Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Total
CfD	0	0	0	35	35
TfD	0	0	0	0	0
MfD	0	0	2	2	4
FfD	0	0	1	17	18
RfD	0	0	11	31	42
AfD	0	0	0	2	2

• 12 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 5 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 7 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 10 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 29 sockpuppet investigations
• 23 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 6 Fully protected edit requests
• 2 Candidates for history merging
• 2 requests for RD1 redaction
• 56 elapsed requested moves
• 2 Pages at move review
• 22 requested closures
• 42 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 6 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (20 out of 9049 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Gwalvanshi Ahir 2024-12-22 03:19 2026-12-22 03:19 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts Izno Syria 2024-12-22 03:03 indefinite edit Community sanctions enforcement: WP:SCW El C Ronen Shoval 2024-12-22 00:12 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement per WP:PIA, after bulk-removal of refs by IP OwenX Draft:KristenHanby 2024-12-21 10:52 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; see Draft:Kristen Hanby BusterD Draft:Kristen Hanby 2024-12-21 10:51 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP BusterD KristenHanby 2024-12-21 10:50 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated, see Draft:Kristen Hanby; requested at WP:RfPP BusterD Live Tracks 2024-12-21 00:56 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing; article has been recreated multiple times over the years (see deletion log) Significa liberdade Draft:Zipedia 2024-12-20 18:45 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Widr Mexico 2024-12-20 17:15 indefinite move It's been 5 years since the sockpuppetry concerns. Downgrading to semi-protection to see if the issue re-occurs; requested at WP:RfPP Ahecht User talk:118.96.155.66 2024-12-20 12:38 indefinite move Inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked ScottishFinnishRadish Unbelievable Gwenpool 2024-12-20 04:54 2025-12-20 04:54 edit Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate Template:Gwenpool 2024-12-20 04:49 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate User:Johnj1995 2024-12-19 22:03 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated by users other than Johnj1995 Isabelle Belato Thunivu 2024-12-19 11:36 2025-01-19 11:36 edit Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Template:Müzik sanatçısı bilgi kutusu 2024-12-19 00:47 indefinite create Turkish for "Infobox musical artist", attracts mistaken creations Tamzin Khaled Nabhan 2024-12-18 22:07 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Draft:Windows 7 On A Virtual Machine 2024-12-18 21:44 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated UtherSRG Mikhail Shatsky 2024-12-18 20:09 2025-12-18 20:09 create WP:GS/RUSUKR ToBeFree Igor Kirillov (general) 2024-12-18 20:08 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/RUSUKR ToBeFree Template:Certification Table Entry/Sales/NewZealandPeriod 2024-12-18 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2617 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II

Refusal to acknowledge RfC closure

An RfC[1] has been closed on Tulsi Gabbard by Red_Slash, yet one editor, SashiRolls, refuses to acknowledge the validity of the closure and edit-wars to remove content agreed-upon in the closure. What should be done? (I posted about this on two other boards before being instructed that this was the right board for this) Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

First of all, @Snooganssnoogans: please notify SashiRolls (as required). Second, please provide diffs when making accusations. Thirdly, the main question here seems to be whether Red Slash's closure of the RfC is correct. Based on what was said at the Help Desk, it seems several users disagree. If SashiRolls has edit warred, then you should file a report at WP:AN/EW.

I didn't advise you to come here, but I advised SashiRolls to do so (sorry if I wasn't clear). According to WP:CLOSE, WP:AN is the venue that should be used for challenging RfC closures. Therefore, I propose that you file a report at WP:AN/EW if you wish to do so, but otherwise, that this section is used to discuss what seems a point of contention: was Red Slash's closure of the RfC a correct determination of consensus? I will notify Red Slash. --MrClog (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

IMO especially since it's been ~12 days, there's no point us having a discussion on the whether the closure was fair until and unless someone actually brings it here to challenge. Since Snooganssnoogans does not appear to disagree with the closure, there's no reason for us to discuss it solely due to their concerns. So either SashiRolls or someone else who disagrees brings it here then fair enough. The one exception would be Red Slash since it's well accepted that closers can bring their closure for discussion if they feel there are concerns or if they're unsure or just want a sanity check. Nil Einne (talk) 08:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

If SashiRolls want to challenge a close, they should first speak to the closer, then bring it here. If they are edit warring over the close, this would be a problem, but as MrClog said, we need diffs and frankly I'm not seeing the problem. They did undo the close once about 12 days ago [2] and as per my earlier comment I don't think this was the right way to challenge the close, but given it was a single time, not something us worth worrying about on AN even if it just happened. Someone could have just told them it's not the right way to challenge the close and revert which ultimate is I think what happened. After they reverted the close, they added some further comments [3], if the close had been properly undone this would not be a problem but since it wasn't really they shouldn't have but ultimately this stemmed from the way they undid the close so not worth worrying about. They posted one addition after the close was redone [4], again not worth worrying about especially since it seems to have been part of challenging a hatting. (I assume changing nbsp of someone else's comment was either a mistake or they were replacing a unicode one with that.) Since then, there has been little on the talk page. Recently there was this Talk:Tulsi Gabbard#WP:SYNTH problems [5] but whatever it is, it's not part of challenging or disputing the previous RfC. I had a quick look at the article, and none of the recent edits by SashiRolls seem to be related to the RfC either. E.g. [6] [7] mention India and Modi, but are not something dealt with in the RfC. I didn't check the edits on 15th or earlier since they're too old to worry about. So yes, I'm very confused why this is here, as I'm not actually seeing any active problem. If SashiRolls does not wish to properly challenge the close, then they will have to accept the result, but they don't seem to have really done anything on either the article or the article talk page that we need to worry about in recent times. (At least as viewed in the scope of the problem you highlighted.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne, SashiRolls has challanged the outcome at the Help Desk, which is not the proper place. I told them AN was the right place, but they haven't challanged it here. I agree that the situation is stale unless SashiRolls explicitely challanges the RfC closure here. --MrClog (talk) 08:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I added part of my full opinion on the talk page at the time. But I think the close, the re-close, any reliance on the close, and the RfC in it entirety, are all sub-par. If anyone specifically requests it, an admin should probably jump in to do a proper close. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

(EC) @MrClog: Well I would put Wikipedia:Help desk#What to do when an editor refuses to abide by RfC closure? a bit different. Although SashiRolls did comment there, like this thread it was started by Snooganssnoogans. I don't understand why Snooganssnoogans feels the need to bring this up at all since as I said, I see no active editing against the RfC even if SashiRolls appears to disagree with it. SashiRolls, is ultimately entitled to keep that POV, they just can't act on it until and unless they properly challenge the close.

Snooganssnoogans mentioned bringing this to multiple boards before finding the right one, but ignoring they're still at the wrong board since there is no right board, when I see the Help Desk discussion I'm even more mystified. I thought maybe when Snooganssnoogans first brought this up it had only been a day or 2 since the RfC closure undone etc so they thought it was pertinent and didn't reconsider when they finally thought they'd found the right board. But that discussion on the Help Desk was only about 1 day ago. I didn't bother to find the first discussion, but I now think Snooganssnoogans really needs to clarify what they mean since they've accused SashiRolls of edit warring against the RfC yet it doesn't look like any such thing has happened for at least 10 days.

Even ~10 days is a stretch. I had a more careful look at the article itself, and the only thing I found which could in any way be said to be possibly against the RfC is [8]. A single edit. So all we really have is a single attempt to revert the close and a single revert to the article all over 10 days ago. So yeah, I really have no idea why this is here. Or at the help desk.

I would note in any case the RfC closure specifically noted at least two of the proposals needed to be reworded so ultimately some more discussion is needed somehow. Even for the final one, while it did not say it had to be re-worded it did not say there was consensus for the proposed wording so discussion on that also seems fair enough. I'm not necessarily saying reverting that edit was the right way to go about it, but it is even more reason for me to go, why are you wasting our time by bringing this here?

Nil Einne (talk) 09:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne, I didn't bring this here originally, I only commented on it after Snooganssnoogans brought it here, based on what was said at the Help Desk. --MrClog (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

P.S. To be clear, I have no problem with your attempts to guide the editors. My only concern is that Snooganssnoogans seems to be making claims which don't seem to be well supported all over the place, and IMO wasting our time in so doing. Nil Einne (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne, true, which is why I asked for diffs. Thanks for looking into the issue. Take care, MrClog (talk) 09:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I brought this here, because I don't want to edit-war with SashiRolls on the Gabbard page (which is covered by DS, 1RR and enforced BRD), which was inevitably where this was heading. I wanted to make sure that I was in the right to follow the closure of the RfC before I reverted SashiRolls's revert of the RfC text. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I have been harassed since Aug 2016 by Snoogans, it seems to me to be their methodology whenever they want to force their views on BLP through despite significant opposition to their one-sided negativity. This was and has been the case on Jill Stein, which they have largely written, this was and has been the case on Tulsi Gabbard. If administrators wish to discourage such harassment, I would appreciate it. (In the past two days, I've received notifications from them from the Village Pump, the Help Desk, AN, and my talk page. I have also received threats of imminent DS actions for reverting a sloppy reversion they made of another editor's contribution related to Jill Stein where I see frequently blocked Calton has come running to help restore Daily Beast in wiki-voice to 3 sentences in a sequence of 6 sentences. This strikes me as promotional editing for a corporate entity. Neither Snoogans nor Calton has discussed on the TP... but that's the usual order of business...)🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 11:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

This strikes me as promotional editing for a corporate entity.

And this rationale strikes me as nuts -- or, given SashiRolls long history, a clumsy throw-it-at-the-wall-and-see-if-sticks excuse. --Calton | Talk 07:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

You've been blocked recently for similar aggressive comments about contributors rather than content. If you wish to comment as to why you think is it not promotional editing to include the names of muckraking newspapers in wikitext instead of attributing the opinions expressed in an article to its author, the discussion you ignored is at Talk:Jill_Stein#We_cite_the_news_outlet,_not_the_reporter. This is not the place to continue that debate; I invite you to comment on the TP if you wish to defend the multiplication of references to the Daily Beast on a BLP rather than sticking to the facts, as proposed.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

NORE garbage thrown at the wall to distract. ...blocked recently for similar aggressive comments about contributors... is particularly rich because a) that's exactly what you're doing; and b) you were blocked indefinitely for your behavior, so you don't get to gas on about that.

If you wish to comment as to why you think is it not promotional editing to include the names of muckraking newspapers in wikitext instead of attributing the opinions expressed in an article to its author

Nope, because that's a false spin of a standard "attribution to reliable sources", no matter how many pejoratives you lard it with, a speciality of yours. It's the "promotional" part that's a new --albeit ridiculous on its face -- twist. --Calton | Talk 11:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior by SashiRolls noted: [9] (The arbcom case was rejected as premature and referred to ANI.[10]) Related: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive303#Unblock appeal by SashiRolls. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Whatever. There is a double-standard at the Signpost. People criticized in mainstream publications have their pseudonyms protected, whereas those brought up on frivolous charges at ArbCom (quickly rejected) are pilloried in the first sentence of the Arbitration report. For those interested in what Wikipedia is actually supposed to be about (i.e. verifiability) here are three examples of wikitext Snoogans has added in the last two weeks that are unsupported by the sources (2 of which are whoppers): [11] I will walk away from Snoog's ownership behavior for their TP section title, despite it being a violation of Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable as noted on the TP. For someone who doesn't want to edit-war... there they are bullying, again. Anyone want to tag-team me? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Your altering of the header[12] makes my comment completely and utterly incomprehensible. Furthermore there is no legitimate reason for altering the header (it's an undisputed RS description). Your altering of the header is a perfect example of disrupting and harassing behavior (not even mentioning the creepy rambling "can someone please get Snooganssnoogans sanctioned?" collection of off-topic disputes that you dug up on off-wiki forums for disgruntled Wikipedia editors about me and decided to spam on an unrelated article talk page), yet you're now here whining about it? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the #1 whopper listed is one I discovered last night checking something you were edit warring with someone else over on the Tulsi Gabbard page: the arrest of an Indian consular official. That had been in the article for so long I just assumed it was true, that she must have criticized the arrest. But in fact I'd been led astray by your spin. She did not criticize the fact that the official was arrested. Not at all. She criticized how she was arrested (strip-searched despite consular immunity), because it threatened to lead to quite a diplomatic rift between India and the US.

