, this experiment was based on the presence/absence of information, rather than putting potentially incorrect information up to see if it was used? That is probably the main concern here. If the intention included making accurate articles, which seems to be the case based on the Wikiproject and NPP discussions linked above, that seems fine. Perhaps the control group of articles may also see the light of day when no longer needed for research. CMD (talk) 12:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, the media coverage is missing a bit of nuance (shocker). The issue is not that the articles are poor quality, they are not bad to some quite strong; the issue is that the judges use the articles on Wikipedia for precedent rather than other cases that perhaps are as applicable/relevant but could lead to different legal conclusions or arguments but are not on Wikipedia. Regarding being immediately brought to Admin Notice board, I do find it peculiar. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- This is an odd posting. If you read the newspaper article properly, the issue is that Irish high court judges – and/or their clerks – are quoting/paraphrasing from Wikipedia articles on historical major Irish legal cases. If anything, the Wikipedia editors who created these articles are to be commended for the quality of their work. 78.19.224.254 (talk) 12:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing any problems here. I spot-checked a few of the students' user pages. They all seem to be totally up-front about disclosing the relationship (example: Chocolate2206) so no issues there. I can't find any policy that this violates. On the contrary, it seems like it was a net positive to the encyclopedia by getting some articles written about subjects we should be covering. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- So there was "AN-scope" in the sense that if there'd been a major dearth of disclosure then we'd have to decide to waive any concerns (or not) due to the net improvement of the encyclopedia. Especially since it could be a paid breach depending on how it was done. But Roy's noting that the relationships were noted. In which case we have better articles and no worries, the ideal combo. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Here's the preprint on SSRN fwiw — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 14:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- This is group academic use of Wikipedia done correctly. Ambitious undergrad college professors trying to organize miniature classroom edit-a-thons should take notes from this.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you! We strove to put the encyclopedia first. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Many things motivate users to edit Wikipedia. This is one I’ve not heard before. However, there’s been no harm to the encyclopedia, we’ve got some quality articles from it and hopefully, we'll get more. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- This is great, thank you to the researchers for doing this project. I'm particularly pleased to see the team's transparency in the approach and the quality of the articles (good enough to be plagiarized!). Stifle probably should have talked to the researchers before asking for opinions at AN. Finally I'll add: how Wikipedia law articles influence Irish judges is absolutely something we should care about at Wikipedia, it's not just something of concern to the people of Ireland. For the people of Ireland, this shows their judges are relying on Wikipedia. For the people of Wikipedia, it shows the same thing: just how much influence these articles have on the real world. That's why our policies like WP:V and WP:NPOV and WP:BLP are so important. What we write here can change the world. It's paramount we get it right. (Non-administrator comment) Levivich (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Judges shouldn't be using Wikipedia this way, but it's outside of our realm. They should be using the existing law books, which take a little longer and is in the best interest of good law, but again, outside of our realm. As long as the articles are good articles, I don't see any problem with the creation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Similar to WaltCip, I'm wondering how we can get all the other universities to run their own even larger versions of studies like this. I learned about this from Ori sending me a link to <https://www.csail.mit.edu/news/how-wikipedia-influences-judicial-behavior>. It looks like there's also some coverage at <https://news.mit.edu/2022/study-finds-wikipedia-influences-judicial-behavior-0727> too, for anyone interested. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm just going to plug the proposal for a new multilingual sister project (WikiLaw) since it's incidental to this thread. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- There's very little written in the paper itself about conducting research via Wikipedia, the ethics involved, or about what apropos policies and guidelines we have in place about it. The authors do pay small service to saying they made sure the articles were notable and not plagiarized but this is just barely addressed and not within a dedicated section. I would have liked any person who reads that article to have a good understanding of what would be considered proper vs improper editing of Wikipedia and that this project operated within those bounds. E.g., It would have been good to have a link to m:Research:FAQ, Wikipedia:Student assignments, and any number of other policies and guidelines too. As it stands, I think it reads will encourage others to do research without much thought on the benefit or harm it might cause to Wikipedia itself, similar to situations in the past that caused large disruption. There's other issues as well. This kind of editing clearly has Wikipedia:Conflict of interest concerns and it seems to me that some of our best practices listed for WP:COIEDIT were not followed. E.g., the organizer was editing the pages themselves. Also, as far as I can tell, there's no "top-down" summary of the project on the author's page and Category:Supreme Court of Ireland cases itself seems to be the primary method to find the edits related to the project. I do see the messages that students left on some of the talk pages but this "bottom-up" approach is an unsatisfactory way for other editors to know the scope of the project. There should be a super easy on-wiki way to answer the questions like 'What pages were create/edited as part of this project?', 'When did it start/stop?', etc, and a summary of the research itself. Jason Quinn (talk) 08:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
First of all, being a volunteer or being a NPR here on Wikipedia, I give every day to Wikipedia. I tagged CSD on the page Madhav V. Nori because I think the page is not notable and had some strong thoughts that the user has some COI and that the user has operated or is operating multiple accounts previously, where the user accepted [9]and, as far as you can see, there is nothing bad faith here [10]. But without reading anything, this user User:Robert McClenon left a bad faith warning on my talk page where he mentioned I would be blocked. As he said, I did disruptive editing while making a "bad faith edit," which I never did. If you think it is bad faith to ask about the user's previous account, it is known as "bad faith." I don't have here to explain anything, but such tags discourage us while patrolling new pages. All I did was my job here as a volunteer. DIVINE 18:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- @DIVINE per the giant notice at the top of this page:
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.
PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)- Hey, it's been a long time since I last complained to anyone here, so I forgot and was searching for the tag to notify the editor, but thanks to you, you did it. DIVINE 19:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- DIVINE, why haven't you waited for Robert to respond to your question on his talk page before opening this complaint? Schazjmd (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- So you think we should have to wait for anyone superior or have to take permission from anyone to lodge a complaint here? DIVINE 19:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm saying that a matter that could be resolved with conversation between two editors should be resolved with conversation between two editors. But asking Robert to explain his actions then opening a complaint without waiting for an answer does not seem reasonable. Schazjmd (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think you should have made a good faith effort to resolve the dispute before bringing something here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- That was going to be my question, as well. Robert is all about the conflict resolution. They're someone I would actually expect discussion with to resolve issues. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- @DIVINE: WP:A7 does not deal with questions of notability. It states This applies to any article about a real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization, web content, or organized event[9] that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, with the exception of educational institutions.[10] This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This page does assert significance. Once a CSD tag is removed, your optios ar WP:PROD and WP:AfD, after performing a WP:BEFORE Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- So do you think asking about the previous account [11] is disruptive? DIVINE 19:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- There are ways to ask that would not have been disruptive. If you had assumed good faith and asked in a respectful way, this ANI report would be going very differently. But what you did was accuse them of being a liar in your first post. MrOllie (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- And i never challenged the removal of CSD or anything here. DIVINE 19:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- So do you think asking about the previous account [11] is disruptive? DIVINE 19:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- So you think we should have to wait for anyone superior or have to take permission from anyone to lodge a complaint here? DIVINE 19:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Devine, on the talk page of the article you said "I believe you have a strong connection to the issue because you're pretending to be an article reviewer and lying about your article being accepted by AFC. " to the person that created it. That is worth the warning that Robert McClenon gave you, and then some. The article was clearly not eligible for a speedy delete, and the tag was removed properly, and you were warned properly. Saying his warning was bad faith was your third (or more) mistake. Do you really want to go down the WP:AN road were we examine the behavior of not only Robert, but of you as well? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Tagging CSD might have been my mistake, but giving warning is also my mistake here. What do you mean? Can't I ask about the previous account and how Robert tagged me as bad faith on the talk page and not on mainspace. DIVINE 19:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Look, I'm gonna be frank with you here. Your responses are indicating that you don't understand or know what you're talking about, which is a problem with an AFC and new page reviewer. I suggest you withdraw this complaint and learn from it, otherwise this seems pretty likely to boomerang. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi PRAXIDICAE, I appreciate it, but let me bear the consequences. DIVINE 19:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Calling a new user a liar when they may just not understand is clearly a WP:BITE issue. It was totally unnecessary, and worthy of a warning. You can ask about previous accounts, but you don't need to be an ass about it. If you don't understand this, you don't need to be patrolling new pages. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Where did I tell the new user liar? Can you please show me? DIVINE 19:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- here and I quote:
I believe you have a strong connection to the issue because you're pretending to be an article reviewer and lying about your article being accepted by AFC.
- Did you not make this statement? Or is your account compromised again? PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Nope, my account is not compromised again and i remember you as you're familiar. The part of the article showing that it was recently approved via AFC. DIVINE 19:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- You literally just said a few edits ago you never called anyone a liar. So your response makes no sense. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Like your response makes no sense that you called me, they just before. DIVINE 19:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- You literally just said a few edits ago you never called anyone a liar. So your response makes no sense. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Nope, my account is not compromised again and i remember you as you're familiar. The part of the article showing that it was recently approved via AFC. DIVINE 19:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- here and I quote:
- Look, I'm gonna be frank with you here. Your responses are indicating that you don't understand or know what you're talking about, which is a problem with an AFC and new page reviewer. I suggest you withdraw this complaint and learn from it, otherwise this seems pretty likely to boomerang. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Tagging CSD might have been my mistake, but giving warning is also my mistake here. What do you mean? Can't I ask about the previous account and how Robert tagged me as bad faith on the talk page and not on mainspace. DIVINE 19:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Well, to begin with, putting a CSD on this article was clearly wrong, because it has multiple claims of notability ("CSD#A7 applies to any article about a real person ... that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant"), even before your bad faith comments about the creator. You should have used AfD. While we're here, can you fix that signature, please? Black Kite (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm really not thinking clearly to day, but I wonder if pulling AfC and NPR are not a good idea. Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- You have my vote. Clearly, this is not the right person to judge CSD or deal with new users. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- They never should've been granted the rights to begin with given their rather lackluster history, so I'd strongly support that @Deepfriedokra. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Who are they? DIVINE 19:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Who is Deepfriedokra?
An administrator, 16 years 4 months old, with 137,996 edits.
ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)- Hello, Mr. or Mrs. Scottish, i'm asking MR/Mrs Praxi about Who are they? not about an administrator. DIVINE 19:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- See: singular they. Praxidicae is clearly referring to you. —VersaceSpace 🌃 19:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- So there's no confusion for DIVINE, I was in fact referring to them when I said I'd support removal of perms. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- I never heard that they are singular words. Are you the author of the new Oxford dictionary from the MARS? DIVINE 19:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- If you do not understand the basic concept of pronouns in the English language, you should not be editing, much less reviewing others work. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- I follow the language not your personal emotions. DIVINE (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Glad we agree that I'm a goddess and my emotions dictate the entire English language. I'll be sure to update all you peons at a later date on some more changes. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- I follow the language not your personal emotions. DIVINE (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- If you do not understand the basic concept of pronouns in the English language, you should not be editing, much less reviewing others work. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- See: singular they. Praxidicae is clearly referring to you. —VersaceSpace 🌃 19:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, Mr. or Mrs. Scottish, i'm asking MR/Mrs Praxi about Who are they? not about an administrator. DIVINE 19:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Who is Deepfriedokra?
- Who are they? DIVINE 19:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- +1. Biting new users should be disqualifying for afc/NPP. Levivich (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- I never bite. I always help. How can you call him a new user when he has accepted that he has created multiple articles from his old account and he use to have a Wikipedia account previously? DIVINE 19:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ah yes, the "not new" user with a whopping 31 edits to English Wikipedia on both accounts combined. Clearly they are an expert. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Where did i even ask or question anything after he mentioned his account to him anyway. Can you please elaborate? [12] DIVINE 19:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ah yes, the "not new" user with a whopping 31 edits to English Wikipedia on both accounts combined. Clearly they are an expert. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- I never bite. I always help. How can you call him a new user when he has accepted that he has created multiple articles from his old account and he use to have a Wikipedia account previously? DIVINE 19:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- ...there is also a very obvious language barrier here. English fluency is probably necessary for reviewing articles. Levivich (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Does the English Wikipedia also request IELTS score? Could you please ask them to modify the rules? DIVINE 19:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- The rule is at WP:CIR. Levivich (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Does the English Wikipedia also request IELTS score? Could you please ask them to modify the rules? DIVINE 19:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm really not thinking clearly to day, but I wonder if pulling AfC and NPR are not a good idea. Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Just a note: it's hard to focus on the content of this thread because WP:BILLBOARD. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how to do the paperwork on this one, I mainly only act as a rouge admin or file paperwork at WP:AE. Could someone be so kind, perhaps Deepfriedokra? We all know where this is going. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Achieve consensus and unclick the NPR box. I believe primefac is emperox pf AfC Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- notified of this thread via IRC Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Of course he is; do you have any reservations about his abilities? You could ping him and ask him? DIVINE (talk) 19:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I've pulled NPR, if memory serves the revocation procedures for non-probationary AfC reviewers are more complicated for whatever reason. @Primefac may be able to weigh in there. --Blablubbs (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- You think I'm really much more into rights? Can you leave a message on my talk page about why you revoked my rights? DIVINE (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- "as per discussion at WP:ANI" is all the message would say. Blablubbs may have pulled the trigger, but there is a community discussion and consensus that decided the fate of that bit. This discussion. No further explanation should be required. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- You think I'm really much more into rights? Can you leave a message on my talk page about why you revoked my rights? DIVINE (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm going to go out on a limb and say we have consensus here for removal of both. Whether that is sufficient for AFC, I don't know, but a consensus clearly exists. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- That is my interpretation at the moment, so I have removed their AFCH access. Should this subthread or the overall thinking change, feel free to ping me and I'll re-add. Primefac (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. Not something we often have to deal with, so not covered in the admin manual. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- That is my interpretation at the moment, so I have removed their AFCH access. Should this subthread or the overall thinking change, feel free to ping me and I'll re-add. Primefac (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Achieve consensus and unclick the NPR box. I believe primefac is emperox pf AfC Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- @DIVINE:, on another note, your signature is clearly afoul WP:SIGAPP, as the text is way larger than what surrounds it. ValarianB (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps yes, since I am unaware of it; if so, thank you for your nice information; please allow me to alter it. DIVINE 19:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- I've blocked Divine for 31 hours for the personal attacks above:
Are you the author of the new Oxford dictionary from the MARS?