The arrest and strip search of the Indian diplomat escalated into a major diplomatic furor Tuesday as India's national security adviser called the woman's treatment "despicable and barbaric."

source: AP It is true that your deliberate misreadings are attracting attention and making many a good Wikipedian ashamed that such behavior is seemingly tolerated encouraged by the power structure here. That said, I probably wouldn't have pointed it out had you not been rude to yet another person on the TP. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Request for reclosure of RfC on Tulsi Gabbard's BLP (Assad/Modi)

I would like to formally ask that an administrator determine whether the RfC closed by Red Slash on 11 July 2019 properly analyzed the consenus or lack thereof and provided sufficient guidance for editing the text going forward. On the talk page, I asked Red Slash to justify the close which took no account of at least half of the written opinions, but was summarily dismissed. I apologize for not having had the time to look for the proper bureaucratic procedure to properly revert a bad close. I assumed the matter was settled when 2 people agreed with me, but apparently there is a need to have the proper paperwork done...

I see that the person championing the addition of negative phrasing (Snoogans) has already been reverted by an IP from Ireland. (I am not in Ireland.) It is true that in 2017, Gabbard expressed skepticism about Assad's use of chemical weapons, which -- as I understand it -- she walked back once sufficient information became available. The use of the present tense (has expressed) rather than dating the skepticism to 2017 and using the past tense seems to me transparently disingenuous. This is what NPR does in the citation:

In 2017, she expressed skepticism that Assad had used chemical weapons, and in a CNN televised town hall in March, when asked whether Assad is a war criminal, she hedged, saying, "If the evidence is there, there should be accountability."

source

As stated above (previous section) and in the section devoted to the RfC one admin has reviewed the close and found it lacking. Another opinion is requested.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 11:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

My determination would be as follows:

• A: The main question seems to be whether A adheres to the NPOV policy and is properly sourced. Snooganssnoogans, LokiTheLiar, Kolya Butternut and MrX support the current wording of A. Scottmontana (an SPA), TFD, SashiRolls and Darryl Kerrigan oppose the wording. Msalt says the wording is acceptable, yet could be improved. What I find particularly important here is that TFD brings an argument as to why it is not NPOV. TFD states that, despite A being possibly accurate, it is presented in a misleading way ("The problem with using the quote, which presumably could be reliably sourced, is that saying it is an expression of support for Hindu nationalists is synthesis. Obama, the Clintons and Trump have expressed more praise for Modi than Gabbard, yet it would be misleading to say they expressed support for Hindu nationalists. That's the sort of writing one would expect in polemical writing. It would be accurate however that they like Gabbard supported normal relations with the Indian government."). This is particulrly important because, if true, it would be a violation of BLP (WP:BLPBALANCE). This has not been responded to. Because it seems that opinions are fairly balanced regarding A, and !oppose brings a compelling argument based on one of Wikipedia's core policies, which is not responded to, I am inclined to say that there is no consensus to include A.
• B: Snooganssnoogans and Darryl Kerrigan support the wording of B. LokiTheLiar and Kolya Butternut support B if it were to be reworded. MrX, SashiRolls and Scottmontana (in part—I discarded their comment about Vox, as Vox has been determined to be reliable, see WP:RS/P) oppose B. It remains unclear how such a rewording should look and when it becomes acceptable for inclusion without violating WP:NPOV. NPOV is a core policy and it is vital that all text in the article adheres to this policy. I would as such say that this should be closed as no consensus for inclusion of B without prejudice to a reworded text, if there is conensus that that version does adhere to NPOV.
• C: Snooganssnoogans, LokiTheLiar, Kolya Butternut, MrX and Darryl Kerrigan support C. SashiRolls and Scottmontana oppose C. While Scottmontana brings a reasonable argument which is not responded to, the clear support for C shows that it was not strong enough to convince other reasonable Wikipedians. The rest of the comments are mostly "NPOV" and "not NPOV". As such, I would say there is consensus to include C.

I invite other editors to share their view as well. (Non-administrator comment) --MrClog (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding #A, TFD presents nothing to support the argument that other political figures are more supportive of Modi and Hindu nationalists than she is. The language is supported by reliable sources such as the LA Times[13], Guardian[14], NY Mag[15], Vox[16], and Intercept[17]. Why is it incumbent on other users to rebut TFD's unsupported arguments? And even if other political figures are, what does that have to do with Gabbard? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

The argument's central premise is that the text is biased (failing WP:BLPBALANCE) because the text suggests she expressed support for Hindu nationalists in a way that can convey the wrong message (that her support is more than just "standard diplomacy"). Regarding the sources: I was only able to find the Guardian source, Vox source and the Intercept source brought up during the discussion, but if I missed the others, feel free to point me where they were. If they haven't brought up during the discussion, I won't consider them, because I am judging the debate that took place at the RfC. About the sources: the Guardian only mentions "nationalists", not "Hindu nationalists". Vox says that reports mentioned "worrying ties" to Hindu nationalists (not support) and that she is supported by Hindu nationalists (but again, not that she supports Hindu nationalists. While the Intercept mentions that she supports Hindu nationalists in the title, it seems to be more nuanced in the article. The main point of criticism from TFD still stands, by the way, that the fact that she supported certain Hindu nationalists is presented in an unfair way in the sentence, suggesting she supports all or most Hindu nationalists. (Non-administrator comment) --MrClog (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

MrClog, I do not see A: "Gabbard has expressed support for Hindu nationalists, including Indian prime minister Narendra Modi" as suggesting she supports "all or most" Hindu nationalists. In context it sounds like there were specific instances of expressing support for particular Hindu nationalists. Jacobin, which The Intercept linked to, was brought up in the RfC discussion in response to TFD: "Gabbard has been one of Modi’s most prominent boosters in the US. 'He is a leader whose example and dedication to the people he serves should be an inspiration to elected officials everywhere,' she said of Modi in 2014."[18] And why is the title of The Intercept story, "TULSI GABBARD IS A RISING PROGRESSIVE STAR, DESPITE HER SUPPORT FOR HINDU NATIONALISTS", not enough? Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• There is nothing in the RfC close that prevents editors from improving upon the proposed wordings. It just says there's consensus to include, and actually explicitly encourages rewording. So when looking at Sashi Rolls objection to #C (that it incorrectly implies that Gabbard still doubts chemical weapons were used in Syria) that can be remedied by a slight rewording. By the way, I opened the source (from 2019) at the end of the sentence, and it confirms that Sashi Rolls is correct on this point. It says: "Gabbard has also expressed skepticism about the Assad regime’s widely reported and confirmed use of chemical weapons against its own people. As an Iraq veteran, Gabbard said, she wants solid evidence before weapons of mass destruction are used to justify intervention, citing the false reports of WMD in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003...Gabbard said Wednesday she does believe chemical weapons were used in Syria." ~Awilley (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• No, the body of the article clearly explains that since February 2019, she has changed her opinion on whether Assad used chemical weapons (I added that content as soon as she made the change[19]: she doubted that Assad used chemical weapons until February 2019). If someone holds a view at one point and changes it later, we cover both and delineate the chronology. We wouldn't remove that Hillary Clinton supported the Iraq War just because she later said that the Iraq War was wrong. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
• @Awilley: I doubt that a reworded version won't lead to another dispute, seeing that apparently there is the need to organise RfCs about whether to include certain sentences. --MrClog (talk) 11:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• This RfC was started because Snoog failed to get consensus for their edits to the BLP back in February and March 2019. TFD, in the first comment on the RfC, characterized it -- in my view correctly -- as a biased attempt to enforce a particular POV. To respond to the previous comment, I do *not* believe that a version of C which accurately represents her position before the facts were established would be contested as long as it is made clear that once the facts were established her position changed, precisely because the facts were then established. As I said in my initial oppose, the only problem with C was that it misleadingly used the present (perfect) tense. I agree with your reading of no-consensus for A & B. I agree that if we change the wording of C to reflect that it was a position taken until evidence was established, for me at least, the problem with C is resolved.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• I am incredibly disinterested in the whole ordeal and frankly uninterested at this point. I closed a long-overdue RfC, checked back and noticed that the close was just reverted out of thin air, and re-closed. I have no opinion on Ms. Gabbard as a person or as a candidate, and I only tried to determine a consensus based on logical arguments and reliable sources. Is there anything y'all need from me? Red Slash 16:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• Red Slash, I would suggest giving a summary of why you believe consensus was the way you assessed it to be, unless you already provided such at a talk page (in which case a link is fine). The current closing statement only mentions what the consensus is, but not how you came to that conclusion. --MrClog (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I felt that consensus was clear that A and C were accurate, concise, neutral and well-backed by sources. I felt that it was less clear on B, so I requested B be reworded to be less argumentative. Red Slash 03:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Snoogansnoogans wrote, "TFD presents nothing to support the argument that other political figures are more supportive of Modi and Hindu nationalists than she is." First, when criticizing me, I would appreciate it if you would notify me. Second, you misrepresented what I wrote: "Obama, the Clintons and Trump have expressed more praise for Modi than Gabbard, yet it would be misleading to say they expressed support for Hindu nationalists."

Obama invited Modi to the White House and visited him twice in India. Here is part of the text from their first meeting:

It is an extraordinary pleasure to welcome Prime Minister Modi to the White House for the first time. I think that the entire world has watched the historic election and mandate that the people of India delivered in the recent election. And I think everyone has been impressed with the energy and the determination with which the Prime Minister has looked to address not only India’s significant challenges, but more importantly, India’s enormous opportunities for success in the 21st century....the Prime Minister shared with me his vision for lifting what is still too many Indians who are locked in poverty into a situation in which their lives can improve....we discussed how we can continue to work together on a whole host of issues from space exploration, scientific endeavor, to dealing with humanitarian crises like Ebola in West Africa....And throughout this conversation I’ve been impressed with the Prime Minister’s interest in not only addressing the needs of the poorest of the poor in India and revitalizing the economy there, but also his determination to make sure that India is serving as a major power that could help bring about peace and security for the entire world...."[20]

I can find similar statements from Bill and Hillary Clinton, who visited Modi when he came to New York, and by Trump when Modi visited Washington.

If you don't know anything about U.S.-India relations, then you shouldn't add criticism about politicians for their views on it.

As far as I can see, this request is merely a content dispute and suggest we close it.