,I follow the language not your personal emotions.
No prejudice to further actions if those are deemed necessary. signed, Rosguill talk 20:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)- Good for a first block. Will educate, Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- It is not their first block. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Good for a first block. Will educate, Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Since the user is doubting the consensus, I am voicing my support here for revocation their NPP and AFC user rights, per WP:CIR. Polyamorph (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse block and removal of perms' Combativeness continues on talk. Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'll support block and perms removal. There's evidently an attitude issue here that isn't conducive to dealing with new editors, nor is their engagement with experienced editors much better. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- As Primefac has removed DEVINE from WP:AFCH, their new page reviewer bit has been removed, and they are blocked, I think we are likely done, and someone can close with a note of the obvious consensus that has formed. I would, but I'm a bit too involved in the discussion. Although it hasn't been said in so many words, it is clear that there is a consensus that Robert McClenon acted appropriately and within normal behavioral expectations. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed. They ain't listening Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree Robert handled this well (so well that none of us even spent any time talking about it). Levivich (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Thank you, @Praxidicae, Deepfriedokra, and Dennis Brown: and others. I don't have anything to add. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Update: The block was extended another 72 hours and talk page access was revoked by Donald Albury.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Liam wigley again
User:Liam wigley, who was blocked by User:Bbb23, is back. They have responded to messages left on their talk page, not by apologising or explaining their behaviour, but with uncivil comments towards Bbb23. If this continues it might perhaps be best to revoke their talk page access. JIP | Talk 11:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see anything that warrants removing talk page access. [13] and [14] are the only two posts. Asking Bbb23 to leave him alone is a (misguided) plea, but isn't a personal attack. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- It now appears Liam wigley was a sockpuppet of User:Liam20102195. JIP | Talk 19:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, well that is a horse of a different feather. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Epiphyllumlover additions of polygamist information
I am concerned with @Epiphyllumlover's topic-specific and almost single-minded goal to add information to WP having to do with marriage equality bills amounting to polygamists getting married. These additions have been rejected by community consensus, including an RfC closed two days ago on the Respect for Marriage Act article. Epiphyllumlover's additions to the RFMA article included a section about polygamy, which the community agreed was UNDUE. The editor then added back the info to the lead, which I revered. They have been reverted on The Heritage Foundation's article just today by @Hipal, who said the info had "SOAP/POV problems"
(with which I strongly agree). Other additions of polygamy information added to articles within the past few days include Mike Gallagher (American politician), Tony Perkins (politician), New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, the Wisconsin Family Council, etc. The list continues. WP should not be a soapbox for editors to add fringe views to multiple articles. Especially creating the perception that the Respect for Marriage Act will legalize polygamy, something that does not exist in the article or wording of the current bill whatsoever. While a long time WP editor, I don't hang out on the admin boards much and have never proposed a topic ban (at least that I can remember), but if this is the venue for it and is an appropriate discussion to have, I absolutely would propose and support a topic ban for Epiphyllumlover on polygamy information related to politics. Any input appreciated. --Kbabej (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- (Also, a quick note: No ownership issues about the RFMA article on my end. I was notified of the RFMA RfC on a noticeboard I follow. I have made exactly two edits on the article, both from this week, one of which was a minor copy edit. --Kbabej (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC))
- I hadn't looked into behavioral problems with the content being added to The Heritage Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Epiphyllumlover's revert to emphasize polygamy seems problematic [15].
- Looking to other articles, I removed to Epiphyllumlover's addition to Tony Perkins (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). There appear to be many more questionable edits. I think this should be taken to WP:AE. --Hipal (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Hipal! I was thinking that might be a good place, but in reading the four bullets of topics they cover, that reads to me as if there needs to be a previous community consensus. That is where I'm having trouble - where does that consensus start? --Kbabej (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
request discretionary sanctions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area subject to discretionary sanctions
Epiphyllumlover has been alerted multiple time on WP:ARBAB and WP:ARBAP2. The American politics sanctions certainly apply, with the remedy being WP:ACDS. --Hipal (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)- @Hipal Thank you very much, I appreciate that! If the behavior continues I will open a discussion there. --Kbabej (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Hipal! I was thinking that might be a good place, but in reading the four bullets of topics they cover, that reads to me as if there needs to be a previous community consensus. That is where I'm having trouble - where does that consensus start? --Kbabej (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- Epiphyllumlover is currently notifying WikiProjects about this discussion in a way that seems to focus on content-related discussion rather than user behavior. [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]
- I'm not sure which type of responses to this discussion here Epiphyllumlover expects from the WikiProject participants. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- @ToBeFree, I just saw the notice on a single WikiProject I follow, but didn't realize they were doing it to multiple projects. Would that be considered canvassing? The issue at hand is user behavior, so I'm also not sure why the widespread notifications are happening. --Kbabej (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- If these talk pages have been intentionally selected to favor a specific type of responses to this discussion here, I guess that would be canvassing. I wouldn't jump to that conclusion too quickly, though; what seems more likely to me is that Epiphyllumlover genuinely believes that getting more eyes on this discussion increases the probability of a fair conclusion. And as they have recently been topic-banned from abortion, they may reasonably fear that a community ban would be the next step. Having an interest in a fair decision by as many experienced editors as possible about such a severe matter isn't canvassing nor necessarily disruptive at all. I just wanted to point this out. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- They've notified a number of individual editors as well as WikiProjects. Schazjmd (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- As this has now extended to specific users' talk pages ([25]), I have asked them to stop for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- Asking sadly didn't help. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- If these talk pages have been intentionally selected to favor a specific type of responses to this discussion here, I guess that would be canvassing. I wouldn't jump to that conclusion too quickly, though; what seems more likely to me is that Epiphyllumlover genuinely believes that getting more eyes on this discussion increases the probability of a fair conclusion. And as they have recently been topic-banned from abortion, they may reasonably fear that a community ban would be the next step. Having an interest in a fair decision by as many experienced editors as possible about such a severe matter isn't canvassing nor necessarily disruptive at all. I just wanted to point this out. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- @ToBeFree, I just saw the notice on a single WikiProject I follow, but didn't realize they were doing it to multiple projects. Would that be considered canvassing? The issue at hand is user behavior, so I'm also not sure why the widespread notifications are happening. --Kbabej (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- I closed the RFC, I haven't reviewed all of the contributions. I am neutral on the matters but there was a clear community consensus that emerged in the RFC. I think this user has been civil and thoughtful enough that simply warning them to abide by the consensus that this is fringe/undue material might be a good first step. Andrevan@ 20:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hello @Andrevan. Thank you for the thoughts. I want to AGF, but I also think there's a concerted effort to push a specific agenda, especially as they're topic banned from other issues (abortion). The discussion on the RFMA was thorough, and they were notified many times about community consensus and about fringe material, but have simply ignored those notifications. --Kbabej (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- I concur with Andrevan. We're not at a ban yet. If just pushing on the same subject repeatedly in a short space of time resulted in topic bans we would have orders of magnitude more topic bans in place. Same with leaping to topic bans just because an editor has restrictions in some other topic area. PS: Polyamory is not a "fringe view". The view that the specific piece of legislation under discussion would legalize polygamy apppears to be an incorrect one, though; it is at least not well-supported in sources. That's a good reason to exclude content about it from the article in question, but not a good reason to summarily remove someone from the topic area without longer-term and more serious problems in this topic area from that party. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- @SMcCandlish. Thanks for the thoughts. It appears I may have jumped the gun if that is your assessment, since it matches @Andrevan's as well. When I say "fringe viewpoint", I meant that in relation to the Respect for Marriage Act, which I still believe. To connect the RFMA and polygamy is a fringe viewpoint in my view; only a few extreme unreliable sources discuss it. I am not saying polygamy overall is a fringe viewpoint. I think the distinctions between the two are neither here nor there, however. I have a concern with the repeated POV-pushing for a fringe viewpoint when it is connected to marriage equality; for now it seems editors will likely just need to keep cleaning up articles as edits are made. --Kbabej (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Incorrect" and "fringe" are not synonymous. Fringe viewpoints, in WP terms, are the subject of widespread organized PoV pushing, like the flat-earth hypothesis, or belief in healing power of inert crystals, and are by their nature anti-scientific, anti-truth, anti-fact. Being wrong about something is not the same as being inimical to the reality of it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, then, "incorrect" and "wrong" information. I don't see how that's any better to have a campaign to add incorrect/wrong information across a large swath of articles. --Kbabej (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- The content added to RFMA after the RfC might not be the same as in the RfC and it might have come with new sources. This is what Epiphyllumlover says, but I have not checked, because I already given much of time to help the situation and I have no particular interest in this topic. (I was summoned by bot). If that is true, then it's not at all a disruptive edit that calls for a warn. What I have seen is that editors in this talk page seems more interested in warning people, talking of bans, etc. than actually discussing the subject. There might be things that I do not see. I don't know Epiphyllumlover and I don't know much about the topic. So, I cannot judge what's going on, but, based on what I have seen, Epiphyllumlover is not at all the one to blame. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Dominic Mayers, the information is the same information. The RfC focused on the content of the topic, not the particular use of sources. The RfC question was "Should the article include a section on "Implications for polygamy legalization"?" The answer was a strong no from the community. The information was then added to the lead instead of a section. Perhaps avoiding the technical definition of a "section", but obviously against the spirit of the RfC. --Kbabej (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think this discussion isn't helpful. A topic ban is a behavioral remedy. This isn't the venue to discuss sources or dispute content matters of coverage. The question is whether Epiphyllumlover will agree to abide by the consensus not to keep adding this polygamy fringe theory to the article and related articles, since there is clearly a community consensus that it does not merit such weight as Epiphyllumlover is trying to give it. Beyond that, the discussion should be discussed at the article talk page. If Epiphyllumlover doesn't agree, then a community topic ban may be proposed or take it to WP:AE for further enforcement. Andrevan@ 21:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict: I have't read the previous comment) I am not expert in RfC legislation, if that even exists, but I find it strange that a RfC is final even in the presence of new sources? This is especially strange given that much of the opinions in the RfC were based on the sources presented at the time. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Dominic Mayers. The RfC is two days old, and clear consensus demonstrated the topic (including the sourcing) was UNDUE. That was brought up many times. Adding a paragraph to the lead two days after an RfC determined the information is not appropriate is
not appropriateevasive of community consensus in my view. It should be taken to the talk page and discussed. It's not like any time has passed at all and things have significantly changed, either. --Kbabej (talk) 21:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC) - (edit conflict: I haven't read the previous comment) @Andrevan: but therefore one needs to know if Epiphyllumlover even failed to respect the RfC once. I don't think that he/she has, because most opinions in the RfC referred to sources and it seems that he/she used new sources. I cannot see how this is not relevant to this procedure that accuses Epiphyllumlover not to respect the RfC. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- The RFC led to a consensus that the material was undue and not sourced appropriately. Epiphyllumlover could start a discussion about the new sources, but they should not just start adding the material to more places immediately after the RFC concluded. Epiphyllumlover must take to heart what the RFC result means for what they are trying to add. Andrevan@ 22:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Dominic Mayers three separate editors called the topic "grossly undue" weight with that exact wording. Not a single editor voted in favor of the information remaining. I think the discussion of new sources two days after a topic has been deemed undue weight by 100% of participating editors could be appropriate, if a discussion happens on the talk page. Adding information back seems intentionally evasive. --Kbabej (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict: I did not read the last comment from Kbabeh) @Kbabej: We both gave our opinion. I don't have anything to add. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that it would have been more appropriate to discuss the content in the talk page before adding it, especially given that the RfC was not against it, but indicative of possible oppositions. But, there is no rule that requires that to my knowledge. It was simply unwise I feel, but even that, it just my feeling. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- Given the editor has a prior topic ban in another politically/religiously charged area, we should expect them to exhibit caution and follow the indication from the RFC was was indeed pointing out that this information was undue given the sourcing, new sources means a new discussion, not to disregard the RFC and community consensus especially given the other prior topic ban, Andrevan@ 22:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that it would have been more appropriate to discuss the content in the talk page before adding it, especially given that the RfC was not against it, but indicative of possible oppositions. But, there is no rule that requires that to my knowledge. It was simply unwise I feel, but even that, it just my feeling. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Dominic Mayers. The RfC is two days old, and clear consensus demonstrated the topic (including the sourcing) was UNDUE. That was brought up many times. Adding a paragraph to the lead two days after an RfC determined the information is not appropriate is
- I think this discussion isn't helpful. A topic ban is a behavioral remedy. This isn't the venue to discuss sources or dispute content matters of coverage. The question is whether Epiphyllumlover will agree to abide by the consensus not to keep adding this polygamy fringe theory to the article and related articles, since there is clearly a community consensus that it does not merit such weight as Epiphyllumlover is trying to give it. Beyond that, the discussion should be discussed at the article talk page. If Epiphyllumlover doesn't agree, then a community topic ban may be proposed or take it to WP:AE for further enforcement. Andrevan@ 21:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Dominic Mayers, the information is the same information. The RfC focused on the content of the topic, not the particular use of sources. The RfC question was "Should the article include a section on "Implications for polygamy legalization"?" The answer was a strong no from the community. The information was then added to the lead instead of a section. Perhaps avoiding the technical definition of a "section", but obviously against the spirit of the RfC. --Kbabej (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- The content added to RFMA after the RfC might not be the same as in the RfC and it might have come with new sources. This is what Epiphyllumlover says, but I have not checked, because I already given much of time to help the situation and I have no particular interest in this topic. (I was summoned by bot). If that is true, then it's not at all a disruptive edit that calls for a warn. What I have seen is that editors in this talk page seems more interested in warning people, talking of bans, etc. than actually discussing the subject. There might be things that I do not see. I don't know Epiphyllumlover and I don't know much about the topic. So, I cannot judge what's going on, but, based on what I have seen, Epiphyllumlover is not at all the one to blame. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, then, "incorrect" and "wrong" information. I don't see how that's any better to have a campaign to add incorrect/wrong information across a large swath of articles. --Kbabej (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Incorrect" and "fringe" are not synonymous. Fringe viewpoints, in WP terms, are the subject of widespread organized PoV pushing, like the flat-earth hypothesis, or belief in healing power of inert crystals, and are by their nature anti-scientific, anti-truth, anti-fact. Being wrong about something is not the same as being inimical to the reality of it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- @SMcCandlish. Thanks for the thoughts. It appears I may have jumped the gun if that is your assessment, since it matches @Andrevan's as well. When I say "fringe viewpoint", I meant that in relation to the Respect for Marriage Act, which I still believe. To connect the RFMA and polygamy is a fringe viewpoint in my view; only a few extreme unreliable sources discuss it. I am not saying polygamy overall is a fringe viewpoint. I think the distinctions between the two are neither here nor there, however. I have a concern with the repeated POV-pushing for a fringe viewpoint when it is connected to marriage equality; for now it seems editors will likely just need to keep cleaning up articles as edits are made. --Kbabej (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I removed most of Epiphyllumlover's recent contributions re polygamy/Respect for Marriage Act. Is Epiphyllumlover repeating the behavior that resulted in the abortion topic ban? --Hipal (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- I found this bit of soapboxing in a BLP particularly problematic. The edit summary used at Respect for Marriage Act [26],