TFD (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Overturn this close. I agree completely with MrClog's analysis above. I can't imagine how anyone can come to the conclusion that "B" had consensus. Red Slash writes in the RfC closure, "A, B, and C should all be included.", but only two !voters thought that B should be included. (!Voters who were in favor of changing B are, by definition, not in favor of including B as written.) I also agree with the comment in the post-close discussion on the article talk page that there are two ways to deal with a rejected close: one is to say shut up how dare you, the other is to ask how any problems can be satisfactorily resolved. Disappointed that Red Slash chose the former. I would appreciate if Red Slash, in closing something like this, gave a breakdown of their thinking similar to what MrClog wrote above. Otherwise, don't close RfCs if you don't want to give more than a couple sentences of explanation for your close. – Levivich 16:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Uphold Red Slash's closure. Red Slash found consensus for A and C, and Red Slash stated that "B [...] should [...] be included [... and] B should be slightly reworded." I infer this to mean that a consensus should be found for new wording for B before it is included. Red Slash's comments above support this interpretation. It is clumsy, but I don't see that as a reason to overturn the close. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  Notice: user !voted in the RfC. --MrClog (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: General sanctions on post-1978 Iranian politics

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

---

The administrator noticeboards have seen a seemingly endless stream of discussions related to conflicts in post-revolutionary Iran, and more specifically, on conflicts between the current government and entities challenging it. Examples include the following; AN, July 2019, ANEW, June 2019, ANI, May 2019, ANI, March 2019, ANI, February 2019, ANEW, November 2018, ANI, September 2018, ANI, August 2018, ANEW, January 2018, ANEW, January 2018, and ANI, November 2017. As a point of interest, the conflicts in this topic are not new; see this discussion from September 2015, for instance. There have also been a series of caustic arguments on various talk pages; see, for instance, the archives at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran. These discussions have tended to become bogged down as a result of mudslinging between involved parties: attempts by uninvolved users to intervene are few and far between.

As a result, very few sanctions have been issued, and disruptive behavior continues unabated. The one exception is that participants at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran were persuaded by El_C to accept the terms of WP:GS; in my opinion, that is too small a set of editors, and too restricted a locus. To curtail further disruption, I believe it is now necessary for admins to be able to issue sanctions, including topic-bans, without extended noticeboard discussions. I am asking for community authorized general sanctions, rather that ARBCOM-authorized discretionary sanctions, because I think the evidence for disruption is clear enough that the community can act on this immediately, and because ARBCOM is a little busy at the moment, and so filing a full case request would be doing the community a disservice.

I have discussed this previously with El_C, who is one of few admins to have issues sanctions or warnings in this area outside of ANEW, and El_C agrees with me about the necessity for such sanctions. @Deepfriedorca, EdJohnston, Drmies, Black Kite, Nyttend, and Oshwah:, you have also participated in some of these discussions as admins; your thoughts would be welcome. Regards, Vanamonde (Talk) 16:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC) @Drmies, Oshwah, EdJohnston, and JzG: Apologies for the bother; I've amended the proposal to post-1978 politics, following a discussion with Nyttend and El_C below; I doubt it makes a difference to you, but procedurally, I think I ought to let you know. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support, as proposer. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
• I support--I think it's worth a try. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support - I agree that this is an action that's necessary in order to assure that an acceptable and collaborative editing environment is maintained consistently throughout this topic area. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support – This sanction, if approved, could work like WP:GS/SCW which I think are reasonably successful in keeping the topic of the Syrian Civil War under control. EdJohnston| (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support — To reiterate, I think agreement to apply the specific GS to People's Mujahedin of Iran, an article which suffered from chronic edit warring, has proven to be quite successful. Slowly but surely progress is being made, whereas edit warring is now approaching zero (note that I did try to suggest applying the same thing to Fascism in Europe and did not even get a response from participants — so, you win some, you lose some). At any event, Vanamonde93's proposal to extend GS to other post-1979 Iranian politics articles, I am confident, would aid editors, article quality, and reducing conflict on the project overall. El_C 17:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
• Question Why post-1979? Is the revolution itself free from these disputes? If this area needs general sanctions, I would guess that it should be post-1978, unless you believe that items specifically from 1979 aren't being disrupted. Nyttend (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

  @Nyttend: I don't think there's a political topic free of disruption on Wikipedia. I was trying to draw a line between a topic that has egregious localized disruption, and other related articles that merely have pedestrian levels of bad behavior. So far as I can tell, the conflicts on Wikipedia that prompted me to propose this stem from real-life conflicts between the current theocratic government of Iran and its opponents. As such, I haven't seen the same conflicts spill over into the revolution itself, yet. I'm not necessarily opposed to a broader regime of general sanctions; but I think that if a line must be drawn, it must be drawn at 1979 or 1953 (or 1905, when the constitutional revolution occurred); and it has been my impression that the community favors narrower areas of broad admin discretion. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

  Vanamonde93, if we're drawing a line at the Islamic Revolution, that's perfectly fine, but the revolution happened in 1979, and your proposal is post-1979, i.e. beginning in 1980. For example, the proposal doesn't cover the beginning of the Iran hostage crisis or any of the December 1979 Iranian constitutional referendum. That's the reason I'm confused. Nyttend (talk) 23:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

  I agree with Nyttend. The revolution should be encompassed as well, since a lot of the disputes are rooted in it. El_C 00:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  @Nyttend and El C: Okay, fair enough. I'll amend it to "1978", as that is more concise that trying to spell out post-revolution, and ping the others. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks for amending, Vanamonde93. Looks good. El_C 00:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support for sure. In fact I'd cover anything where the troll of all trolls is involved - North Korea, China, US trade deficit, and so many more, but this one is obvious and long-standing. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support – per nom – Levivich 15:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment If further evidence were required that this is getting out of hand, there's these two conversations in the last week. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

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

• Vanamonde93: I was surprised to see this discussion where, I think, active editors had to be pinged to comment. Also, El_C's intervention is shown to be pretty excellent, but slow. Surely much better than the previous condition. Now, your arguments are really seen and considered. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Second look at the scope of the sanctions

Following my discussion with Vanamonde93 I think the scope of the sanction are too wide and requires further discussion. Just see the examples brought to our eyes by Vanamonde93; Nearly most of the cases are related to MEK and the OP, I think, fails to raise his concerns, which I think are quite right, on proper ground. The remedy should be devised for areas with continued and repeated disputes. So, just asking for sanctions on "post-1978 Iranian politics" is not really fair without showing how this wide topic need such a thing. Multiple examples from various cases of 'continuous dispute' should be the minimum requirement; that said, I think the major issue lies with the MEK-related articles at the moment which was nicely handled by El_C for the main article. (pinging involved parties for attention @Drmies, JzG, Levivich, Nyttend, EdJohnston, and Oshwah:). --Mhhossein ^talk 13:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Why too wide? What is in scope that should not be? Guy (Help!) 13:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Guy: I think this is the OP who needs to prove the scope contains enough articles with diverse subjects making the scope wide enough. But as you requested please see Assembly of Experts, 2016 Iranian legislative election, Guardian Council, Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Iran), Combatant Clergy Association, Islamic Consultative Assembly and etc., though there are plenty of other examples. Please note that we're talking about continuous conflicts requiring remedies. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Guy: Any more comments on my recent examples? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:47, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• I would oppose any proposed reduction in scope, because there are severe conflicts within this topic that are unrelated to the MEK. As exhibit (a) I present to you 2019 Persian Gulf crisis, where the conflict is indubitably a spillover from Iranian politics (rather than from US politics). There's also Hafte Tir bombing (only peripherally related to the MEK); and somewhat lower levels of conflict at Manshour Varasteh (also only peripherally related), Mohammad-Javad Azari Jahromi, 2017 Iranian presidential election, and Ebrahim Raisi. Reaching further back, there's others; and those aren't conflicts that have been resolved, it's rather that the locus of conflict has temporarily shifted. Also, fundamentally, these conflicts are driven by people with strong opinions being unable to set those aside and edit within a policy-based framework. Reducing the scope of the sanctions will allow far too much opportunity for anyone sanctioned to continue problematic behavior in a closely related area. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

For your information, both Hafte Tir bombing and Manshour Varasteh are heavily related to MEK. Also, can you show us what conflict there's in Ebrahim Raisi for instance? Please note that conflicts between editors are often seen in various articles, but here we're talking about continuous disputes/conflicts requiring remedies. I mean come with something please! As for people having "strong opinions" regarding subjects; what's the relationship between this and making the scope of the article unnecessarily wide? --Mhhossein ^talk 18:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't buy that. Unless our article grossly misinterprets the subject, Hafte Tir bombing is only related to the MEK because they were accused of it without evidence; that's a tenuous connection at best, and it's exactly the sort of connection that has been endlessly wikilawyered at AE. When editors are sanctioned for an inability to follow NPOV, they need to be removed from the area of conflict. A very narrow scope for a general sanction does not help with this. Why are you so strongly opposed to the current scope? If you edit within policy, it should affect you at all; if all of you people editing in this topic edit within policy, the sanctions have no consequence whatsoever. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to list the sources here, but your latest comments on Hafte Tir bombing, i.e. "a tenuous connection at best" and "is only related to the MEK because they were accused of it without evidence", are just personal viewpoints regarding the subject which probably contradict numerous high quality reliable sources (comments special:diff/867882764, special:diff/904031175 should be enough for list of sources saying MEK did the bombing). Also, I'm not suggesting a "a very narrow scope", I'm just saying the the remedy should be as wide as necessary, but not wider (to make it unnecessarily wide!). I strongly oppose the current scope, since "writing laws is easy, but governing is difficult!" and it's just meaningless for the remedy to cover areas which does not need such an attention. Needless to say that I, having been edited withing policy, don't fear the consequences of the remedy and that I was of the first users who welcomed the restrictions which was then placed over MEK article, so your argument is not applicable. Instead, please show that all articles lying under post-1978 Iranian politics need to be sanctioned. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

These sanctions are just fine, it was about time. Sanctioned users actually have to edit within policy, what an outrage /s. Seriously though, post-1978 Iranian articles have been plagued by disruption for years now, this is the right step. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid, in that case, reverts which are nither discussed nor justified, would be with tough consequences. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:52, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I also fully agree that it's about time something of this sort was implemented. This needed to happen a long time ago, but either way it's a step in the right direction. Bless. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I also agree that this is a great idea. Long overdue. The scope is commensurate with existing and expected disruption. In any case, noone loses. If there is no disruption, it doesn't matter how wide the scope is, noone will be sanctioned. If disruption arises, then the sanctions come in and save the day. This is a win-win situation if I ever saw one. Kudos to the initiators of this great idea. Dr. K. 01:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Off topic. Take it elsewhere if you really must continue. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mhossein; I simply restored the original revision which was suddenly changed by the same user whom you have been accused of collabrating with and whom along with yourself have been warned for to refrain from IRI pov-pushing. Not to mention you have also defended a Khomeinist user who was banned due to anti-semitism and much more [21]. Thus, your "Needless to say that I, having been edited withing policy" is highly invalid. Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones (btw [22]). Not interested in derailing this thread, so this is my last message in this section. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC) What did these bizarre comment had to do with this discussion? Your comment, being fulled with baseless accusations, is itself demonstrating you need to review our Wikipedia:Etiquette (for violation which you were blocked). This message is a warning against casting aspersion. With this edit, I wanted to show you need to be more careful after the sanctions. As for this discussion, there's an intervention by a 3rd party (who's an admin) with the comment saying "In my experience with Mhhossein, I've found him to be a conscientious editor who is genuinely trying to improve the quality of the encyclopedia" and " Also, Mhhossein's suggestions of the portrayal of Agha Soltan in the media seem to me to be good to include as well." --Mhhossein talk 13:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC) So much for this being my last message; These aren't baseless accusations, thus there's no aspersions being cast ([23] [24] here's two pieces of evidence for starters). Also, you don't need to show me anything, instead you should focus on your own edits within this encyclopedia. Furthermore, I was referring to literally everything else that was going on in the Neda discussion, which you interestingly enough ignored. I assume I don't have to quote them here? At last but not least, please try to keep a proper tone, calling my comment "bizarre" was uncalled for. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC) You were successful at transforming a general discussion into this irrelevant discussion (see WP:BATTLE). Nothing to add here, except that my concerns regarding Neda page was right, as the admin said. --Mhhossein talk 10:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC) Actually this is more relevant than anything. Regarding the Neda article, people are free to check the link [25]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Rooting For Team Red, Rooting For Team Blue, And Rooting For Individual Players On Team Blue

This is a request for advice, not necessarily a request for administrator intervention. I think that a couple of editors have identified a real problem on the pages about current US presidential candidates, but I don't have a clue as to how to address the problem they describe. Thus I am asking for advice on what to do, if anything.

At Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Tulsi Gabbard again I saw this comment from Masem:

"We seriously need to apply NOT#NEWS to politician pages. As an encyclopedia, we should not be trying to document every single one of their views, and certainly not in the real-time nature of typical news reporting."[26]

Then Levivich added this:

" I think there is a larger problem than one or two editors, though, and it's exactly what Masem points out above: the US politics area has turned into a political newspaper, with editors fighting to stick in the latest quotes from second-rate media (e.g., the Daily Beast). Every article on US presidential candidates, for example, are complete junk, filled with, "In August 2019, so-and-so said such-and-such," or "This newspaper wrote that so-and-so is this-and-that", etc. etc. It needs a major overhaul and a reintroduction to NOTNEWS. I think I am among many editors who have given up on editing in that topic area."[27]

I happened to notice the problem at the Tulsi Gabbard page (Giving undue WP:WEIGHT to certain negative opinions published in obscure sources) and I am dealing with that issue in the usual way, but what of the larger problem that Masem and Levivich describe? Where would I even start if I wanted to make things better? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

It's a sea change needed across all of Wikipedia. I am not going to reiterate my long-winded stance on the lack of NOT#NEWS enforcement particularly in the AP2 topic area (and not limited to that), but needless to say, we need editors to think about what material is being report "right this second" and how much of that material is going to be valuable in 5-10 years, and how much of that is just the fact news stations have 24/7 hours of broadcast time they have to fill. Understanding the difference between something like the reactions to the latest shootings in the US, versus a Tweet sent out by a presidential candidate. Because we have let NOT#NEWS weaken, we get these articles that are tons of proseline, filling in every possible news story that the topic is in, which is not what we should be doing. But its hard to force a policy on this, we need a sea change in how editors see the news and write about it, and to exactly that point, I don't know how to push that even more beyond stressing the need for "encyclopedic" writing, not "newspaper" writing. --Masem (t) 15:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I think one fairly simple stopgap measure (for the bigger elections) would be to spin off "political positions" and "20xx campaign" from the person's BLP. Most of the motivation for the BLP-stuffing I've seen is the desire to affect the opinions of those who google the person once and idly read their BLP once. In 2016 I suggested that all 4 candidates should have their political positions page separated from their BLP to lessen the attraction of posting the week's smear to each candidate's BLP (this courtesy was afforded to 3 of the 4 main candidates). The logic is this: since the political positions page and 20xx campaign page aren't the top google responses... most who want to spin google will lose interest. BLPs could be full protected / flagged revisions / etc. As for the wider question about news, I'm not so sure. It was interesting to follow various social movements / events (DAPL, overthrow of le pouvoir in Algeria, Sudan, YVM, Western Libya Offensive etc.) and I'm not sure these pages have done so much damage to the encyclopedia as what is being done on BLP in AmPol. The difference may be -- in part -- the media being cited, I suppose, and the goal of informing rather than persuading. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't fix the problem. Those spinouts would remain BLP pages and will still suffer the same problem. It's sweeping the issue under the rug. Yes, I do think that Google's draw to Wikipedia may change if those are spun out, but that's not really feeding the issue as most of the problems seem to come from semi to readily experienced editors. --Masem (t) 16:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, if you say so. I have noticed that those who hurry to oppose spinning off BLP pages are those who help curate negative information on those BLP... some evidence: (Gabbard, Stein). Theoretically at least, they would be less tempted to do so if their voices weren't so easily multiplied by google. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The problem goes well beyond just presidential candidates. WP:NOTNEWS is very frequently ignored when it comes to WP:BLP issues in general. I think a revision to WP:GNG to identify that coverage in reliable sources does not automatically confer notability for information regarding BLPs might help. That and perhaps giving WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT a bit more assertive language concerning notability and routine news coverage. Simonm223 (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

ETA - I agree with Masem entirely. Simonm223 (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I think this is about WP:Summary style. Writing in summary style requires writing in Wikivoice and that requires consensus, which requires collaboration. By contrast, writing in WP:QUOTEFARMs allows an editor to take a quote from a particular WP:RS (especially a recognized RS, like a green one from WP:RSP) and then "defend" it to the death, arguing that it must be included because it's a verbatim quote from a recognized RS. So we end up with alternating quotes from RSes instead of summary prose in WikiVoice... and battleground behavior on the talk page instead of collaborative editing. Some thoughts on solutions:

1. Further deprecate quote farms, perhaps just in BLPs or BLPs in DS areas (BLPs are a DS area, but I mean like AP2 BLPs, PIA BLPs, etc.), perhaps just for mainstream news sources. Or maybe for recent events articles? Something like, "quotes from mainstream news sources are strongly discouraged" maybe added to WP:MOS? This will force editors towards collaborating to come up with consensus language in Wikivoice rather than sparring with RS quotes.
2. Write a WP:Summary style specifically for BLPs or political BLPs. WP:BLPSUMMARY? Or maybe MOS:POLBLP?
3. Do we have a "model article" for politician BLPs? Not every politician BLP can be based on FA political BLPs like US presidents. But what does an "ideal" article for, say, a first-term national legislator, look like? How much detail? How much about their personal life? Their political positions? Their controversies?
4. One of the aspects of this problem is our poor existing mechanisms for content dispute resolution. For example, say Guy and I want to include Quote A, and Masem and Sashi are opposed to it or want to include a countervailing Quote B. The four of us can go around forever and never reach a consensus (that an uninvolved editor will close), and too often it comes down to one side dragging the other to a noticeboard over a conduct complaint (alleging WP:DE, WP:TE, etc.). If the four of us write walls of text, other editors won't help at DRN or by closing our RfC (or worse, we get a bad close, or an admin protects the wrong version, etc.). If an editor sees a poorly-written article that violates NOTNEWS, but there are a group of editors WP:OWNing the article, we don't really have a way to address that. Someone was recently writing about binding content dispute resolution–I think it was Isaacl? (Apologies if I'm mistaken.) Maybe pilot that (or a return of mediation?) in the area of political BLPs? – Levivich 18:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I have written recently on binding content dispute resolution, and plan to release a proposal for discussion. Although I'm not optimistic that consensus can be achieved at this time to mandate such a process, perhaps there may be cases where the interested parties would voluntarily agree to it. (The "binding" part, though, would be hard to enforce without a larger consensus in place.) isaacl (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I think you've made a very good observation about quote-farming Levivich. I'll admit I have no idea if there's an AmPol2 project page where such modifications to the MOS and examples of model BLPs could be discussed. I did notice there were some comments made on the H R Clinton FA (BLP) recently by the principal author. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 14:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

A few more points:

First, in general, adding material to a PROSELINE approach is often easiest for newer editors. Find where the event happened in a list of dates, throw that event and source in there. End of store. So we get articles that reflect dates of announcements of planned events, or focusing too much on social media announcements, or the like. Filling out timelines is alluring. Same if you have another type of structure that is easy to organize and add too. (evidenced by "Reactions" sections of every world gov't to a mass death event; and the fact that if you leave an empty line in an infobox template, editors will want to fill that in with something). So part of the problem is natural tendencies of the editors to fill in as much as they can. But that's only part of the reason, and not something easy to fix.

Second, I would argue an additional consideration that I have seen, going back to the Gamergate situation, though I think the behavior I described was starting before then.

As the Gamergate situation outside en.wiki started to ramp up, we get media that was clearly critical of those calling themselves part of Gamergate. Because of "verifyability, not truth", our article reflected that. We got wave after wave of brigading IPs and new editors trying to force the minor/fringe viewpoints of Gamergate, which ultimately led to the 300/50 page protection because of that disruption.

However, I think emboldened by fighting those editors, existing editors on WP started thinking that to fight fire with fire, more emphasis on whatever the reliable sources published was necessary. Technically all within policy, but this, to a degree, meant than anytime a report dropped about GG, it needed to go up onto the article to assure that non-RS could be used to counter it. This in turn would often lead to any criticism of notable individuals tied to GG to be included appropriately - again, technically within BLP policy.

So now we're in a situation where we have one of the most hated Presidents in power, the media on edge in trying to report as much negative material about him, his ideas, and people that tend to share these ideas. Add in elements like the alt/far right, white nationality/supremancy, etc., and there is a LOT of media effort going to characters these people and groups as "bad" as far as they can do within ethical journalism. This leaves any material supportive of those groups in the minority (but which also tend to be FRINGE views). We end up documenting still under "verifyability, not truth", reflecting the media's take on the situation which frequently omits the views from the other side of the aisle. So just like at GG, we have new IPs and editors trying to insert the counter-views, which experience editors review, and bolster the media coverage by insert every mention of the topic in the news. This then extends to those that are seen favorably in the media's eyes as well. It has become this war of attrition as to document every ounce of media coverage that indirectly helps extend the media's general dislike for certain people and groups.

Now, I do not think any experienced editor is doing this on purpose or maliciously. I think its a pattern that developed that seemed natural and the right way to fight back against disinformation, all within policy. And because this has become popular in political circles, it has spread to other areas as well. I can fully understand editing this way feels right, as well as doing as much as WP can do without actively engaging in righting great wrongs. But, in the end, it has created this pattern that does ultimately run aground against NOT#NEWS - editors are writing for the now, not for 5-10-20 years down the road. There are other ways to fight disinformation attempts that still stick to policy and without weakening our articles on controversial figures, and still staying current on factual information. But we need editors to recognize this pattern, how it came about, and how to get out of it. There is no easy immediate solution, and one that I don't think can be implemented by establishing a new policy or guideline, but just reworking how some policies and guidelines are meant to interact. --Masem (t) 15:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment, soibangla, please read and take this discussion to heart. A number of your edits including these [[28]], [[29]] are the sort of thing that is under discussion here. This [[30]] isn't something to be proud of. Springee (talk) 02:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Springee, pinging me here is inappropriate. You got a gripe with me, take to my Talk page. Then again, don't bother. soibangla (talk) 02:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Let me offer a contrarian view. Let's start with policy. WP:NOTNEWS begins by saying "Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events."

Point 1 on "Original reporting" says that editors cannot engage in original reporting. I am unaware that any active editor engages in original reporting, so that is not an issue in my opinion. For example, I attended a local political event on Sunday where House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and California Governor Gavin Newsom spoke frankly about the political implications of the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton. I added no text about those speeches to Wikipedia because I am not a reporter, Wikipedia is not a newspaper and I do not believe that any reporters were present. I did, however, upload a portrait photo I took of Newsom to Wikimedia Commons. I see no ongoing problem of Wikipedia editors trying to add their own original reporting, and if it does occur, it can be dealt with promptly and decisively. Point 1 closes by saying "Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information."

Point 2 on "News reporting" wisely chides us not to include "For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities" because that "is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Accurately and neutrally summarizing how reliable sources characterize the political positions of notable politicians cannot possibly fall under this language. The policy language in this section explicitly does not exclude "including information on recent developments".

Point 3 on "Who's who" basically applies to WP:BLP1E which is not relevant to biographies of clearly notable politicians.

Point 4 on "Diary days" says we should not list all the ongoing events of a celebrity's day. I do not see a lot of content saying, "On February 30, candidate A flew to metropolitan area B where they spoke to farmers in rural community C, soccer moms in suburban town D and ethnic communities in big city E." Is that a problem? I do not think so. Any editor should revert that type of content on policy grounds if they see it.