writing about both sides to maintain neutrality & better references to insure the addition is not undue
demonstrates a level of misunderstanding of policy that is disruptive to topics under sanctions. --Hipal (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
I fully support a topic ban for Epiphyllumlover, for the reasons stated above and the fact that other methods haven't worked to get them to abide by Wikipedia's policies and !votes. Moncrief (talk) 02:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- I completely agree a topic ban is warranted here. All this seems incredibly WP:TE from Epiphyllumlover. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think it would be best for everyone as a whole to postpone these proceedings until after the bill is passed, or until after Congress adjourns for August.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Epiphyllumlover, I think folks were hoping for you to say that you will abide by the consensus to stop adding this material, not that you will postpone until Congress adjourns. Andrevan@ 17:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Epiphyllumlover, I'm confused why this discussion should not move forward "until after the bills is passed..." The issue I have raised is you adding UNDUE content against consensus; it has nothing whatsoever to do with if the bill passes or not. Whether the bill gets shelved or passed with unanimous support is irrelevant to this discussion. --Kbabej (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- ... That isn't how it works here. That's such a nonsensical request that I am actually questioning your motives now. @Epiphyllumlover: You know that Wikipedia is not the place for us to share our opinions on pending legislation, right? Like.. whether this bill has passed or not really should have zero bearing on how we cover its contents. This really shouldn't be on your mind, and it gives the impression you are really here to stand on a soapbox. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- The fact that you would make such a bizarre and unwarranted statement makes me think even more that you are either being deliberately obtuse, or you still even now don't understand the purpose and the policies of Wikipedia. We should wait until the bill is passed to write an article on pending legislation? What on earth are you talking about? Moncrief (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think it would be best for everyone as a whole to postpone these proceedings until after the bill is passed, or until after Congress adjourns for August.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- For context, Epiphyllumlover was an incredibly tendentious presence on abortion-related articles. His agenda-driven bludgeoning stood out even by the standards of that controversial topic area, finally resulting in a topic ban ([27]). I would view the current concern about anti-LGBT editing not in isolation, but as an extension of their disruptive effort to push a partisan right-wing agenda on Wikipedia. A broader topic ban from American politics, including LGBT issues, would be the minimum appropriate sanction in my view, although their extensive track record would more than justify an indefinite block for disruptive and tendentious editing.I know that we typically focus these discussions narrowly on the "rights" of the editor facing sanctions, but I would implore you to consider the good-faith contributors who have to deal with Epiphyllumlover, and to attach some value to the immense amount of their time, effort, and goodwill that Epiphyllumlover has wasted. (For clarity, I'm commenting here as an editor, not an admin, as I've interacted with Epiphyllumlover on abortion-related pages). MastCell Talk 18:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Given their comments here and the comment from MastCell, I must now support the topic ban for Epiphyllumlover. Andrevan@ 20:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- I am struck by the straight-up dishonesty in this discussion (on top of the initial coatracking). --JBL (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- I am highly concerned by the earlier edit here about waiting until passage of the bill. That edit seems to indicate that Epiphyllumlover is unfortunately interested in POV pushing here, and I would support a broad topic ban on American Politics as suggested by MastCell above. VanIsaac, MPLL contWpWS 04:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. Moncrief (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. —Kbabej (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. Manannan67 (talk) 20:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- I support a topic ban on whatever area is being suggested here. However, he already has one topic ban - see here, here and here - and is all but asking for a second one here. He is not willing to WP:LISTEN to anyone or change his own behavior. A topic ban as proposed will only be giving him what he's asking for. In order to prevent whatever agenda driven disruptive editing chaos he plans to inflict next, the only answer to the problem is a full WP:SBAN. He has been like this for years. A time limit on the sitewide ban won't be sufficient, imo. Kire1975 (talk) 05:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- Please be advised that Epiphyllumlover plays the long game. His first contact with ANI here was a request about how long silence becomes consensus on wikipedia. Multiple people came forward responding to that request resulting in a TBAN. Just because he has not made any posts since three days ago does not mean that he has learned his lesson by any means. As suggested by multiple more users above, this user is a partisan troll who refuses to stop being a disruptive editor until the end. My question is: does someone need to start a separate section with a subheading with the formal request for the SBAN and/or TBAN as here or will an administrator see all the support for it in the comments above and take action? My concern is that if it's split up then the discussion gets split between multiple posts in the archive and it becomes unnecessarily more complicated should this history need to be referred to again in the future. Kire1975 (talk) 10:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for bringing this up, @Kire1975. I had the same question, as I have not opened a discussion proposing a TBAN before. --Kbabej (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Please be advised that Epiphyllumlover plays the long game. His first contact with ANI here was a request about how long silence becomes consensus on wikipedia. Multiple people came forward responding to that request resulting in a TBAN. Just because he has not made any posts since three days ago does not mean that he has learned his lesson by any means. As suggested by multiple more users above, this user is a partisan troll who refuses to stop being a disruptive editor until the end. My question is: does someone need to start a separate section with a subheading with the formal request for the SBAN and/or TBAN as here or will an administrator see all the support for it in the comments above and take action? My concern is that if it's split up then the discussion gets split between multiple posts in the archive and it becomes unnecessarily more complicated should this history need to be referred to again in the future. Kire1975 (talk) 10:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Please remove my access to AutoWikiBrowser
I have not used AWB in a while and I don't have immediate plans to use it for a particular task, so I don't see a compelling reason for me to maintain the pseudo-permission by being listed on the Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPageJSON page. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Requesting panel closure of an AfD
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As has historically been done for other highly contentious and large AfDs, I would like to request a panel closure of this one. It is at 176 kb and rising, with dozens of 'votes'. It would be quite helpful I feel.
It still has about another day to run, but I'm posting it now to give time to make the arrangements and for people to volunteer. Crossroads -talk- 03:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with Crossroads, but I think this request should be listed at WP:CR. ––FormalDude talk 03:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- I forgot that there was a section there for deletion discussions, but they all seem to be old ones, and I thought previous panel closures had been requested here. Crossroads -talk- 03:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- The older deletion closure requests at WP:CR were only requested recently and haven't been actioned yet by the volunteers at the board. We have handled panel closure requests at the page before, so this wouldn't be out of scope. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- I forgot that there was a section there for deletion discussions, but they all seem to be old ones, and I thought previous panel closures had been requested here. Crossroads -talk- 03:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed that this should probably be a panel closure, but this is the wrong venue. Make the request at WP:CR. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- I listed it there too. Crossroads -talk- 04:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- In general we let contentious and active AfDs run longer than a week. Softlavender (talk) 09:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know if there's any official policy on this, but I agree that as long as useful discussion is happening, there's no reason to close the AfD based on the calendar. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Almost tempted to just relist it so it will run another week. And I'm not convinced a panel IS required, particularly if it runs another week. Letting AFDs like this run awhile often means they sort themselves out, and consensus is much more clear. I probably would decline closing it, but we have plenty of admin who excel at closing these types of discussions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Relisting may not be a bad idea, since the article creator keeps stating "It's just a stub". If after this time the article hasn't fleshed out or become more wiki-compliant or received more unimpeachable citations, that may impact the way new people !vote. Softlavender (talk) 23:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm fairly certain I'm not the only editor who is hesitant to contribute to that page while the AfD is in progress. Maybe I'm weird, but I think there's an entirely different dynamic at play than the usual discussions and/or copy-editing process when it's an article that's subject to deletion versus a sentence/paragraph/section. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- ...and sometimes there is edit warring over the article during AFD. But most of the time, yes, editing is inhibited except for adding sources and prose by those trying to safe the article by demonstrating independent notability. That is one reason AFD lasts a week, to give it time to be "repaired" to a state worth keeping, if it is possible. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:09, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm fairly certain I'm not the only editor who is hesitant to contribute to that page while the AfD is in progress. Maybe I'm weird, but I think there's an entirely different dynamic at play than the usual discussions and/or copy-editing process when it's an article that's subject to deletion versus a sentence/paragraph/section. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Relisting may not be a bad idea, since the article creator keeps stating "It's just a stub". If after this time the article hasn't fleshed out or become more wiki-compliant or received more unimpeachable citations, that may impact the way new people !vote. Softlavender (talk) 23:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Almost tempted to just relist it so it will run another week. And I'm not convinced a panel IS required, particularly if it runs another week. Letting AFDs like this run awhile often means they sort themselves out, and consensus is much more clear. I probably would decline closing it, but we have plenty of admin who excel at closing these types of discussions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's not really very active if you discount the same few editors having the same arguments. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know if there's any official policy on this, but I agree that as long as useful discussion is happening, there's no reason to close the AfD based on the calendar. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Eyes needed at Recession
Urgh. Talk:Recession says it all — some additional, uninvolved (admin) eyes and watchlists would be appreciated — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 04:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Okay EvergreenFir (talk) 04:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Clocking out here after most of the middle watch and part of the morning watch (Eastern time). Notes for whoever takes over next (as I go to sleep, the rest of the East Coast wakes up; enjoy!): Some reverting and hatting; indeffed StarkGaryen (first month AE); a round of revdels over a nasty link; and I put related List of recessions in the United States under an AE consensus requirement for addition of new recessions. If people continue to try to add the same claim without sourcing at Recession § United States, it might be a good idea to add the same restriction there, or say more simply that it has to mirror whatever is at the full list. I commented at WP:RFPP discouraging protection of the talkpage, but intentionally didn't decline; would rather that be someone else's call. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 09:39, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Don't be surprised if you have to use full protection for a week (with a note that you will lift if there is clear consensus on the talk page), which tends to piss people off, but forces them to work together. Not saying it is there yet, but sometimes it takes a big hammer instead of a lot of little hammers. For the record, I'm not a fan of "consensus required" on most articles like this because it ends up causing more AE/ANI/AN reports than it solves problems. Not always, but it can. Some will get very petty about it and keep filing over any addition. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Please also consider applying American Politics DS and its talk page header. SPECIFICO talk 13:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Interesting idea, but it's such a broad topic that I'm not sure if that is appropriate. Would want the input from other admin before doing that. I'm 50/50 on it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. The current disruption appears to have been driven entirely by political narratives and we have "...Brandon" comments and other political soapboxing on the talk page. We should only be so fortunate as to have this level of activity on any economics article, if it were directed to sourced economics content improvement. SPECIFICO talk 13:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Interesting idea, but it's such a broad topic that I'm not sure if that is appropriate. Would want the input from other admin before doing that. I'm 50/50 on it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Hopefully the RFC there, will calm the waters. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Eyes might also be needed at 2022 Recession and the associated AfD. ~ Matthewrb Talk to me · Changes I've made 22:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- BTW, word on the street is "Wikipedia changed the definition of recession [28] and then locked the page" (although technically the article was semi-protected 24 hours before that change). Softlavender (talk) 23:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- The original version was quite accurate. Many countries, and economists, use two successive quarters of negative GDP as a "technical definition" of a recession but the US does not, and instead relies on the NBER to define it. Restatements of GDP, which can be big (and will be big due to the current levels of inflation), mean that the -0.9% for Q2 2022 could end up being anywhere between -2% to +2% within 12–24 months. However, these two approaches are not that different as there has never been a period in the US where GDP fell for two quarters (and it remained as such post revisions), which did not result in a recession. That is the one interesting fact that is missing from the article, but I cannot add it as the article and TP are locked. 78.19.229.252 (talk) 10:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think the discrepancy between the definitions/approaches is purely timing. Yes, when all the GDP restatements are done, two subsequent quarters of negative growth is a recession, however, the need to wait the 12–24 months for the restatements (which are going to be big for 2022 due to high inflation), means that an "initial" print of two subsequent quarters of negative growth is not necessarily going to end up being a recession post all restatements. This is the nuance that is missing in the article. 78.19.229.252 (talk) 11:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- No. We don't discuss the definition of a recession here. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Bernard Cribbins
I've just tried to revdel the copyvio versions of the article, only to get a message that they are revdel'd, but comparing article revisions shows that they aren't. Not my area of expertise, so if an admin more familiar with this can take a look, Bernard Cribbins can appear as a RD on the main page. Mjroots (talk) 10:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Done. Primefac (talk) 11:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Likely new Fox News RfC
Two users, Andrevan and Awesome Aasim are intent on creating a new RfC for Fox News. If either attempt gets off the ground, it is likely to get hundreds of responses, be very contentious and to need another panel close like the last RfC in 2020. Discussions are being held at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Second_Fox_News_RfC in order to workshop the format in order to minimise disruption. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have a draft here where I have tried to address all objections and this user reverted the addition[29] while no specific objection has been substantiated to it. I started a thread on WP:DRN but I self-withdrew after this reasonable request from another involved user[30]. I do not understand why this thread now has been posted or this one [31]. I guess it's not really WP:CANVASSing but the user is currently ignoring my question as to what was wrong with the draft I posted. Andrevan@ 18:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
I just opened the RFC. Thank you all for the help and feedback and collaboration on improving it. I think the work made it much better. Andrevan@ 17:46, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's already created, and as bloated as the Goodyear blimp. It's pretty obvious that it's the 2nd verse of this song, including the same chorus lines; i.e., my politics are better than your politics, my sources are more reliable than your sources, yada yada.