None of the things derided here as violations of NOTNEWS are genuine violations of that actual policy language. Instead, they are things that a few editors here do not like. The fact of the matter is that Wikipedia's Main page has a prominent section called "In the news" that always features half a dozen or so current news articles of worldwide importance. Another fact is that 99% percent of Wikipedia articles about historic events of the last 18 years started out as summaries of newspaper coverage, and evolved over time into excllellent articles through the normal editing process. Another fact is that post 1932 American politics is covered under robust discretionary sanctions that give administrators heightened unilateral powers to deal with disruption and aggressive POV pushing in this broad topic area. The great weakness of the NOTNEWS policy language is that it recommends Wikinews as an alternative. Wikinews is a moribund project rated #59,184 in website popularity. Take a look at their article about the El Paso shootings, which is amateurish crap compared to the excellent and rapidly evolving Wikipedia article. Currently #3 in their news feed is "Wikinews attends Texas Haunters Convention", an article so bad that it defies description. So, sending editors interested in recent historic developments off to Wikinews is fit only for Alice in Wonderland. It's cray-cray.

WP:QUOTEFARM is a link to an essay that begins by saying "Quotations are a fundamental part of Wikipedia articles. Quotations—often informally called quotes—provide information directly; quoting a brief excerpt from an original source can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to explain them in one's own words." Of course, quotes can be overused but editors cannot rely on the QUOTEFARM essay for advocating radical reduction of quotes because it is not a policy or a guideline, and says no such thing.

All that stuff about Gamergate is really just an argument that we should abandon our core content policies that call for neutrally summarizing what reliable sources say, and instead let fringe, extremist figures spout their vile advocacy on Wikipedia in some misguided sense of "fairness". The day that happens is the day I resign from Wikipedia.

Instead of radically counterproductive measures, what we really ought to do is rely on the normal editing process, and our core content policies and widely accepted guidelines. That is what has made Wikipedia (despite its flaws) the #5 website in the world. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I actual disagree: coverage of a running candidate's political positions is "routine coverage" from the news, presuming it doesn't cause any further controversy. Or at least the manner of how we get one aspect of the position from one source, another aspect from another source, etc. While it is not wrong to build up a politician's positions this way, it's not writing from the encyclopedia long-term view. We want editors to look more at summary works that better encapsulate all elements of the positions than trying to piecepart from disparate sources. NOT#NEWS discourages the latter by nature of what today is routine reporting, given how many news channels there are running 24/7 coverage, compared to when NOT#NEWS was developed. --Masem (t) 14:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

To further add, this is nothing about trying to push fringe views, but instead getting editors to wait for better summarizing reliable sources to cover more subjective elements than trying to stay that current; this further removes the likelihood that FRINGE sourcing would be used if we are basing coverage on more retrospective articles than "written this moment" ones. This is not about the factors at work behind GG but only using the editing patterns from experienced editors in the GG case as an early example of this type of problem. This is happening, regardless if GG happened or not. --Masem (t) 14:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

A possible solution is being discussed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Tulsi Gabbard again. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

My views:

1. (1) It is very rare that recent reporting gets added to articles and the reporting is shown to be wrong. When it does happen, it's usually sources of marginal reliability such as Fox News (the RS status of which some editors above defend even though it has a record of fabricated stories and even though peer-reviewed publications say it is unreliable on certain issues) and Newsweek (which maybe once was a RS but should not be one anymore). So the argument that RS get things wrong and we should therefore adopt a policy of an arbitrary waiting period is weak.
2. (2) Most of the content that gets challenged on NotNews grounds is content that does in fact have long-term encyclopedic value. Opinions that something does not have long-term encyclopedic value are arbitrary, and in the overwhelming majority of cases that I've witnessed just seem to be WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. A recent example of this was a prominent senior White House official appearing on a national talk show and telling lies about the health care policies of the Trump administration - it was removed on NotNews grounds (despite extensive RS coverage) but then on a RfC there is unanimous support for its inclusion. Masem may think it's irrelevant that gubernatorial candidate X intends to kick Y thousand people off of Medicaid when he gets into office, but I personally disagree. Simply relying on RS coverage and talk page dispute resolution ensures that agreement is found on what is due weight and what violates NotNews.
3. (3) It is far easier to comprehensively cover an issue in an encyclopedic way when the topic is fresh and where all the sources are easily accessible. As someone who edits both on issues that happen now and which happened 10+ years ago, it is incredibly hard to add encyclopedic text to events that occurred years ago. The way to cover an event in a comprehensive and neutral manner is to write it up with contemporaneous sources, and then tweak in the years that follow if comprehensive works appear (usually these works do not rebut contemporaneous reporting).
4. (4) There's a bizarre distrust in the media in the comments above. I don't know to what extent these editors are familiar with the work of historians and social scientists (or non-cable news media for that matter), but publications in these fields are replete with contemporaneous reporting by the very same news outlets that the editors above treat as lesser sources of dubious quality. They also reflect an unwarranted disdain for journalism, a field comprised of people working under horrid job security and little pay, yet who do priceless work. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

1, 2, and 3 I would address as the fact that when you have 24/7 news coverage, it looks like we can stuff a lot of material into current event articles, but in actually that doesn't help in the long run for these stories, and it is better to write these from a summary standpoint, after the dust has settled and we can separate better fact from opinion and speculation. For example, Watergate scandal is one of the US's biggest political gaffes, and it was heavily covered by the media, but at that time, the media was not 24/7 - you had your morning paper, your morning and evening news, radio news updates, and maybe a special run. Because of this, the coverage is much more focused on actual events rather than speculation and opinion. The focus today on what any talking head says in an article or television news is far too displaced because we don't know the context if that commentary is going to be relevant or not when the event is over. I do appreciate the argument that older events, even with Google and archive.org, can be more difficult to write for because those sources become harder to find, but we should be trying to focus on how those events were covered years after they happened, rather than at the time. And if you are really wanting to document the news in real time, that is what Wikinews is for. We can then incorporate material in a more encyclopedic fashion from the Wikinews articles once we know how best to present the situation.

4 is not about distrust of the news, but simply its bias. Doesn't mean they are any less reliable, but they are going to be overly focused on some things and less focused on others, where if we were talking a truely neutral format there would be more "equal time" to a degree. That lobsided focus does influence our articles because of UNDUE and "verifyability, not truth" if we are using the immediate news reports as our basis. If we wait for the dust to settle and use more summarizing sources, that lobsided-ness tends to go away or shows why it was justified. --Masem (t) 15:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I think your rebuttal to 1,2,3 reflects a misunderstanding of the kind of content that's being added to political articles. No one is citing cable news segments, and I certainly do not add speculation and opinion (unless the opinions are written text authored by recognized experts) to articles. If such content is added, it usually gets removed immediately and uncontroversially. And the suggestion that we wait years for the birdseyeview historical assessment is impractical, because there are not going to be multiple high-quality peer-reviewed books on every subject, and not every peer-reviewed history book is written in a way that makes it easy to add relevant text to Wikipedia. Also, while I do add lots of peer-reviewed content and I would also prioritize a study over a contemporary news report, there are not many Wikipedia editors with easy access to gated journals and books. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

You may take care, but 90% of most arguments I see pop up at AN/ANI/AE related to AP2 is due to how current commentary from any old person is being included into an article, so there is a significant segment of editors that do not. No, we don't have to wait years, but we should wait for a few months to try to figure out what are the appropriate high points that 5-10 years down the road will be most important. I would actually argue that trying to figure out what is most important around a controversial situation as it is happened is approaching the "original journalism" aspect as it is assigning perceived importance to information before secondary sources have a chance to filter it. Now, there's a very grey line here because we also do the same on breaking disasters, and, myself in video games, writing about on the spot updates to works and the like. But I think in comparison, with these type of events, we know what is generally going to end up in these articles (For a disaster, when and where, what happened, how many died, for example) so we can recognize what is worthwhile information from past experience. But in political events, for one, that's generally impossible to know. Maybe a comment from a regular expect on the matter would be fine, but again, its generally the commentary from any random talking head that gets added. --Masem (t) 16:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I also completely reject that the media is biased against Trump or conservatives, if that's what's being suggested (something you mentioned earlier). If anything, I think the media unduly tiptoes around bigotry, falsehoods and conspiracy theories, and is afraid to call things as they are. As a result, by following RS, we are actually being overly careful. That's for example why I was forced to advocate that we refer to Steve King's racist rhetoric as "racially charged rhetoric", because that's how RS portrayed it one point in time (the RS changed its description of him as become more explicitly racist) rather than calling it "racist rhetoric". Also, of the peer-reviewed publications that have been published about political events in the last 5 years, they typically describe things far more bluntly than the purportedly anti-Trump media does, which suggests that media RS are being overly careful. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I have to disagree. Not that the media are being gov't watchdogs, they are doing that job appropriately, but they are doing it in a manner that I would say with ridicule and contempt to a point of trying to convince the public of their viewpoints. The media's job is not to try to sway the public but to inform them - unfortunately, this is the new status quo with "opinionated journalism" as adopted by sites like the AP. Now, we're not talking as bad as FOX here in terms of their advocacy, but they are advocating in addition to reporting, and we have to be wary of using the on-the-spot advocacy in en.wiki. The less we focus on trying to write from the breaking news and more from the long-term picture, the better off we are to avoid injecting media's opinions on the matters. --Masem (t) 16:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Masem, I am bewildered that you continue to recommend Wikinews, which is an abysmal failure. My time is too valuable to me to spend more than five minutes every six months looking at that trash heap, if only to verify for myself again how bad it truly is. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I have been here for years and wasn't even aware it was a thing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Because it was established by the WMF to be for more "news reporting" than "encyclopedia". WMF hasn't turned it off so it remains a viable project. The problem is chicken-or-egg - we need more editors to use it so that it gets more attention so that more editors use it, etc. The failure of Wikinews does not mean its functions should be done by en.wiki. --Masem (t) 17:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I submit that "viable" is not defined as " WMF hasn't turned it off". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

A simple change (which will never be implemented because reasons) would at the same time invigorate Wikinews and get rid of 90%+ of the conflict on Wikipedia. A simple announcement on every page saying "Wikipedia is purposely out of date by at least 48 hours. For late-breaking news on this topic see Wikinews". Sounds radical? Are we an encyclopedia or are we a newspaper? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it would be interesting to pilot this on one article and see how it goes. – Levivich 23:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The entire Wikinews concept is strange. Who would read a news aggregation service by Wikipedia editors as opposed to reading a normal news outlet? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Same answer as to why readers would turn to an encyclopedia to read about current news instead of a normal news outlet. Unfortantely, I have seen it argued that too many reader put their trust in WP to be so up-to-date to surprass news outlets in terms of current-ness as a reason to not follow NOT#NEWS. --Masem (t) 23:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

News stories are rarely written in an encyclopedic and comprehensive way. I don't know about you but I find myself reading a news story or a study, and then checking Wikipedia for the additional context that the study or news story lacks. For example, today, I appreciated that some great editors had written the Bruce Ohr page with contemporary reporting from 2018 to clarify the reports that emerged today. A few weeks ago, I was out of luck because I wanted to learn more about William Barr's role on criminal justice reform in the 90s after reading one 2019 story on his "key" role in tough-on-crime reforms, but unfortunately no editors had added contemporary high-quality reporting from that time, so the Wikipedia article had horrible coverage of his role in criminal justice reform. I had to add such content myself, but I could only find it in peer-reviewed criminology publications (databases for academic journals are better than databases for news reporting), which resulted in some improvements but the page's coverage of his role in tough-on-crime reforms still remains incomplete. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

We do not have to be up to date to provide that context that helps a reader coming from a news story to find out more. The problem usually starts when people start to double guess of what will be important in the future from a few days of current news coverage, and rush to insert the speculations, commentary, and opinion stuff. Coming back a few weeks or months after the events have died down, where there should be a better sense of what is actually important, would be key factors - or even if it is worth including to start. Today, a few weeks or months arent going to change news availability. And the lack of Barr's stuff in 90s is a factor of WP being a volunteer work. I bet that there's better coverage of newspapers and magazines of the time, but that's not going to be readily online, as you found. (I have found that the NYtimes actually has most of their back issues online, so adding "Site:nytimes.com" to a search on William Barr brings up a lot of possible sources like [31]). I do understand the argument that it would be nice to make sure we document sources "now" while they are available before they fall off the digital landscape, but realistically, that's on the order of years or decades, not weeks or months, and we can easily wait those weeks or months to have a better understanding of events to know what to use instead of trying to distill a massive amount of news in a short bit. --Masem (t) 23:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe this just speaks to me cognitive abilities, but I struggle to remember the details and nuance of political events older than one month (I am sure this is not just me). In my experience, writing about something six months down the line with six-month old reporting, as opposed to writing it with contemporary reporting as the stories are released, results in sloppier and incomplete editing that is more likely to lose nuance and violate neutrality. And in my experience, the reliable sources very rarely highlight the wrong things and overemphasize silly things of non-encyclopedic value - things that a hindsight view should expose. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

To that regard, there's two things. First, I'm often in the same boat in other topics that I can't write with an sureness if its been several months since I last read up on it. But the exercise of searching and reviewing the detail via a Google News searchs often helps to fine tune how to think about the topic in a more summary manner, since I'm not likely to read through every source that exists, and because GNews typically goes in reverse chrono order, I'll get the aftermath first and have a better idea of what's more important as I move backwards in time. Second, there is absolutely nothing wrong to drop links to articles that are believed to be relevant in the future but shouldn't be added immediately, on the article's talk page. {{refideas}} exists for this, but you may have more than that. Or a user page, or the like. So there's a way to keep "clippings" so that when you are sure things can be written with a more hindsight view, you have a body of work to remove.

And I strongly disagree with reliable sources placing importance/highlighting the wrong things. The press went crazy on Covfefe to the point we had an article on that. Fortunately, saner heads on WP prevailed, and recognized this as part of a broader, more enduring topic of Trump's use of social media. This is all tied to the bias on the media, particularly with Trump and those associated with him, trying to find any and all weaknesses to write about. This is what happens in 24/7 news coverage, any tiny issue can be seen as big major front page story if there's no other interesting news going on. --Masem (t) 00:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

The real problem in this thread, Masem, is that you are pushing a highly idiosyncratic misunderstanding of NOTNEWS, which is unsupported by the actual policy language. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I strongly disagree: I believe I'm restating the intent of points #1 and #2 under NOT#NEWS. Points that have gotten lost over the last several years. I mean, we had an RFC a couple years back that still affirmed NOT#NEWS is still a valid policy, not to be weakened nor strengthened in language, but given that we're seeing more and more conflict over trying to keep certain classes of articles (like politician) "recent" under claims that this is within the context of NOT#NEWS, tells me we may need to review that further (hence the discussion started here). --Masem (t) 17:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I think Masem's analysis is spot on. Rather than "pushing a highly idiosyncratic misunderstanding of NOTNEWS, which is unsupported by the actual policy language" he is pushing back against us slowly and without a lot of thought falling into a habit of violating NOT#NEWS on the pages of US political candidates. Alas, certain individuals who have spent years rooting for Team Blue, rooting for Team Red, or rooting for individual players on Team Blue have taken advantage of our mistake and are inserting whatever NOT#NEWS advance their political agenda. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

As recently as today, I've encountered editors who chafed at excluding material that was WP:TOOSOON on the basis that it might take months to get the sort of secondary source coverage necessary to be due inclusion on Wikipedia. Frankly, WP:NOTNEWS is as notable in how infrequently it is observed compared to other elements of WP:NOT. When someone puts up a blog post, or an indiscriminate list of cruft, or uses a userpage as personal web space, the community shuts it down quickly. But when people try to treat Wikipedia as a newspaper, well, even AfD doesn't work at that point. So I'd strongly support anything we can do to prop up adherence to NOTNEWS. Simonm223 (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree this is an issue; these edits are more prevalent than necessary in adding material to individual politician's articles. It is less clear what can or should be done. As a specific ping, @Informant16: is another editor that I've noticed making a lot of these changes; for instance [32] [33] [34] are all adding effectively the same (arguably unimportant) information to each of 12 senator's articles (one of twelve senators to sign a bipartisan letter). power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Until May, the lead to Judy Shelton said: Judy Shelton is an economic advisor to President Donald Trump^[1]. She was previously the director of the Sound Money Project^[2] at the Atlas Network. She is an economist^[3] with a focus on global finance and monetary issues.^[4] Then Trump picked her for an appointment [35]. The lead now says: Judy Shelton is an American economic advisor to President Donald Trump.^[1] She is known for her advocacy for a return to the gold standard (which is dismissed by almost all mainstream economists) and for her criticisms of the Federal Reserve.^[2][3][4] Trump announced on July 2, 2019, that he would nominate Shelton to the Fed.^[5] Looking at the article and its history, I see recentism and coatracking supported by refbombing and edit warring to make the article reflect a particular POV. Unfortunately, it's a typical example of an AP2 BLP. – Levivich 02:32, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion

We could have a WP:CENT RFC on a proposed guideline for inclusion of material in political articles, so that all new content should meet one of the following:

1. Covered in depth (more than repeating a press release) by three or more reliable broadcast or print, not web-only, sources.
2. Still subject to ongoing independent print or broadcast coverage after 3 months.
3. A policy that has become a focus of broadcast debates supported or opposed by multiple candidates.

I call out print and broadcast media because online publishing costs nothing. If a news organisation devotes costly resource to something, that implies a level of significance.

The blow-by-blow recentism is a real problem right now. Very few things get pruned when the news tornado moves on. And I would include serving politicians in this as well. Not every tweetstrom is notable. Guy (Help!) 12:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

There probably needs a bit more thought as it is not just limited - in this case political candidates, but generally any topic that has political implications. (Though politics is likely where 90% of the problems lie). Also to keep in mind, a few recent RFCs that we have to recognize exist and how conditions have changed to challenge them again or that what is being proposed is different: [36], and [37]. --Masem (t) 13:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:BIASED probably ought to be invoked for all political news reporting along with WP:NOTNEWS. That would require us to consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources (such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering) and.attribute specific statements about living persons to their sources. We might find we've eliminated most wrangling over the reliability of specific sources not specifically called out in WP:PUS.--loupgarous (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I like this Guy's suggestions, too. – Levivich 16:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

"blow-by-blow recentism is a real problem right now" You're wrong, to a slight extent — it's definitely a real problem now, but it's been a real problem for years. Look at an article about a prominent US politician whose time in highest office started after the beginning of Wikipedia, e.g. Donald Trump, and compare it to an article about a prominent US politician whose time in highest office ended before the beginning of Wikipedia, e.g. Bill Clinton. You'll see that blow-by-blow recentism is not really an issue with the latter: it's heavily weighted toward reliable secondary sources, not news reports. Or look at something non-political and examine its history, e.g. the multinational nuclear company Framatome. Its earlier history depends on retrospective coverage and is written in a style quite different from content dating from 2001 or later, which is heavily reliant on news reports. Or even something totally different, e.g. History of the Indianapolis Colts. In the earlier decades, we get retrospective coverage that compares seasons with seasons and provides a good overview. In the latter decades, we get tiny insignificant details, including how many passing yards they gave up in the first half of a lower-level playoff game. The solution is to require retrospective coverage, which we in the trade call "secondary sources", rather than using coverage originating at the time of the event, which we in the trade call "primary sources". Nyttend (talk) 02:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

What Nyttend said. Where secondary sources, especially scholarly sources, exist, we should be ruthlessly replacing in-the-moment news coverage with those. It's an approach I and others have used successfully in other contentious areas. It doesn't require policy adjustments; it requires the experienced folks in a topic to be quite strict in how they understand and apply WP:DUE. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

While I mostly agree with this, I don't think you've followed it through to its natural conclusion; if news sources are not secondary sources (which you seem to implicitly accept) and an article relies on news sources, it has failed GNG and should be deleted. I think there is a problem with how WP:RS and WP:NOR are generally interpreted. There seems to be no clear consensus on whether news articles are primary or secondary sources and the policy doesn't make any definitive statement on it. What WP:NOR does say is summed up by Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. That seems clear to me that news reports are not secondary sources, and one of the footnotes to that policy says, Duke University Libraries offers this definition: "A primary source is a first-hand account of an event. Primary sources may include newspaper articles, letters, diaries, interviews, laws, reports of government commissions, and many other types of documents. But the general approach in what might be termed "current affairs" topics is that news sources are independent and reliable and therefore good enough; whether they are primary or secondary sources is rarely even considered, and almost never as a separate concept to independent vs non-independent. A stronger statement in policy that news reports are primary, not secondary, would go a long way to clearing this up. The ramifications would be large; not being able to use news sources to argue that an article meets the GNG would lead to a flood at AfD, for instance. But would that be a bad thing in the long run? GoldenRing (talk) 09:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

News reports, like this, are generally primary sources. News analysis, like this and this, are generally secondary sources. The trouble comes with things like this: an interview with a father who is talking about the life of his son. Is it primary or secondary? I think it's actually a mix of both, and I think that's what most news articles are: a mix of reporting and analysis. I think updating policy pages to clarify these issues will be extremely helpful to editors, especially new ones. – Levivich 18:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: I take your point about the fuzziness of the terms "primary sources" and "secondary sources" as used on Wikipedia. However, I don't think it actually affects my point above, which is really about sources covering things in real-time, versus sources covering them retrospectively. We've long accepted news reports as counting towards notability, etc; but my point is that even if they're useful for determining notability, they're next to useless for determining due weight on a prominent political topic. We need retrospective sources, and preferably scholarly sources, for that. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: If it's not useful for determining due weight, it's also not useful for determining notability. Or it shouldn't be. GoldenRing (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: I think I disagree. A substantive piece in a good newspaper goes a long way towards notability for, for instance, someone working at a non-profit, or a scientist. An equally lengthy piece, however, is still not useful for determining whether content should be added to Donald Trump; because most US-based news sources published multiple lengthy articles about Trump every day. It's not so much the nature of the source itself, as the intersection of the nature of the source with the prominence of the subject. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: But we assess the "prominence of the subject" by how much in-depth coverage the subject has received in reliable, secondary, independent sources. Or we're supposed to. If you allow some types of sources for evaluating GNG but not DUE, you will end up in the situation where a subject has enough coverage for its own article but not enough to be mentioned in any other articles, which is absurd. GoldenRing (talk) 06:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

GoldenRing, I don't follow; I don't see how that's absurd at all. Prominent politicians will have a role in very many pieces of legislation over their careers. It will frequently be the case that those pieces of legislation are individually notable, but are undue weight in the biographies of all but their main sponsors (and sometimes, even those). National budgets are often notable in their own right, but mentioning individual budgets in biographies would be giving them undue weight. And so on and so forth. Biographies of relatively unknown figures are written by dredging up every known fact of their lives, and every source counts. When you have political figures about whom millions of news articles are written every year, writing their biographies becomes much more a matter of determining what to leave out or spin off; and the millions of news stories have, individually, nothing to contribute to that effort. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not referring to evaluating WP:DUE in general, but specifically with respect to those topics that have monstrous quantities of news coverage. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Recentism isn’t a politics-only problem; I’d actually say it’s editorially the single biggest problem Wikipedia has, manifest in a various number of ways (from band articles that just repeat “on X date Y played Z”, to “X in popular culture” laundry lists at the end of a fictional subject) to this in politics. But realistically I don’t think the comparison to Bill Clinton makes sense, in that there are long-form books, etc. that we can rely on. At this point there isn’t a lot of (good) scholarship on Trump and these recent news articles, so you have to rely on daily press. Requiring a certain number of publications to pick up on a story before inclusion seems like a reasonable stop-gap measure. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Like I said, simply disallow any source newer than 2 (maybe 3) days and put up a notice that, by design, Wikipedia is always a few days out of date, but Wikinews has all of the late breaking scoops you might want. This would get rid of roughly 90% of the conflicts on Wikipedia and would reinvigorate Wikinews. Bottom line: We have forgotten what the basic meaning of the words "encyclopedia" and "newspaper" are. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews is moribund and irrelevant. Sending people there is not an act of kindness, Guy Macon. Please do not send people on a quixotic quest. Start by trying to get "In the news" deleted from the main page, but of course you will be laughed out of town. We have countless thousands of very good articles about historic events of the 21st century that began as curated summaries of the very best newspaper and magazine coverage of the topics. Every Wikipedia article is a work in progress and evolving articles about recent news developments are the first drafts of history. The reference section of these articles are the curated lists of early sources that serious academic researchers can use as raw material for more serious later research. Trying to strangle the baby in its cradle is counterproductive, but some folks seem to enjoy these repetitive "go nowhere" policy musings. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Did it ever occur to you that "Wikinews is moribund and irrelevant" because Wikipedia is acting like Wikinews? If we started ignoring WP:NOTDICTIONARY the way we rotinely ignore WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and allowed all of the dictionary entries at Wictionary to be allowed as Wikipedia articles, then Wictionary wold also be "moribund and irrelevant". If we had a bunch of editors heavily invested in putting "In the dictionary" on the main page any suggestion that we start following WP:NOTDICTIONARY would also be "will be laughed out of town."