[stretch] In the dog world we call it kennel blindness. I'm sure it has nothing to do with political bias, or the upcoming midterms in November in the US, or any kind of intentional plan to keep pounding away at FOX until the hegemony of the asshole consensus finally prevails, (a brilliantly expressed perspective by one of our own and well worth reading.) And there's so much more that I will spare our trusted admins by simply ending with my very best wishes, & happy editing! There's important work to do. ~ Atsme 💬 📧 18:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- I know you didn't mean the asshole consensus comment as a personal attack, so I am AGF, but note that some might interpret that less charitably. FWIW, there are serious concerns about Fox News' promotion of misinformation and failed fact checks. If you have concerns about other outlets with evidence that shows them failing fact checks, doctoring photos, pushing mis/disinfo, etc, please do inform us, so we can downgrade them appropriately. Andrevan@ 20:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
AIV backlog
WP:AIV is currently backlogged. There's currently 11 IP vandal reports, and 1 user vandal report pending. Oldest report is currently around five hours old. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:09, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- Everything is under control. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Urgent attention - learnt of slanderous public remarks
I was recently alerted to these pages:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Oxford_Entrepreneurs&oldid=915137123
- https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Oxford_Entrepreneurs&oldid=915134690
- https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Oxford_Entrepreneurs&oldid=915189108
where slanderous and unsubstantiated remarks were made of publicly listed individuals and are available in Wikipedia's history.
It might be worth removing these pages to avoid legal sanction. 116.15.75.19 (talk) 14:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Discussion of IP block
- I've temporarily blocked this IP for making legal threats. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- I almost commented asking them to remove the one line, but I don't think it is really a legal threat. Note that the comments they were referring to where suppressed, not just RevDel'ed. I see their comment as poorly worded rather than a threat, but that is just me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree. The way it is currently worded, one might be able to claim that they are just "informing Wikipedia" of the situation, but it can also take the appearance of an indirect threat, along the same vein of "nice car, it'd be a shame if something were to happen to it". Whatever the case, a full retraction of the wording is necessary and reasonable before an unblock can be made. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- I almost commented asking them to remove the one line, but I don't think it is really a legal threat. Note that the comments they were referring to where suppressed, not just RevDel'ed. I see their comment as poorly worded rather than a threat, but that is just me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
"It might be worth removing these pages to avoid legal sanction" is not a legal threat. Some editors here take this concept way too far. Like anything that could in any way be construed as even a veiled reference to the legal system is considered a "legal threat". There is no point in blocking this editor. It's language policing gone amok. And this despite WP:NLT explicitly saying "A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat." Levivich (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think you'd struggle to justify a legal sanction anyway, since the removed material doesn't appear to make any mention of any "publicly listed individuals", merely suggesting that the society itself had been involved in some unnamed scandal (apart from the single diff in 2019 which was suppressed, and isn't therefore in the history anyway). Reading through it, "It might be worth removing these pages" might even be right - the whole article is borderline notable at best anyway, with 90% of the cites bing about its alumni, not the society itself. Black Kite (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- There is a huge difference between "I, or a person I represent, will take action against you" and "I think you should be aware that some third party who I have nothing to do with has cause to take action against you". This looks to me more like the second type, not the first. 93.172.250.2 (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- What Levivich said. Also, one of the diffs leading to the linked revisions has been oversighted, so there may well have been something worth reporting here, and the wording used for the report may even have been accurate. Orangemike, I'd recommend unblocking. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with User:Levivich. "It might be worth removing these pages to avoid legal sanction" does not mean "These pages have to be removed or I'll take legal action". Mentioning the legal system does not automatically constitute a legal threat. JIP | Talk 20:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- The entire purpose of our "no legal threats" policy is to prohibit the creation of a chilling effect on proper edits by the use of threats of legal consequences. It seems to me (as WaltCip says) that the IP's use of the word "slanderous" (twice), the "urgent" tone of the header, and the general flavor of the post went beyond the informational to the threatening, especially given the rather broad U.K. interpretation of the concepts of libel and slander. I'd like to see a stronger consensus on this before revoking the block. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- Why not warn before blocking? Why not advise before warning? Why not ask before advising? Levivich (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- Tell me about your knowledge of "the rather broad U.K. interpretation of the concepts of libel and slander". -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- I’m still curious about OrangeMike's understanding of U.K. libel laws. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- My writer friends in the U.K. have given me to understand that U.S. principles such as "truth is an absolute defense against a charge of libel" and the "actual malice" rule do not apply in the U.K. Have I misunderstood? --Orange Mike | Talk 00:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- The very short answer to this is that historically this was true, so much so that the U.S. passed the speech act in 2010 to make foreign defamation judgments (with those from the U.K. certainly in mind) unenforceable in U.S. courts unless they basically passed muster under U.S. law. As a response to that and other criticism, the U.K. heavily revamped its speech laws in 2013, and today, they are much closer to the U.S. approach (and more protective of speech) than before (a recent anecdotal example is the Depp/Heard saga--no judgment in the U.K., but judgment in Virginia). I will say that truth as a defense is certainly a concept in the U.K., but actual malice, coming as it does from New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, is obviously not. I'm certain that's more than was actually wanted here, but cheers nonetheless. Dumuzid (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- It’s clear you don’t know U.K. libel laws. You should not be using U.K. libel laws as (part) justification for blocking. I suggest you unblock now. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- My writer friends in the U.K. have given me to understand that U.S. principles such as "truth is an absolute defense against a charge of libel" and the "actual malice" rule do not apply in the U.K. Have I misunderstood? --Orange Mike | Talk 00:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- I’m still curious about OrangeMike's understanding of U.K. libel laws. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- This was a bad block, per Levivich and Malcolm. The IP was not making legal threats, they were alerting us to the possibility that old revisions of an article may mean Wikipedia is liable to legal action by a third party. In 2019 the article included a full list of leaders of the society and the oversighted revision added unsourced, potentially libellous allegations of serious wrongdoing about three of those people. As WMF legal explicitly say that libellous material should be oversighted, and that revision has been, we have nothing to worry about there. I don't see anything in any of the old revisions linked by the OP that requires oversight. Thryduulf (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- This was carelessly worded by the IP but perhaps stopped short of WP:NLT. An inexperienced person may not know that anything that might be perceived as a legal threat on Wikipedia is a no-no.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- Even so, WP:NLT blocks aren't permanent. As long as an opportunity is given to retract the legal threat, it shouldn't be a huge deal. This isn't like when someone got blocked for using the phrase "legal matters" in a non-legal context. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 23:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- This was carelessly worded by the IP but perhaps stopped short of WP:NLT. An inexperienced person may not know that anything that might be perceived as a legal threat on Wikipedia is a no-no.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- The entire purpose of our "no legal threats" policy is to prohibit the creation of a chilling effect on proper edits by the use of threats of legal consequences. It seems to me (as WaltCip says) that the IP's use of the word "slanderous" (twice), the "urgent" tone of the header, and the general flavor of the post went beyond the informational to the threatening, especially given the rather broad U.K. interpretation of the concepts of libel and slander. I'd like to see a stronger consensus on this before revoking the block. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- When I read the comment I get the sense that WaltCip refers to("nice car......"). Maybe it's just the way it's worded. 331dot (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, for me as well. No admin or Wiki-expert I, admittedly. And, I generally agree with Levivich's overall take here, but this one strikes me as a reasonable block because I too read it as a thinly-veiled threat. As ever, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers, all> Dumuzid (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's true reasonable minds may differ, but I think it's worth point out something crucial about the "nice car, it'd be a shame if something were to happen to it"-type of threat mentioned by Walt. When that sort of threat is being made, it's being made by someone who is simultaneously demanding payment of "protection money" or something else of value (and who is usually a known criminal), which is what makes it threatening. The statement, by itself without the other circumstances, would not be construed as a threat. If someone says, "you shouldn't park there or you'll get a ticket", that would not be considered a threat by anyone... unless it's spoken by a police officer. It's the circumstances that define the difference between veiled threats and good-faith warnings (which I've written about in more detail elsewhere). Levivich (talk) 15:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, for me as well. No admin or Wiki-expert I, admittedly. And, I generally agree with Levivich's overall take here, but this one strikes me as a reasonable block because I too read it as a thinly-veiled threat. As ever, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers, all> Dumuzid (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- Obviously not a legal threat. Bad block. DuncanHill (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- While it's not obviously not a legal threat, I do believe that it was not obviously a legal threat (very confusing phrasing, I apologise). In the absence of it being a clearly a legal threat, then it was not appropriate for the block to be issued directly. A warning with a "clarify or be sanctioned" effect would have been the correct action to take. The block should be overturned, and the warning then issued (rather than requiring an appeal first) Nosebagbear (talk) 01:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree. Blocks without any prior warnings should only be used in extreme cases, such as persistent obvious vandalism, which this is clearly not. Note also that this is only the IP's second contribution ever, the first one was thirteen years ago (and given that amount of time, it was not necessarily the same physical person). JIP | Talk 02:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- For comparison purposes, here's a recent and obvious legal threat by a different IP:
ALL .. I.D.s HERE WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE AUTHORITIES YOU CAN EXPLAIN TO THEM.. WHY YOU SHOULDN'T BE IN JAIL... WHILE THEY SCAN YOUR HARDDRIVES
Note the difference... Levivich (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC) - IMO such statements should be avoided. While they may not be a direct threat of action, as others have said they can have the same chilling effect. There's rarely a good reason to talk about the possibility of legal action even if you aren't saying you yourself would be the one anyway since our policies and guidelines generally intentionally go beyond US law. As for the laws of other countries, for better or worse the official line is we don't care as a community. Individual editors do need to consider their specific situation but it's not something that should be discussed on Wikipedia. All that being said, IMO it was the talk of comment where education before blocking was the better course of action. Nil Einne (talk) 11:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Taking it down
Let us hope that the original poster was not making a subtle threat. It can always be restored. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Discussion on edits
- Furthermore, I find it peculiar that this entire discussion has only concerned User:Orangemike's block of the IP user and not the actual concern originally raised by the IP user. JIP | Talk 02:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- Part of it may be the edits being from 2019, removed in the very next edit(s) made, and not being in the article at present so far as I can tell. Unless something is really wonky Google shouldn't be pulling up three-year-old revisions of articles. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 03:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's similar to people on social media saying that Wikipedia changed the definition of a recession. It did in some vandal edits, but this is water under the bridge as the edits have been removed. Some of the edits to Oxford Entrepreneurs had NPOV and sourcing problems, so more eyes are needed on this article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- Dealt with by Thryduulf in his comment above of 21:24, 30 July 2022. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see how we can reasonably deal with something that has been suppressed. Even if the editors who made the initial edits remain in good standing, if it's serious enough to warrant legal action it's very difficult for us as a community to discuss possible sanction of these editors when almost none of us can see them, not even admins, can see them. And for those who have already seen them, there's a strong risk they will say something serious enough to warrant suppression if they aren't careful when trying to describe them. And if they don't, it's still very difficult for us as a community to discuss whether we should sanction the editors involved. In other words, if someone feels sanction against the editors who added the content may be justified, it needs to be handled by arbcom not here. So there's nothing for us to do about it. Nil Einne (talk) 08:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- I think the concern raised by the IP is that the edits are still in the history; it seems that Thryduulf removed the worst offenders but apparently (based on an email I received from them this morning) there might still be more in and around the diffs provided by the OP above. Primefac (talk) 09:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry looking into this more I realised only some of the edits were suppressed so maybe there is something we could discuss. OTOH, if it's something that happened in 2019 and it wasn't severe enough for suppression I question if anything more is needed than a severe warning at most which doesn't require community discussion, just an editor to talk to the editor if after reviewing the edits they feel it is justified and still useful nearly 3 years later. Nil Einne (talk) 11:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding User:Geschichte has now closed. The Arbitration Committee resolved by motion in March to suspend the case, which could be unsuspended if Geschichte requested it within three months. Because Geschichte has not requested that the case be unsuspended, the case has been automatically closed. The motion which has now closed the case is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Geschichte#Motion:_Open_and_suspend_case_(1)_2.