My suggestion (shared by several other in this discussion) that we actually follow policy should no be treated as if I was some nutter mumbling about Time Cube.[38] --Guy Macon (talk) 04:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The policy simply does not say what you imply that it does. People should carefully read the actual policy language instead of saying NOTNEWS all the time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for lifting editing/creation restriction

It would be nice if these very old restrictions could be removed. I feel they are a dead letter. (Indeed the creation was supposed to be temporary.)

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC).

• For clarity, I believe we're talking about these two discussions: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive218#Rich Farmbrough's persistent disregard for community norms and (semi-)automated editing guidelines and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive666#Automated creation of incorrect categories. The restrictions are as follows (taken from Taken from WP:EDR):

  Regardless of the editing method (i.e. manual, semi-automatic, or automatic; from any account), Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from making cosmetic changes to wikicode that have no effect on the rendered page (excepting those changes that are built-in to stock AWB or those that have demonstrable consensus or BAG approval). This includes but is not limited to: changing templates to template redirects, changing template redirects to templates (see here for AWB stock changes on this item, with the understanding that bypassing template redirects will only be done when there is a substantive edit being done), changing the spacing around headers and ordered lists (except to make an aberration consistent with the rest of the page), and changing the capitalization of templates. Furthermore, prior to orphaning/emptying and deleting categories or templates, the appropriate processes (WP:CFD/WP:TFD) should be engaged.

  Imposed October 2010, and

  Regardless of the editing method (i.e. manual, semi-automatic, or automatic; from any account), Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from mass creating pages in any namespace, unless prior community approval for the specific mass creation task is documented. The definition of "mass creation" and the spirit of the restriction follows Wikipedia:BOTPOL#Mass article creation.

  Imposed January 2011. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
• What reason does the community have to lift those restrictions? --Izno (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• It acts as a scarlet letter, and serves no useful purpose. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC).
  

• You say that they were "supposed to be temporary", but they are both indefinite, which means that no one thought they were temporary at the time they were imposed, except perhaps for yourself, or they would have had a time limit placed on them. You give no reason for lifting them, except, basically, that you don't like them. Considering that you have been the subject of quite a number of sanctions over the years, included a de-sysopping for cause [39], there's no particular reason that the community should lift these sanctions absent a very good reason to do so. Please provide a rationale for their removal which is pertinent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• I did not say they were supposed to be temporary, I said the creation one was:

I would expect the restriction to be temporary by virtue of soon being superseded by an amendment to Wikipedia:BOTPOL#Mass_article_creation. I would be heartily grateful if (a) we didn't waste any more time on this particular case of this problem; (b) Rich accepts the amendment; (c) someone else does the heavy lifting on moving forward the policy change. If/when it happens, the new restriction should be removed as redundant.

— RD232 [the editor who imposed the sanction]

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 07:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC).

• One editor speculating that a sanction would be superceded is not the same as a general expectation that the creation sanction would be "temporary". As I said, if they thought it would be temporary, they would have written it that way. They did not, they made it indefinite. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Related:

• Block log.
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive227#Rich Farmbrough violating editing restriction
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive229#Review of Rich Farmbrough's cosmetic changes restriction
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive241#Rich Farmbrough's editing restriction
• desysopping
• failed re-RfA
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive128#Rich Farmbrough
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive131#Rich Farmbrough
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive149#Rich Farmbrough

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• Note: "desysopping" and "failed re-RfA" added by me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Desysopping was as a result of a vacated arb case. And the RFA was not failed but went to 'crat chat which closed as no consensus at my request. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 07:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC).
  

• You aren't helping your case by misrepresenting easily-checked facts. The 'crat chat you linked to above starts with "We have an RfA that is numerically shy of the 70% expected for the typical discretionary range". That's the definition of a failed RfA. Also, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rich Farmbrough 2 has the result "The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed." You had your chance to withdraw before the RfA closed. You didn't and the RfA failed. At this point our page at Law of holes may be helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• I was referring to this. And I have amended my statement above to be more accurate. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 08:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC).
  

• Oppose Thanks for the handy links, Guy Macon. I had already gone over the Arbcom ruling and amendments. Rich's block log was, ah, informative. I won't say never but it would take a lot of convincing for me to go along with changing Rich's current restrictions. Old they may be but I'd say earned from the evidence. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The restrictions were earned through Rich's actions and after much discussion. They serve the useful purpose of preventing the resumption of those actions. If Rich wants to explain why those actions were wrong and to assure the community that they will not resume and to agree that an immediate block would be the proper outcome should any of them occur again then I might reconsider this. MarnetteD|Talk 00:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support my interactions with Rich have led me to believe that he is here in good faith and I therefore favor giving him another chance by removing these sanctions from eight years ago. Lepricavark (talk) 00:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• My question to Rich would be whether he intends to do either of the following: "making cosmetic changes to wikicode that have no effect on the rendered page" or "mass creating pages in any namespace, [without] prior community approval for the specific mass creation task".
  I'm mindful of a recent discussion where it was suggested that we could lift a TBAN where the editor in question wasn't intending to go do the stuff that was banned would agree that he'd abide by the TBAN even though it was removed from the rolls (WP:AN#Request to remove Topic ban). In other words, the editor was agreeing to have an off-the-books TBAN, which struck me as improper for a few reasons. My way of thinking is that if Rich has no interest in doing those things but does want the bans lifted so, for instance, there's no concern with things that might be edge cases (i.e., whether a handful of articles means "mass creation", or whether the occasional cosmetic wikicode change merits being dragged to AE/AN/ANI), there should be little problem with this request provided there's no recent (say within 6 months-2 years) issues with violating them. I would not make that exactly a binding guarantee since, as I said in that other thread, it's tantamount to an off-the-books editing restriction, which we shouldn't be doing. Rather, I'd consider Rich immediately going back and doing the same stuff that got him these restrictions, we could reasonably infer that he had lied in order to get out of this restriction, and reimposing/blocking would be appropriate. And if he does go back and start disrupting but beyond "immediately", the same restrictions can be reimposed.
  Another idea would be to add a sunset provision to both restrictions. Something like: "Effective on [date of closure], this editing restriction is suspended. On [date of closure + six months], if a community discussion does not reach a consensus to renew this editing restriction on the basis of Rich's conduct over the period since [date of closure], this editing restriction will automatically lapse. This paragraph is not intended to limit the community or an uninvolved administrator's ability to impose appropriate sanctions for disruptive conduct that is incidentally covered by the suspended editing restriction." Thoughts on this? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not a fan of the off-the-books restrictions and conditions either. I prefer a clearly defined set of conditions, explicit in the details. This is the current status quo. The sunset arrangement has problems as well, particularly if there is a delay on it (closure + six months or whatever.) This puts a burden on others to check up on Rich at a later time. Overriding some Arbcom decisions makes me a little queasy. There are levels of AFG and giving people another chance that I have trouble with. This is one of those times. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 04:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Mark Ironie This is not an arbcom provision, it was imposed by [[User:RD232], who left the project seven years ago, without a !vote. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 07:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC).
  

• Right, my thought with the sunset provisioning is more if people think there's reason to give Rich a shot (i.e., if he's not violated the sanctions in a long time) but don't want to risk a full lifting right now. I'm with you as there being an added burden to watch for problems, but I'm really not sure how much of a burden that would be. People subject to long-running sanctions—Rich had both community-based and Committee-imposed ones (the latter having been vacated entirely in 2016)—tend to have no shortage of folks checking up on them as a matter of course. Here's an alternative thought though: "After [date of closure + six months], Rich may open a community discussion on WP:AN to request that his status be reviewed and a determination made as to whether the restriction is still needed. If this discussion, having duly considered whether the restriction is still needed, does not reach a consensus to renew this editing restriction on the basis of Rich's conduct over the period since [date of closure], this editing restriction will automatically lapse." That way, the burden is on Rich to ask at the end of the probationary period before the restrictions will be vacated. I'm certain that the AN regulars would provide a robust discussion. Anyway just my thinking on how to approach this procedurally if it's decided to be worth trying. I'm still not decided on whether it's worth trying at all. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• I would have thought 9 years is probably a long enough sunset provision.... All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 07:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC).

• As far as I am aware, there is no such thing in Wikipedia policy as a "sunset provision", so citing it as a reason for lifting these sanctions is an invalid argument. Perhaps there should be sunset provisions. If so, then someone should propose it at WP:VPP and get it approved by the community. Until then, sindefinite sanctions stay in place indefinitely. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Mendaliv I do not intend to make non-rendering changes which do not have consensus. Page creation as described is now written into policy, which, of course, I do not intent to break. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC).

• Oppose - No reasonable rationale provided for removal. As demonstrated by the links above, RF has a history of being sanctioned, and a further history of then violating those sanctions, which means he simply cannot be trusted. Lifting the sanctions still in place leaves him free to take the same kind of actions that got him restricted in the first place. I don't trust him, and do not think that the community can afford to place its trust in him, any more than it did when he applied to be an admin again, and his RfA failed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Approximately 70% of the community supported my RFA. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 08:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC).
  

• Which put it in the discretionary range at the time, and the 'crats -- who are, after all, part of the community -- decided against promoting you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• No they didn't. To avoid placing them in an invidious position, and to avoid an adminship tainted by being a close call I asked them to close as no consensus. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC).
  