For the arbitration committee, GeneralNotability (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Geschichte closed
PlanespotterA320 unblock request
- PlanespotterA320 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1091 § User:PlanespotterA320 and WP:GS/UYGHUR
- utrs:61310
- User talk:NinjaRobotPirate § UTRS appeal #61310 (permalink)
- User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights § UTRS appeal #61310 (permalink)
PlanespotterA320 was blocked in February by The Blade of the Northern Lights for Belligerently pushing genocide denialist talking points
, amidst an AN/I thread about her comments on the Uyghur genocide. Four unblock requests (permalink) were declined shortly thereafter, before her talkpage access was revoked by NinjaRobotPirate. She submitted UTRS appeals on 7 March, 31 May, and 11 June, all of which were declined, before submitting her most recent appeal on 28 July. Deepfriedokra and I both assessed this appeal as viable, and The Blade and NRP said they would not object to an unblock (with the former's support being conditional on a TBAN from the Uyghur genocide). EdJohnston, however, said that he objected, and I personally found myself on the fence as to whether an unblock would have a net-positive effect. Given that, and given that the original block was imposed during a community discussion, I decided to refer this to an AN appeal, and have downgraded Planespotter's siteblock to a p-block, conditional on only editing her talkpage and this noticeboard. If this appeal is unsuccessful, the closing admin should restore the siteblock (or I can).
Planespotter's appeal:
I do not dispute the gross and innapropriate nature of the comments I made in a futile attempt to "prove myself", I am merely pleading for a second chance - to return to English Wikipedia, to make positive contributions that would aid the Wikipedia's core mission - sharing of knowledge (in the many niche and overlooked/unrepresented in English topics under my areas of expertise, from Soviet aviation to Musical Theater of Central Asia). I don't expect forgiveness from everyone I've tangled with here, and I know I've made a lot of mistakes in the past, but I don't have anything to lose by asking for it and hoping you will give me a chance to turn over a new page in my work as a Wikipedian and allow me to return to make uncontroversial edits (presumably a China-based and topic ban and a 1RR). I strongly don't wish to be subject to a Soviet topic ban since that is both extremely broad and would prevent me from continuing any of my work with the Soviet Aviation Task Force as well as other subject areas where my work is uncontroversial (such as theater arts, adding the public domain photos I've found for Commons to biographies, etc). While I have engaged in edit conflicts in Soviet topics on enwiki, they were generally cosmetic/formatting/stylization based (not political) in nature (just simply happened to occur in the Soviet articles since that is my main area of editing, and could have occurred in a different kind of article if I had been devoted to a different topic). And with a 1RR, there won't be much risk of any controversy in editing anyway.
Regarding my current indef ban on ruwiki that some of you asked about - yes, I was banned on ruwiki, but for completely unrelated reasons. A while ago I filed a request for comment on meta about some of the very sketchy and seemingly coordinated behaviors targeting Crimean Tatar related articles (ranging from a deletion nomination of the article about the Yaliboylu people of the Crimean Tatar nation on the grounds that the very existance of Yaliboylu was a "fringe theory" (I wish I was making that up!), the deletion nomination of the Mubarek zone article accusing Crimean Tatars of making up the whole project as a hoax in their minds to make Moscow look bad (as if Crimean Tatars needed to contrive a hoax for that!), and general troll-ish behaviors that went widely tolerated by admins. In the course of the discussion I became the main subject of focus and was scrutinized with a fine-tooth comb despite begging for the discussion to focus on the issue in the title. Ruwiki then had a discussion about the existance of the discussion where many expressed dismay that existed "impartial observers" were being called in, and expressed desire to see be banned for something, accusing me of "inventing" the problem, "threatening Russian Wikipedia" by saying that Russian Wikipedia would be judged by non-Russian Wikimedians for how it decides to handle the situation. In the course of the ensuing drama where some Russian parties denied the existance of systematic bias against Crimean Tatary in general I found myself refering in a broad sense to some of the users involved in trolling Crimean articles as "chauvanist". The use of that particular word was used as the official grounds to permaban me for insulting other users. I doubt the behavior of the parties I used the word "chauvanist" to refer to would have been tolerated on enwiki for one minute, but such provocations were commonplace on ruwiki - which proliferated as such a hostile environment I realized it would be pointless to even suggestion creation of additional Crimea-related articles already existing on other wikis due to a certainty they would be targeted for deletion by nominators proclaims the well-documented respective topics hoaxes/non-existant. If something similar were to happen on enwiki, ex, some trolls nominate the article about a genocided, non-recognized, assimilated people for deletion proclaiming their ever existing was a fringe theory, I highly doubt ANYONE would be in trouble for referring to the person/people who did it as "chauvanist" or pointing to such pattern of behavior as an example of a manifestation of chauvanist attitudes.
In the meantime, I have still managed to make myself a productive and positive contributer to Wikimedia projects by finding numerous rare/hard-to-find public domain photos for Commons, creating lists of photos to calculate copyright expiration dates and help others find fair-use photos (shared via a google doc upon request), scouring archives for photos to use as fair-use on other wikis, reaching out to other wikis to share historic newspaper clippings with users who might be interested, and other uncontroversial, "boring" stuff.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Also courtesy ping Mhawk10 as initiator of AN/I thread. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- Neutral for now. Depending on what others have to say, I could see supporting an unblock with the suggested 1RR + topic ban from China (or maybe just Uyghurs)... unsure how I feel about allowing edits about Crimean Tatars. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- The editwars in CT articles I previously got into were cosmetic (formatting/stylization), not a content thing - so there is nothing to lose when I am constrained by a 1RR rule so I can just finish some of the stubs I started but never got around to finishing, plus letting me create a few new biography article (such as one for Midat Selimov. With an unblock and Uyghur topic ban and 1RR combined being on the radar from this whole thing I can't possibly cause any irrepairable damage to wikipedia, but I certainly will be able to contribute a lot of information currently unavailable in English altogether.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 00:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Support unblock. WP:1RR WP:TBAN Uyghurs. +/- China as a whole. meh.
I don't think there will be a problem on ENWIKI about the Crimean Tartars as we have a different corporate culture from RUWIKI.Needs topic ban on Crimean Tartars per Horse Eye's Back At UTRS, appellant adequately pledged to WP:DR for me to agree with unblock.Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)- Yes, enwiki has a VERY different "corporate culture" from ruwiki to put it mildly. Frankly I'm surprised more people aren't outraged that the Yaliboylu deletion nomination was treated with legitimacy and sat open until I noted it in the meta filing.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 00:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Comment and Question. I agree that any unblock is going to have to come with a WP:1RR restriction and a WP:TBAN from WP:GS/UYGHUR, but there are an additional concerns I have based upon the block on RuWiki. PlanespotterA320, would you be willing to explain the content of the now-deleted User:PlanespotterA320/sandbox/Demonization of Crimean Tatars? I see that it was deleted per WP:U5 (
Blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host
) by Beeblebrox on February 2. I'm not able to see the content at this point given that I'm not an admin, but the U5 CSD criterion is used forwritings, information, discussions, or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals
. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)- @Mhawk10: I barely remember that Demonization of Crimean Tatars page in my sandbox. I'll often put random stuff in my sanbox for convenience (ex, a commonly used infobox partially filled out to copy-paste) and take notes for things that didn't quite fit in the articlespace yet/wasn't ready yet. I do remember some of the things I listed out were examples of photos of Bosnian Nazis "accidentally" labeled as Crimean Tatar in Russian media (which I have a hard time beleiving to be a true case of mistaken identity due to the Unit insignia prominent on the hats clearly indicating a Yugoslav origin, accompanied by a searchable archive number for checking Germany's official records which supply the official captions for such photos). I also listed a few myths and facts (for example, listed names of deported veterans as examples to counter the myth that those who were Red Army veterans weren't deported) I had no opportunity to contest the deletion. Anyway, I now have a new Crimea-based sandbox, where I just have a bunch of lists of people who MIGHT be worthy of wiki articles, maybe or maybe not on enwiki (but certainly for crh wiki), a draft of the article about the CT civil rights movement that I still haven't finished, and a couple unfinished biographies (please don't delete it! I hope to finish that article someday)
- The information regarding the block on ruwiki is readily available and it is rather transparent in its retaliatory nature (for starting the meta discussion) based on comments from users saying gems accusing me of gaming the system, even blatantly saying "Что-то мне представляется, что из таких борцов «за свободу слова» почти каждый рано или поздно оказывается в очень неприятном для них положении." where the fact that I described a user as having "chauvanistic behaviors" was nothing more than a weak pretext to carry out the block sought to silence me. You can view the discussions and comments from the Russians for yourself - I guarantee you that if it happened on enwiki, I would not be the one getting blocked.User forum discussion Admin noticeboard. If my use of the word "chauvanist" was the only reason for the ban they would not have cited the NPOV rule in my ban (since they see creating the discussion as a violation of community consensus and a non-neutral creation, despite the fact that the very purpose of the meta disucssion is to discuss the lack of objectivity), nor would they have stated that I was "threats" against the Russian language section as a whole for simply saying that Russian wikipedia was subject to judgement from meta!. TLDR - I start meta discussion that ruwiki doesn't like. Ruskies want me gone. I describe somebody's behavior as chauvanist and say that ruwiki is subject to judgement from meta. Admin on ruwiki who obeys the cabal of users involved in trolling CT articles uses that as official excuse for the ban.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 00:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Mhawk10 That deleted page contained content about how the Soviet deportation of the Crimeans was a genocide, but the current Chinese treatment of Uyghurs is not. I was considering nominating it for deletion myself, but Beeblebrox beat me to it. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- I've undeleted the page temporarily so people can judge for themselves. Note that most of it was written between September of 2019 and May of 2021, with one small addition in August 2021. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 01:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Tamzin, Thank you. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- I've undeleted the page temporarily so people can judge for themselves. Note that most of it was written between September of 2019 and May of 2021, with one small addition in August 2021. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 01:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Tamzin: Feel free to re-delete the page since it has been reveiwed by those who want to read it and I have no use for it (it's just a huge embarassment, now that I remember it more now that I see it and wish I had never written it - I was REALLY sick of being told to shut up and all the "be careful/don't be the NEXT Uyghurs" crap). As I have reiterated in this, I intend to stay on the straight and narrow once unblocked and just write "uncontroversial" stuff, certainly nothing like that page.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 02:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Support unblock with a WP:TBAN on WP:UYGHUR and a WP:1RR exemption. Planespotter has proven herself an asset to the project outside of that sphere and her desire to work on Soviet-era biographies (where she has previously been quite productive) seems persuasive enough to me that she deserves a second chance at editing. Edit warring should not be an issue with a general WP:1RR restriction. Crimean Tatars may well be within WP:ARBEE (depending on the result of a clarification request), so I think that any potential Crimean Tatar-related issues might be already within a DS area and could be handled easily should the user be disruptive there. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- As the original blocking admin, I don't have any strong feelings one way or the other. Whatever the community or any other admin comes to is fine with me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Decline This doesn't even begin to address all the other items that were [discussed at ANI] even before this all happened that you refer to above and would have led you to being blocked anyway. If there is to be an unblocked I'd like to see all the points raised at ANI to be tackled, not just the Uyghur area but all the ethnic group and nationality edit warring, ownership etc that would have gotten us to a block anyway. Canterbury Tail talk 00:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Canterbury Tail: As I have brought up in this, my editwars and editing in Crimean Tatar content was of a very fundamentally different nature than my purely unconstructive Uyghur edits. One stupid editwar over a hypen and some other cosmetic/stylization things does not negate my ability to continue to write quality content in Crimean Tatar history, where most of the articles I've created (on enwiki) have been accepted without problem (the fact that Russian trolls like to pretend that Mubarek zone and Yaliboylu people aren't real and provoke wikidrama as result of such absurd theories doesn't affect the content on enwiki). While the Russian objections (for utterly absurd reasons) to my Crimea-related articles are well known, and the issue of the hypenization in the one article title is settled, I do not know of any complaints about my many Crimean Tatar articles from the Crimean Tatar community - in fact, quite the opposite, so it feels quite wrong to lump my largely positive Crimea editing into the same basket as the stupid, unproductive, and impulsive pointy edits I made to Xinjiang-related and others for such reasons (like the talkpages of US states/disputed territories) that caused the block that was specifically for genocide denial. The blocking admin specifically said that I am blocked on enwiki for my edits in Uyghur articles, not because anyone (sans Russian nationalists) truly thinks I can't be a positive contributor in Crimea articles or wrote from a Tatarophobic perspective, or won't be a positive contributor other unrelated subjects like botany, musical theater, and aviation. As for article ownership, guilty as charged. I watch my watchlist like a hawk and am terrified of any of the articles I've worked so hard on being vandalized or ruined. But I've come to see that often other editors edits are improvements, and I've seen some other editors do some amazing work (better than I would have done) to articles on my to-do list that I haven't gotten to. Nobody owns wikipedia, which I fully understand - and as part of my efforts against content ownership, I have uploaded dozens upon dozens of quality, hard-to-find public domain photos to the Commons so everyone can find them and use them in articles that they write. --PlanespotterA320 (talk) 02:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- (i) Talk:Bilohirsk#Article title shows me that the user is not capable of editing Crimea-related topics constructively; (ii) that she calls everybody who disagree with her "Russian trolls" is not good. My first choice would be decline; my second choice would be unblock with topic bans from everything Uyghur-related and Crimea-related, broadly construed.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- 1. Like I have explained before, that kind of editwar in a Crimea article was cosmetic (limited to the name of the article). It could not happen under a 1RR. 2. I am a bit insulted by the notion that I am not capable of editing in Crimea constructively considering the numerous Crimea-related articles created and stubs expanded that I have worked on over the years without any kind of problems or controversy on the enwiki side of things. In fact, many of the articles I've published on enwiki about Crimea have since been directly translated to numerous other languages; the articles about people from Seit Tairov to Yuri Osmanov has been translated into various languages from Greek to Turkish; the article about Mansur Mazinov has been translated to Kazakh and Armenian Wikipedias. As far as concerns about content itself, I don't think we should take the "concerns" of the shall we say, creative historians, at ruwiki who invented objections to such articles on patently absurd grounds in contrary to the numerous citations present) 3. I think that the characterization of people who say that Yaliboylu people aren't real/never existed and Mubarek was a hoax invented by Crimean Tatars to make Moscow look bad as "Russian trolls" would be supported by consensus here at enwiki, which has less tolerance for such absurdities. 4. With a 1RR, I can only be a net positive contributer in the Crimea subject matter which will allow me to work on unfinished articles as well as creating new ones such as biographies for Midat Selimov, Yusuf Bolat, Memet Melochnikov, etc. A few stupid disputes over spelling don't erase net positive contributions from so many articles already created, expaned, and that could be created in the future.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 11:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Moved to decline as the only choice, clear demonstration of battleground mentality. Ymblanter (talk) 11:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see Wikipedia as a battleground or an us vs them thing. I hate how you instantly jumped to the "battleground mentality" conclusion when I simply tried to defend my overall work as an editor (which I don't deny has been tarnished by some stupid edits). My hostility to people on ruwiki who invented some pretty fringe conspiracy theories about the Crimean Tatar nation that I outlined in the meta post are not my average feelings about my colleagues here, who I continue to work with off-wiki to help improve content across all wikis in the search for public domain photos.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 12:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- PlanespotterA320, you might have done some good work in the area. But the question is, are you able to handle conflict and work with other editors when there is disagreement, and are you able to follow our policies and guidelines? In some cases, where editors have strong feelings about issues as you seem to about Crimea relates ones, it's hard for them to edit productively in an area without causing problems. I agree with Ymblanter that your comments in that discussion are concerning. While you're entitled to your view about something being an occupying power, if it's not something well accepted in sources it's unlikely it's helpful to make the claim in a discussion, and it's even less likely to be helpful to keep arguing about how you're right. I also remember this dispute Template talk:Crimean Tatar Surgun era#Revert where you kept trying to change a link to De-Tatarization of Crimea so it wouldn't shown the hypen. From that discussion and the corresponding ANI Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1089#Non-agreeable and unresponsive user as well as the threads at Talk:De-Tatarization of Crimea (where all the threads except 'Indigenous and related' are about the issue), you had or I suspect have a fundamental disagreement with calling it "
de-Tatarization
" instead of "detatarization
". Of course it's fine to have a strong disagreement with something, but once it's clear community consensus is against you and is unlikely to change, there comes a point where you have to accept that and move on, and ensure your editing in articles and templates reflects the community consensus where relevant rather than your own view. IMO the discussions and especially your editing and reverts on the template reveal it took way too long for you to do so about the hyphen. In fact, IMO removing the hyphen in the link in the template is whatever, I don't think you should have but it's fairly minor. More serious is when that was rejected, you tried to pipeline it with names that didn't make much sense since they only reflected part of what the article covered. That's the sort of editing which is highly problematic, where you feel so strongly about something that in an effort to achieve it you make edits that are clearly harmful. I'd note that while I think you moved on, since your block happened about 20 days after your last comment on the hyphen issue, I wonder if we can even be sure you have moved on. Nil Einne (talk) 11:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne: I don't deny I had some very strong feelings about the hyphenization and the word "Tatar" itself, which has a derogatory origin and is commonly misunderstood in the Crimean context to be a noun and not an adjective, as this is an issue that I am very emotionaly invested in. But at the end of the day, I consider that article title a closed issue, water under the bridge, and would certainly not risk my ability to continue my work here that I have been desperate to pick up where I left off (expanding unfinished stubs and creating new articles). And I would like to again reiterate that a Crimea topic ban would not only be unnessesary due to a 1RR rule preventing editwars, but woudl inevitably result in a lot of "collateral damage" to the wiki (and not just enwiki) in the form of articles left as stubs and articles left unwritten that I highly doubt anyone else will be getting to writing anytime soon.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 12:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- And this is what we've seen from you time and time again, you're seemingly utter belief that you have to edit Wikipedia because you're the only one that can save it. This attitude has come up time and time again, every unblock request, every time something like this comes up, that you're the only one that can do it and by not unblocking you we're inviting vandalism, damage and disruptive editing. This keeps coming up. You have to understand why some of us can't look at that attitude and think you're suitable for the project. Canterbury Tail talk 15:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- If you or any other editor for that matter would like to expand any one of the wikipedia articles related to Central Asian theater, Russian aviation, or Crimean Tatar return, I would be happy to provide all manners of assistance in a sandbox on another wiki as well as research help. But it is an objective fact that enwiki's coverage of Soviet Central Asia and Soviet Aviation is in a very poor state compared to other language counterparts. I cannot change it single-handedly, but I can improve it article at a time.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- 1. Like I have explained before, that kind of editwar in a Crimea article was cosmetic (limited to the name of the article). It could not happen under a 1RR. 2. I am a bit insulted by the notion that I am not capable of editing in Crimea constructively considering the numerous Crimea-related articles created and stubs expanded that I have worked on over the years without any kind of problems or controversy on the enwiki side of things. In fact, many of the articles I've published on enwiki about Crimea have since been directly translated to numerous other languages; the articles about people from Seit Tairov to Yuri Osmanov has been translated into various languages from Greek to Turkish; the article about Mansur Mazinov has been translated to Kazakh and Armenian Wikipedias. As far as concerns about content itself, I don't think we should take the "concerns" of the shall we say, creative historians, at ruwiki who invented objections to such articles on patently absurd grounds in contrary to the numerous citations present) 3. I think that the characterization of people who say that Yaliboylu people aren't real/never existed and Mubarek was a hoax invented by Crimean Tatars to make Moscow look bad as "Russian trolls" would be supported by consensus here at enwiki, which has less tolerance for such absurdities. 4. With a 1RR, I can only be a net positive contributer in the Crimea subject matter which will allow me to work on unfinished articles as well as creating new ones such as biographies for Midat Selimov, Yusuf Bolat, Memet Melochnikov, etc. A few stupid disputes over spelling don't erase net positive contributions from so many articles already created, expaned, and that could be created in the future.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 11:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Comment Many people in my original block discussion oppposed a full block or expressed support for allowing me to be unblocked in the future. I hope their comments (which I will quote here) will be taken into consideration.- "on the WP:UYGHUR area. I'm not opposed to an additional sanction of a one-revert restriction for behavior outside of the problem topic area, but I'd prefer to give a formal warning before being putting restrictions on all of the user's editing. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)"
- "Support topic ban on on WP:UYGHUR for six months. Pious Brother (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)"
- "I support a topic ban, for six months. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2022"
--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 12:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Comment Perhaps would "2-step" unblock be an acceptable compromise for those who aren't confident in an unblock yet? Something like first letting me edit my sandbox in enwiki to draft articles for a month or two, and if nobody has objections to the drafts, then go to a 1RR unblock with a Uyghur topic ban+edits closely monitored by admins? Wikipedia has nothing to lose from just letting my sandbox some drafts for existing stubs, but a lot to gain.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 12:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)- Decline based on the comments in this thread, they're not ready. Already combative and bludgeoning. Levivich (talk) 14:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I haven't intended to insult anyone here on enwiki. My comments refering to certain editors being trolls were refering only to a specific few users of a different wiki who pushed unsubstantiated (and not to mention incredibly racist!) conspiracy theories claiming that the Yaliboylu people weren't real (I doubt that kind of attitude would be tolerated with the article about any first nation band!) and that the Mubarek project was a hoax invented in the minds of Crimean Tatars to make the Russian government look bad. It was not in reference to the users who I disagreed with on enwiki about article titles in enwiki, who were part of a legitimate disagreement that I went way too far in and should have followed consensus in upon conclusion. I fully contest the notion that I have not made some net positive contributions or am physically incapable of being a net positive contributer, evidence of which can be found in the form of numerous articles I've co-authored linked on my userpage. It has been many months since my block and I am absolutely itching to add so many of the public domain photos I've uploaded to Commons over the past few months into articles on enwiki and get back to finishing some of the articles I've started.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)- I didn't say you insulted anyone. In fact, I haven't even read what you've written, I've just skimmed it. You've written more here than everyone else combined, and it hasn't even been 16 hours yet. If this is how you're collaborating now, it will be the same when you're unblocked. You will bludgeon content disputes as you are bludgeoning your own unblock request. Clearly, you haven't learned how to collaborate in this online text-based setting. You haven't learned to be brief, to respect the time of others, to not respond to each and every person, etc. You don't appear to have enough self-control to refrain from writing too much, and you aren't sensitive enough to how much time you're asking for from other editors, etc. I'd suggest some reading: WP:BLUDGEON, WP:COAL, WP:PEPPER. When I vote on an unblock request, I'm looking to see if the person can edit without being disruptive, without taking up an inordinate amount of time from other editors. What you're proving to me so far is the exact opposite. Levivich (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Then I think you should read a little more before jumping to a conclusion solely based on length of commentary. Answering questions, clarifying comments, and replying to statements about you that are grossly innacurate characterizations of me are to be expected. I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place here - if I don't write much, certain people will be very dissapointed that I ignored/"doesn't even begin to address" everything that some want specifically addressed. Do I have a habit of writing long-ass spiels/talking my head off/not being concise? Sure. But there are a lot of factors at play here, and I tried to help reduce reading needs by providing links to diffs (so people wouldn't have to search many archives) and quoting comments from them. I do not intend to disrupt the block/unblock process - and I came with the not unreasonable assumption that any editor would read the relevant subsections instead of simply judging them based on length before making a judgement, and expecting those who have serous time-based concerns to abstain if they are unwilling to read and consider relevant materials and context. I made a point of reading the essays (which as essays, not ratified codes, and the first one clearly said "To falsely accuse someone of bludgeoning is considered incivil, and should be avoided.").--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)- Strong decline and no more appeals for a year. I was hoping they'd take the hint and not reply, and I could later change my !vote, but it went the other way. Levivich (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't say you insulted anyone. In fact, I haven't even read what you've written, I've just skimmed it. You've written more here than everyone else combined, and it hasn't even been 16 hours yet. If this is how you're collaborating now, it will be the same when you're unblocked. You will bludgeon content disputes as you are bludgeoning your own unblock request. Clearly, you haven't learned how to collaborate in this online text-based setting. You haven't learned to be brief, to respect the time of others, to not respond to each and every person, etc. You don't appear to have enough self-control to refrain from writing too much, and you aren't sensitive enough to how much time you're asking for from other editors, etc. I'd suggest some reading: WP:BLUDGEON, WP:COAL, WP:PEPPER. When I vote on an unblock request, I'm looking to see if the person can edit without being disruptive, without taking up an inordinate amount of time from other editors. What you're proving to me so far is the exact opposite. Levivich (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Decline per Levivich, Ymblanter and the gigantic and repetitive walls of text that this editor forces others to wade through. Cullen328 (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- I'd like to make one point as a non-Admin in regards to topic bans: The disruption of the Uyghur space was incidental to POV pushing in the Crimean Tatar space, it wasn't disrupted because there was a specific animosity against the Uyghurs but to make a point about the Crimean Tatar (as demonstrated by User:PlanespotterA320/sandbox/Demonization of Crimean Tatars#On another note). So any topic ban which covered the Uyghur space but not the Crimean Tatar space would appear to be remiss as it doesn't address the actual issue or prevent other areas from being used as outlets for the editor's feelings about the Crimean Tatar. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Decline the responses here don't fill me with confidence, as they consist of long walls of text replying to every comment, often with a battleground tone. Unblocking people who do this kind of thing tends to deter other editors from contributing, and people who don't do block-worthy stuff are far more valuable to the encyclopedia. Any unblock should definitely come with a topic ban from Crimea and the Uyghurs, but the mere fact that we would be imposing topic bans from two completely unrelated fields suggests the problem is more fundamental. Hut 8.5 19:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Decline per Ymblanter, Cullen, et al. firefly ( t · c ) 19:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Decline as the bludgeoning is not giving me faith that they get it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Decline per everyone else, and the fact that so much of her recent talk page history consists of complaints. Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Maintain ban per the user's comments towards Levivich, as well as the previous commenters above. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 09:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- Withdraw I fucked up this unblock request (it wasn't clear that bludgeoning meant writing a lot not something else), I get that I won't be wanted here and most have not faith in me. If possible, I would like to at least edit my userpage and talkpage so as to be able to list some resources to help other wikipedians and reply to questions for me (such as about copyright) locally instead of having to reply on meta or commons talkpages.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 13:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Continued out-of-process DRV closures by King of Hearts
In 2021, at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive331#Review of DRV closures by King of Hearts, I asked this board to review two WP:DRV closures by King of Hearts, an administrator. I argued that King of Hearts closed the discussions in accord with their personal preferences rather than according to consensus. The closer noted that "editors generally agree that King of Hearts should take more care in closing discussions".
They have not done so, as the following example shows. In Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 July 15 with respect to Chronovisor, King of Hearts closed a DRV regarding a deleted article with the result "Redirect and restore history". They did so even though there was evidently no consensus in the DRV for restoring the history: Two people including the DRV nominator were in favor of doing so (Thryduulf and Uanfala), one person was against it (Hut 8.5), and another person (5Q5) appeared to be at least critical of restoring the history, noting that better sources were readily available to write a better article about the topic.
When asked about this by me and Flatscan on their talk page (permalink), King of Hearts did not answer queries about the lack of consensus to overturn the deletion and undelete the history. Instead, they made arguments on the merits about why they believed that the history should be restored in such circumstances. This indicates that they meant to use DRV as a means to cast a supervote to enact the AfD outcome they preferred, rather than to assess whether there was consensus to overturn the closure.
Disregard for consensus is of particular concern in administrators, who are trusted with recognizing and acting on community consensus. Our deletion process only works if we follow our agreed-upon rules: at AfD, articles are only deleted if there is consensus for it, and at DRV, AfD closures are only overturned if there is consensus for it. I therefore ask the community to review Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 July 15 with respect to Chronovisor, and to discuss whether King of Hearts should continue to close DRV discussions. Sandstein 06:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- I took part in the discussion, so I'm biased, but that closing statement does make it clear the closer picked a side in the discussion rather than determining consensus. And as for the claim that there's no reason to delete the history, a reason was given by myself in the DRV and other people in the AfD - the content is very poor quality and not suitable in any article. Hut 8.5 07:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Hut 8.5: Is the content so problematic as to fall into WP:REVDEL territory? If, instead of bringing it to AfD, someone had simply redirected the article unilaterally and then you subsequently brought it to AfD/RfD (I'm not sure what the right venue is) asking for the history to be deleted, do you honestly think you would have achieved a consensus for that? The problem with interpreting any AfD consensus is that usually the discussion is centered around whether the topic deserves a standalone article rather than whether its history needs to be erased, so you cannot conclude that a "delete" result at AfD necessarily supports the latter. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- It would be reasonable for you to leave that as a comment at the DRV, but it's not reasonable grounds for closing the DRV. I don't agree that the edit history needs to be preserved unless it qualifies for revdel, and there isn't AFAIK any policy which says so. I still haven't seen anyone claim the edit history is actually useful in any way. AfD participants/closers have discretion on these things and I think it's reasonable to delete the content if we know it's not something we want in the encyclopedia. Hut 8.5 12:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- I find the edit history useful (that was implied in my DRV nomination, why would I have bothered with it otherwise?) That's for the same set of reasons that article histories are useful, but in particular I also disagree with your earlier comment that the text in the history was rubbish. Sure, it could do with some copyediting, and some bits could be dropped, but there's a good core there. If the text says, for example, that the photo of the crucifixion the priest allegedly took during his time travels is the same as the photo of a particular modern-day statue of Jesus, then surely, even for the benefit of the most gullible readers, there's no need for it to lay any more stress on the blatantly obvious? Uanfala (talk) 12:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- It would be reasonable for you to leave that as a comment at the DRV, but it's not reasonable grounds for closing the DRV. I don't agree that the edit history needs to be preserved unless it qualifies for revdel, and there isn't AFAIK any policy which says so. I still haven't seen anyone claim the edit history is actually useful in any way. AfD participants/closers have discretion on these things and I think it's reasonable to delete the content if we know it's not something we want in the encyclopedia. Hut 8.5 12:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Hut 8.5: Is the content so problematic as to fall into WP:REVDEL territory? If, instead of bringing it to AfD, someone had simply redirected the article unilaterally and then you subsequently brought it to AfD/RfD (I'm not sure what the right venue is) asking for the history to be deleted, do you honestly think you would have achieved a consensus for that? The problem with interpreting any AfD consensus is that usually the discussion is centered around whether the topic deserves a standalone article rather than whether its history needs to be erased, so you cannot conclude that a "delete" result at AfD necessarily supports the latter. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- I maintain that the status of the article history is not something sacrosanct, as Sandstein posits. Consider the following:
- It has long been accepted that articles can be userfied or draftified upon request by any admin, as long as the admin considers the rationale justified, without the need for consensus.
- There are no restrictions on what can be done with drafts. They can be edited (including turning them into redirects), or moved back into the main namespace. Of course, the catch is that if moved too soon into the main namespace, the draft would be subject to speedy deletion under WP:G4.
- However, a redirect is not "substantially identical to the deleted version", and thus is ineligible for G4. Therefore, there is no difference between restoring the history underneath a redirect vs. the more convoluted route of userfying it, redirecting it, and moving it into the main namespace, which is allowed under current practice.
- If the community wants to tighten up the policy around restoring article history (e.g. during userfication/draftification), then I'm happy to support an RfC around it. But as it stands, it doesn't make sense to discriminate between different types of history restoration, because they are all fungible through normal editing. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- You again fail to see that this isn't about whether the history of this article could or should be restored in the abstract if somebody wants to work with it for whatever purpose. That would be a separate discussion that could be had (even if, as noted above, the content is of very dubious usefulness). It is about you closing a DRV with a statement to the effect that there is consensus, which there is not, to overturn the AfD's decision to delete the article and its history. By doing so, you are misusing your authority as a DRV closer - and, by undeleting the history without a basis in the community consensus required by the DRV process, you are misusing your administrator tools. Sandstein 08:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- I have been careful to not use the word "overturn" in my close, but it looks like I wasn't clear enough. I've revised my statement to be more explicit: There is a consensus to redirect, and I am exercising my discretion as an admin (based on the points I listed above) to restore the history. If you believe that admins should not have the discretion to restore the history underneath a redirect, then please explain which step in my logic is flawed, or, if you believe that admins should not have the discretion to userfy/draftify a deleted article, then please point to the policy/guideline that says that or propose a change in an RfC. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- It's kind of like the Irish Sea border trilemma actually: Philosophically, you may want to allow userfication while disallowing the restoration of history underneath redirects, just like the UK wants a hard border somewhere with the Republic of Ireland. But I am telling you that this position is simply untenable with our current set of policies, because these two situations can be easily transformed into each other and there is no good place to draw the border. (I'm just playing devil's advocate here, since that is not even my position anyways, even in the absence of practicality requirements.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) @King of Hearts, I wasn't involved in either the AfD or the drv but spotted the discussion on your talk page. I think there is a point being missed, in that you expressing administrator discretion to overturn Sandstein's reasonable afd judgement, in the absence of clear consensus, may create somewhat of a concerning precedent. Personally, I didn't observe a view in the afd that the content was salvageable or of sufficient quality that retention of the history would be beneficial. A redirect as it stands is not itself problematic and it could be argued that an afd judgement of redirect (default history being kept) would also not be a poor outcome if considering WP:ATD, but the general consensus in the afd was that the article should be deleted first and foremost. The drv discussion did not have compelling consensus that this was a bad closure, in my view.
- Sandstein's observation seems a fair one to me:
It is about you closing a DRV with a statement to the effect that there is consensus, which there is not, to overturn the AfD's decision to delete the article and its history.
Bungle (talk • contribs) 09:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)- Again, this is not about overturning his AfD judgment. I am simply accepting a reasonable request to restore the history underneath a redirect, because there is no reason to hide random revisions underneath a live page (whether an article or a redirect) unless WP:CRD is met; just because the article was previously deleted (for reasons that are primarily not about content) doesn't change that. It isn't necessary "that retention of the history would be beneficial"; rather, history should only be deleted if retention of it is harmful, because the natural state of things is to preserve all revisions unless they fall under CRD. Regarding your last statement, please take a look at my revised close and see if it is more amenable.
- Remember that this isn't about DRV. Currently, someone can simply make a polite request on an admin's talk page to restore some article's history, and as long as the target is allowed to remain up (e.g. userspace/draft or more rarely redirect, but not a substantially similar mainspace article which would fall under G4), the admin can choose to grant the request. Maybe this is due for an overhaul, as this is not well-documented in formal policy even though it is widely practiced; WP:USERFY is only an essay and doesn't go into too much detail about the specific requirements. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- Uh, this is purely about DRV. To restore the history of pages deleted at AfD (except "soft deletion"), by policy people have to go to DRV. That's the actual undeletion policy as described at WP:UDP, and is also explained the same at WP:RESTORE and at WP:RFU. Admins are not allowed to restore the history of a page deleted at AfD if a user requests it (they can userfy/draftify it, but not restore it in article space). Fram (talk) 09:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- You're still missing the point. The result of the AfD was (clearly) delete, and you have overturned this at the DRV by restoring the history in articlespace, despite the fact that there was no consensus to do so. This is surely not a difficult concept? Black Kite (talk) 09:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Fram and Black Kite: Please take a look at my thought experiment above. If I userfy/draftify it, then which of the next two steps is prohibited? Turning it to a redirect? Moving the redirect to article space? Note that there is nothing that actually prohibits moving a userspace draft to article space a priori; rather, it runs the risk of G4 after the fact, if not substantially improved. But obviously G4 does not apply if an article has been turned into a redirect. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- But you didn't userfy it. I'm unsure how many times multiple people have to point this out, but you restored it in article space, despite the fact that there was no consensus to do so at the DRV. The fact that the history in question was a mishmash of mostly unsourced unencyclopedic speculation which benefits no-one at all is actually irrelevant here, though it does beg the question of what purpose that restoration actually achieved anyway. Black Kite (talk) 09:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- That's just WP:BURO: I could have moved it to Draft:Chronovisor, changed it to a redirect, and moved it back to Chronovisor. Which of these steps is problematic? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- Really? "Which of these steps os problematic?" It would probably lead to a desysop, if you insisted that it was perfectly allowable to misuse your tools in this way. It would be a use of the admin tools to get your preferred outcome (redirect with history) over the AfD consensus (delete, then redirect), with a wikilawyering route to avoid the in-your-face policy violation and replace it with a sneaky one. Fram (talk) 10:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- Calm down, this is just a thought experiment. Let's replace the last two steps with two other people, i.e. Person B changes it to a redirect, and Person C moves it back to Chronovisor. What policy is violated here? What I'm trying to say here is, article history has always been porous partly as a result of this userfication/draftification "loophole" if you will, leading to significant differences in policy interpretation as Uanfala mentions below. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- Don't patronize. "This is just a thought experiment", yes, and in that scenario you would be asking for a desysop. Hence my repeated use of "would". If you can't accept that someone explains what would happen if you actually executed that thought experiment, then what's the point? Fram (talk) 10:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- You haven't answered my question. If these steps are carried out independently by multiple actors, is there a problem anymore? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- Don't patronize. "This is just a thought experiment", yes, and in that scenario you would be asking for a desysop. Hence my repeated use of "would". If you can't accept that someone explains what would happen if you actually executed that thought experiment, then what's the point? Fram (talk) 10:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- Calm down, this is just a thought experiment. Let's replace the last two steps with two other people, i.e. Person B changes it to a redirect, and Person C moves it back to Chronovisor. What policy is violated here? What I'm trying to say here is, article history has always been porous partly as a result of this userfication/draftification "loophole" if you will, leading to significant differences in policy interpretation as Uanfala mentions below. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- Really? "Which of these steps os problematic?" It would probably lead to a desysop, if you insisted that it was perfectly allowable to misuse your tools in this way. It would be a use of the admin tools to get your preferred outcome (redirect with history) over the AfD consensus (delete, then redirect), with a wikilawyering route to avoid the in-your-face policy violation and replace it with a sneaky one. Fram (talk) 10:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- That's just WP:BURO: I could have moved it to Draft:Chronovisor, changed it to a redirect, and moved it back to Chronovisor. Which of these steps is problematic? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- (ec)Someone replacing a deleted + redirected article into an undeleted + redirected article in this way would normally be reverted and warned about disrupting Wikipedia. If consensus was for deletion, then that should be either respected or overturned at DRV (by consensus, not by an admin who doesn't seem to know policy and when this is pointed out reverts to "thought experiments" instead of acknowledging that they were wrong in their claim. Fram (talk) 09:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- But you didn't userfy it. I'm unsure how many times multiple people have to point this out, but you restored it in article space, despite the fact that there was no consensus to do so at the DRV. The fact that the history in question was a mishmash of mostly unsourced unencyclopedic speculation which benefits no-one at all is actually irrelevant here, though it does beg the question of what purpose that restoration actually achieved anyway. Black Kite (talk) 09:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Fram and Black Kite: Please take a look at my thought experiment above. If I userfy/draftify it, then which of the next two steps is prohibited? Turning it to a redirect? Moving the redirect to article space? Note that there is nothing that actually prohibits moving a userspace draft to article space a priori; rather, it runs the risk of G4 after the fact, if not substantially improved. But obviously G4 does not apply if an article has been turned into a redirect. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- You again fail to see that this isn't about whether the history of this article could or should be restored in the abstract if somebody wants to work with it for whatever purpose. That would be a separate discussion that could be had (even if, as noted above, the content is of very dubious usefulness). It is about you closing a DRV with a statement to the effect that there is consensus, which there is not, to overturn the AfD's decision to delete the article and its history. By doing so, you are misusing your authority as a DRV closer - and, by undeleting the history without a basis in the community consensus required by the DRV process, you are misusing your administrator tools. Sandstein 08:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- I started the DRV, so I'm likely biased, but just a few quick notes. First, apart from me, only two participants commented directly on the AfD close, one arguing for overturning, the other casting some doubt on the need to. Second, I think it's clear to everyone now that redirecting is the best outcome for the page, and the argument is solely about whether the history should be deleted or not. I'm not aware of any policy that would allow the deletion of article histories for alleged poor quality (if I'd just redirected the article and then asked for a deletion of its history, no admin in their right mind would have obliged). Third, there appears to be a split in the community with regard to the views of such situations: the distribution between the two "camps", as well as their relative numbers, can be gleaned from some better-attended recent DRVs, like this one from May. Uanfala (talk) 10:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- "I'm not aware of any policy that would allow the deletion of article histories for alleged poor quality". Er, the article was deleted with clear consensus at the AfD, and there was no consensus at the DRV to overturn it. Yes, one could create a new redirect, and there would be no issue with that. It appears that KoH has made his own policy up before on this subject [32] and it is probably time that they stopped doing it. Black Kite (talk) 10:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- The AfD closed as "delete", but I thought we'd all agreed this closure was wrong? Uanfala (talk) 10:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- There isn't any consensus at the DRV that it was wrong, and there's definitely no consensus that the history should have been restored, that was a decision purely taken by the closer. As you can see from the link above, they have previous views on this. Black Kite (talk) 10:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- The AfD closed as "delete", but I thought we'd all agreed this closure was wrong? Uanfala (talk) 10:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I'm obviously in one of the camps, but I'm happy to go along with the other camp if either: 1) admins are restricted from restoring history for any reason, including userification/draftification, without consensus; or 2) reasonable, enforceable restrictions are placed on the what actions can be taken with respect to drafts, along with a clear set of requirements for moving them back to the main namespace. Otherwise, a la Irish border (see above) it is simply not feasible to prohibit restoring article history underneath a redirect while allowing userfication/draftification at will. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think you should place conditions on the reversal of your supervote to restore the history against policy. Loopholes or not are not an excuse to keep your wrong action in place. Fram (talk) 10:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- A significant amount of people disagree with you, as seen at the last AN (which ended up preserving both my closes). Instead of having this issue boil up every few months, don't you agree that it is better for the community to come together to create a clearer policy around article history? Insisting that your interpretation is the only correct one and that anyone else is acting against policy gets us nowhere. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- Or alternatively - here's a wild idea - you could just close DRVs in line with the consensus in the discussion instead of supervoting, in which case there would be no issue at all. I note the same issue with the closure of numerous AfDs has been previously brought up. Black Kite (talk) 10:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- (ec, Black Kite said it shorter and better) In that previous AN, in the first instance there had been a merge, which is a completely different discussion. The second one was for someone to work at it with new sources, and the conclusion was "While it was made at the wrong venue, and KoH did not adequately articulate the rationale for undeletion, the procedural errors are not sufficient to overturn what would otherwise be an normal REFUND request." Again this is different from the current situation. Furthermore, you weem to have only retained that they weren't overturned, not that they weren't overturned despite correct procedural objections. To continue with procedurally wrong closes because previous ones were (for different reasons) not overturned is very poor practice. "Instead of having this issue boil up every few months, don't you agree that it is better" for you to stop making such closes? If you believe the policy to be wrong, WP:VPP is thataway. Fram (talk) 11:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- A significant amount of people disagree with you, as seen at the last AN (which ended up preserving both my closes). Instead of having this issue boil up every few months, don't you agree that it is better for the community to come together to create a clearer policy around article history? Insisting that your interpretation is the only correct one and that anyone else is acting against policy gets us nowhere. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think you should place conditions on the reversal of your supervote to restore the history against policy. Loopholes or not are not an excuse to keep your wrong action in place. Fram (talk) 10:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- "I'm not aware of any policy that would allow the deletion of article histories for alleged poor quality". Er, the article was deleted with clear consensus at the AfD, and there was no consensus at the DRV to overturn it. Yes, one could create a new redirect, and there would be no issue with that. It appears that KoH has made his own policy up before on this subject [32] and it is probably time that they stopped doing it. Black Kite (talk) 10:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse. As King of Hearts noted:
The DRV close was reasonable. King of Hearts did not close the DRV as "overturn". He exercised his administrative discretion to restore the page history under the redirect, an action that all admins have the discretion to do. The DRV nominator Uanfala made a good faith request for the page history to be restored as they found it useful. If Uanfala had made the userfication or draftification request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, it would have been granted because the page did not contain copyright violations or BLP violations or anything else that should be publicly inaccessible in the history. Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion notes:I have been careful to not use the word "overturn" in my close, but it looks like I wasn't clear enough. I've revised my statement to be more explicit: There is a consensus to redirect, and I am exercising my discretion as an admin (based on the points I listed above) to restore the history. If you believe that admins should not have the discretion to restore the history underneath a redirect, then please explain which step in my logic is flawed, or, if you believe that admins should not have the discretion to userfy/draftify a deleted article, then please point to the policy/guideline that says that or propose a change in an RfC.
This sequence of events could have happened after a WP:REFUND request:This page is also intended to serve as a central location to request that deleted content be userfied, restored as a draft or emailed to you so the content can be improved upon prior to re-insertion into the mainspace, or used elsewhere (you may also make a request directly to one of the administrators listed here). This means that content deleted after discussion—at articles for deletion, categories for discussion, or miscellany for deletion among other deletion processes—may in some cases be provided to you, but such controversial page deletions will not be overturned through this process but through deletion review instead. Copyright violations and attack pages will not be provided at all.
- An admin restores Chronovisor's page history to Draft:Chronovisor.
- A redirect is made from Draft:Chronovisor to Time travel claims and urban legends#The Chronovisor.
- A second redirect is made from Chronovisor to Time travel claims and urban legends#The Chronovisor with an edit summary noting that the deleted article's page history now is in draftspace at Draft:Chronovisor.
Restoring the page history benefits a good faith editor (Uanfala) who finds the content useful and does not negatively impact readers. King of Hearts' actions are sound, policy-compliant, and well within administrative discretion.On the other side, editors also criticize the time spent on minor complaints about procedure. Editors are reminded to consider the encyclopedic outcomes when challenging actions, and to avoid process for the sake of process when benefits to readers are negligible.
Why I support preserving an article's history when possible: When there is an alternative to deletion, I always support keeping the article's history accessible to non-admins if there are no BLP violations or copyright violations or anything else that should be publicly inaccessible in the history. The article may contain useful content for a merge or useful sources. The article may have unreliable sources that cannot be cited. But the unreliable sources may have information that helps editors find reliable sources that can be used. Without having to ask an admin to restore to draft, a non-admin who is interested in recreating the article with better sourcing and content can immediately view the prior state of the article to see if anything can be reused.
- That sequence would be even worse. Draft space is not intended for indefinite storage, and keeping an article in draft to have the page history kept is a wrong use of what the draft space is for. Making edits to redirects to point editors to drafts should not be done. Fram (talk) 12:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- This was a mistake. I see no consensus to change the close at DRV and a clear consensus to delete it at AFD. I can see sometimes userying or draftifying articles if there is a snowball's chance, but the DRV close seems somewhat like a supervote rather than a read of consensus. Not the worse offense of that crime, but still. The discussion seemed to go off a bit in a tangent, but it doesn't matter. At the end of the day DRV is about finding out if consensus was ignored, or if there was some fatal flaw due to the closer (wp:involved, etc) that warrants relisting or overturning. Without clear consensus, it defaults to the existing close at AFD, which wasn't followed. The AFD was pretty clean and the close seemed appropriate, so the DRV close is out of process. If we are trying to demonstrate a problem with the closer (KoH), we need more examples to establish a pattern. In short, vacate the close, let someone else close it, KoH needs to recognize the mistake so they don't repeat it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- I did not participate in the AfDs or DRVs. I would repeat what I said in the last AN discussion about this, but with more emphasis, and ask that King of Hearts should consider desisting from closing DRVs for the time being. There is no shortage of other things they can do with their admin tools.—S Marshall T/C 12:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Why the heck are we here?
First, in my experience, both Sandstein and King of Hearts are long time trust-worthy closers. I'm really sad to see the above.
So I looked at the AfD, it's pretty clear delete/redirect - which is pretty much what the closer said. The DRV doesn't find anything to overturn in the close and then redirects at an admin's discretion.
Why the heck are we here? A poorly worded close? - jc37 12:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- The redirect is not the problem. We are here because King of Hearts undeleted the article's history, thereby overturning the AfD's "delete" result, even though there was no consensus to do so in the DRV. By doing so as part of the DRV closure, which is supposed to reflect consensus, they also falsely asserted that there was in fact such a consensus.
- Their recent amendment to the closure (itself problematic because it alters an administrative decision under review without making this clear with a strikethrough) does not alter that. Worse, it asserts an admin's "discretion" to restore deleted article content merely because they believe it should not stay deleted. In fact, no such discretion exists. Admins are bound to community consensus as expressed in the AfD and DRV processes.
- King of Hearts' assertion makes a mockery of our deletion process, according to which admins may not normally decide on their own to delete (and undelete) pages. They must obtain the community's consensus for such actions, except in certain situations such as WP:CSD. King of Hearts' disregard for these constraints is extremely concerning. Sandstein 12:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- Ok. so for you it's solely about restoring the deleted history.
- I'm torn. I totally get your point. And I get the point about WP:REFUND too.
- I don't think the spirit of the rules were broken though. Especially since your close was pretty much delete, but could be turned into a redirect. Whether the article history stayed deleted or was "refunded" is kind of immaterial, especially since you said ""...if somebody writes it up there (with sources)", which sounds like a merge, and so kinda presupposes the article history will be restored so that the editor(s) would have the raw materials to build such.
- I also think that that DRV was a local consensus at best, and didn't show much of a consensus to overturn anything. But if it is treated as a request to redirect (per your close) then honestly, no harm no foul.
- The problem then, is that's not what the DRV close said - it may be what he did in implementation - but not what it said. And I'll agree - if you're going to undelete something (refund or otherwise), be ready to explain it.
- I think we've all had poorly worded closes at times (my fingers don't always share everything my brain is thinking lol). So for that, sure, I could see you asking for a clarifiaction on the close and him re-doing it.
- Now in all of this I'm doing a LOT of agf here. other stuff could be going on here, with you, with him. but in the end I'm hoping that he just wrote a shortcut of a result in saying redirect, instead of saying a result of no consensus to overturn, but redirecting upon request at admin's discretion. And I think we could all move on.
- At least I hope. - jc37 13:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- Especially in the light of this, which I mentioned above. I'm sure that most o KoH's DRV closures are fine, but you cannot simply twist policy round to suit your own opinions. Black Kite (talk) 13:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- This is making mountains out of molehills, and I see nothing here that requires any meaningful sanctions for anyone, other than process-for-process-sake Wikilawyering. --Jayron32 13:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)