• The 'crat chat you linked to above starts with "We have an RfA that is numerically shy of the 70% expected for the typical discretionary range". In other words, a failed RfA. Also, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rich Farmbrough 2 has the result "The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed." BTW, good job getting Beyond My Ken to agree that both of you stop WP:BLUDGEONING this page and then continuing to post comments after he stopped. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• In fairness, here's the timeline: Rich agrees to stop, BMK says he has no more good faith for Rich, and then BMK says he'll stop. Not sure it was nice of BMK to take a parting shot like that, although he could have wrote it before seeing Rich's agreement to stop. Lepricavark (talk) 02:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• Actually, it wasn't a "parting shot". I made two (maybe 3??) comments, including one about the lack of good faith, turned my attention to other stuff (no edits, but a five minute gap in activity, according to my contrib log), and then came back to re-read the thread, which is when I saw Golden Ring's remark and immediately agreed to his suggestion. So, the history may look damning, but it doesn't actually indicated a parting shot, which it was not. In fact, I distinctly remember thinking that I wish I had seen Golden Ring's suggestion before I had added the previous comments, just for the sake of appearances. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• That's fair. Stuff often gets overlooked in these conversations. Lepricavark (talk) 22:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support in the absence of evidence that the banned conduct has been a problem in the last, I don't know, two years? Eight years on, IMO we should be giving someone the chance to show they've changed enough in that time that the restriction is no longer necessary; if eight years is not enough, I don't see any way that these could ever be lifted. I don't object to the sunset clause proposed above, but don't particularly support it, either. GoldenRing (talk) 10:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support per WP:Bygones (this page should exist). Seriously, restrictions from 2010??? I trust Rich to be wise enough not to be disruptive today, especially not in the manner he was disruptive nine years ago. — JFG ^talk 10:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support Eight years is long enough for these restrictions to be lifted.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• An indefinite sanction is not "infinite", but it does stay in effct until it is lifted. It does not dissipate, or fade away over time, it is just as much in effect at this moment as it was the second after it was imposed. These "support" votes seem to be saying that the evidence the sanctions should be lifted is the fact that the sanctions have done their job well, so we no longer need them. Someone attempting to get a restraining order lifted on the basis that they had stayed away from the person for the 8 years the order was in place would be laughed out of court - the fact that the restrainimg order worked is the evidence for the restraining order continuing to be necessary. Add to that that other people are providing rationales for the sanctions to be lifted, while RF has made no argument of substance at all, and you have more than enough reason to reject this frivilous and unnecessary request. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I have seen this Procrustean argument before. "It worked, so it was necessary. Had it not worked, a stronger sanction would have been necessary." By this logic indefinite is infinite.

Moreover there are side effects, people oppose granting of bits based on things like this.

I don't think that calling my request "frivolous and unnecessary" is WP:AGF - but then little you have said here is.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC).

You are correct. Your behavior ran out every possible bit of AGF I had regarding you years ago. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting the cosmetic restriction, as it was being broken as recently as Jan 2019. Primefac (talk) 15:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Could Rich Farmbrough and Beyond My Ken stop trying to bludgeon this request to death and let the community review it please? GoldenRing (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

  I'm game. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC).
  

  Sure, I'll refrain from further comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

  Thank you both. GoldenRing (talk) 12:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support I don’t see any need for these to remain in effect. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

  Mr Ernie, I respect your opinion/!vote, but have a question - regardless of whether it's a "good" restriction (i.e. let's put aside whether it's appropriate for the ban to be in place), do you think someone under a restriction should be violating it before they have it lifted? Primefac (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

  What was the negative effect to the project from breaking the violation? Mr Ernie (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

  In the case I listed above, and in general, hundreds of pointless edits and flooded watchlists. Primefac (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• support per WP:ROPE and the spirit of WP:UBCHEAP. The violation Primefac brings up is noted, but Rich's explanation was actually quite reasonable even if it violated the letter of the restriction. It's been nearly a decade; I think it's worth seeing how things go without the restrictions. Wug·a·po·des​ 22:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: I wasn't going to take a stand on this, limiting myself to providing some related links, but since then I have taken a deep dive into the edits in question. Too many errors of the type caused by poorly-written automated tools combined with a failure to preview the edits and fix obvious screwups by the automation. Things like nuking a ]] without removing the matching [[. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Just for clarity, this restriction does not apply to the type of edit you describe, only to edits which make no rendered difference. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC).

• Oppose as these restrictions really apply to all users. But most do not step over the line. Any mass action should have consensus. Our appealer here has not indicated that compliance will be observed, just that it is not nice to have restrictions. Mass editing requires mass checking and mass errors need mass fixing so much more care is required. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I see no evidence of a benefit to the community. Automated mass edits are difficult to safeguard on a good day, and user has not demonstrated a need to make them or the ability to make them safely. ROPE is not a good reason-- the user should convince the community the sanction is no longer needed before removing the sanction.-- Deepfriedokra 00:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't disagree, necessarily, but I guess my question is how Rich would show he can make these edits if he cannot make them? That's really the point of my rationale. If this is as recurring a time sink as Guy below says, perhaps the efficient route is to give Rich one last chance to prove us wrong, and if not we can resolve this quickly at that time. I'm fine maintaining the restrictions, I just think that, at this point, perhaps an ultimatum will save further drama in the future. Wug·a·po·des​ 00:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support per Graeme Bartlett. If these restrictions really apply to all users, what's the point of marking Rich with the aforementioned scarlet letter? By this token, you might ban someone from worse things, like "no replacing pages with obscenities" or "no disruptive sockpuppetry". If policy prohibits something, applying special restrictions to a certain person basically just gives enemies "gotcha" opportunities, which it definitely seems to me has been the situation with Rich. Just look for interaction between him and Fram, including five of the six "Related" links given by Guy Macon at 22:45, 11 August 2019. Nyttend (talk) 11:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • PS, for years I've noticed that Fram was frequently (maybe almost always) the one filing complaints about Rich. It's one thing if you edit in an esoteric area and one other person is basically the only one who has the chance to notice, but when you edit in a very public manner and one person is making most of the AN/ANI/AE/etc. complaints about you, to me it looks very much like you're being targeted, because if you really were the massive problem that's alleged, lots of people would have made such complaints. We shouldn't treat one person's persistent complaining as if it were truly representative of what most editors think. Nyttend (talk) 12:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

    Just as a minor note, I might not have been raising anything at ANI or AE, but I've noticed a lot of these issues over the years (as can be seen in Rich's talk page archives) - this is primarily because I'm an AWB/bot user and Rich edits in the same areas that I do. Just because no one has put something on a noticeboard doesn't necessarily mean they don't notice; I just preferred to discuss the issues with them on their talk first. Primefac (talk) 13:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

    • I think that whether the complaints lead to sanctions is a key point. If editor A keeps reporting editor B and pretty much every time editor B gets a warning or a block, that's one thing. If there is a long string of the result being no violation, content dispute/not an ANI issue and/or boomerang, that's another thing entirely. Either situation is a problem -- somebody isn't responding to feedback. If I kept being reported and warned, I would figure out what I was doing wrong and stop. If I kept reporting someone and my reports didn't result in any action, I would give up and stop reporting that user. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Very much like in the other case on this board, people with this sort of block log would need to give a very good reason for why we should explicitly allow them to do things that all users should not do in any event, and I'm not seeing it. Sandstein 18:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I am not asking for that, I am asking for special restrictions to be withdrawn. These have a tendency to be hair-trigger, as you know. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC).
    
• Oppose I'd like to see a taking of responsibility for the original bad acts before restrictions are withdrawn. Not breast-beating, but a meaningful discussion of what the editor did wrong, and a statement of how the editor proposes to avoid the behavior which caused the block in the future. Not "It acts as a scarlet letter, and serves no useful purpose". I note the number of years that have elapsed since the restriction was imposed. All the more reason for an indication the editor understands the reason for the restriction and isn't just saying "Yeah, yeah, let's get on with it" before getting the keys to the road grader again.--loupgarous (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
• Suport There is enough water under the bridge for us to be able to vacate restrictions that are now covered by policy and applicable to everyone. There may well be times when changing a poorly named template redirect to the template name is a valuable improvement for editors of an article. The change from {{Ill}} to {{Interlanguage link}} is an obvious example: my old eyes really can't make out the former, while the latter is very clear. If any other editor had made this edit, would we be complaining about it? I desperately hope not. I'm not encouraging Rich to make those sort of edits, but I'd forgive him for making that cosmetic(?) change, which makes such an improvement for editors like me. There really is no longer any need to treat Rich differently from any other prolific contributor (especially one with 1.5 million edits over 14 years). --RexxS (talk) 20:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose There's no need for such permissions at this time/per other opposes. Buffs (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• There's no request for permissions. Peter James (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support: I see many comments above about the OP's block log, so I reviewed it. The last block was in 2017; unblocking was swift and accompanied by a trout for the blocking admin. Before that were two 2013 AE blocks that disturb me for a number of reasons: in both cases, the same two people respectively reported and imposed sanctions; the block time escalated very rapidly (59 days then one year); and the violations in question do not seem especially clear-cut to me. While Rich certainly has more blocks to their name that is desirable, they have a long recent history of not being (justifiably) blocked. I accept the argument that there is no point in special restrictions that align with current policy. I also accept that Rich is justified in fearing that being under such restrictions will lead to "gotcha" sanctions for marginal violations. And I also accept that indefinite restrictions imposed a long time ago can reasonably be asked to justify their continued imposition. Bovlb (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Per pretty much everyone who has opposed above. I would say the restrictions serve a useful purpose in that they prevent the editor doing the things that caused the restrictions to be placed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support If there is disruptive editing the existing policies apply and can lead to sanctions. Peter James (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

  ​ There was disruptive editing, and sanctions were enacted. This discussion is about lifting those sanctions, not imposing them. Primefac (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

  It's about reviewing whether the sanctions should remain or not; is there recent evidence in favour of keeping them? Peter James (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

  I posted evidence, as have others, indicating that these sanctions should stay in place. Primefac (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

  The recent evidence in favour of keeping them is that RF is not editing in the manner that brought them about. RF hasn't really acknowledged that the editing was a problem and made no commitment to not resume that kind of editing. Thus leaving them in place is the only way to prevent further disruption. 09:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposed additional restriction (withdrawn)

Proposal withdrawn: not getting any traction. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed: If the above appeal fails, Rich Farmbrough is not allowed to appeal or otherwise ask again that his restrictions be lifted until January 1st of 2020. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC) Edited 23:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC) Support as proposer. The previous requests have been a major time sink. Note: If this passes, he makes another request after Jan 1. and it too gets shot down in flames, I intend to request a one year extension of this restriction. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC) @Guy Macon: Is this requested often? It's the first one I remember seeing (a poor metric), but if this is a recurring time sink, I'd be inclined to agree with you. Wug·a·po·des​ 00:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC) Oppose seems less than ideal to make this suggestion before the above thread has been closed, especially in light of the fact that it is not exactly SNOWing up there. Lepricavark (talk) 23:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC) Added the phrase "If the above appeal fails". I probably should have specified that from the start. Does that address your objection? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC) It kinda addresses it, but at the same time I don't believe such a restriction is necessary unless there's a recent history of Rich filing these appeals too frequently. Otherwise, it almost seems like piling on. To be sure, you could reasonably contend that this proposed restriction is preventative rather than punitive, but is it something we normally formally do? Lepricavark (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC) Not formally and not normally. There is an explicit six months before an appeal will be considered that is added on to many arbcom and ANI decisions, but there are plenty of times (I would guess more often than not) when this is not done. And of course any such time limit can be undone if, for example, new information completely exonerates the blocked user. That would be a legitimate situation to invoke WP:IAR. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Request to override Global range block

Ajraddatz suggested me to post here again my request so i created this new section because the previous had already been archived

I would like a local admin to whitelist the ip range 151.48.0.0/17 so that users from that ip range can edit again from ips

The ip range was globally blocked because an abuser used it to create many fake accounts in many projects so the problem was account creation not anonymous editing

Please unblock locally this ip range by allowing editing from ips and keeping blocked the possibility to create accounts to protect en.wikipedia.org

Semplicemente Agghiacciante Semplicemente Agghiacciante (talk) 08:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

It isn't possible to block account creation and not anonymous editing, but it should be possible to whitelist the global block locally. I confirm that the block is needed at the global level, but recommend that local admins/CUs look into whether it can be whitelisted here. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 11:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• Please note this was just requested a few weeks ago with the locally blocking admin declining to make additional changes. There is a current local block which appears superfluous to the global block, which may no longer be needed. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• It is accepted that a local override can't allow account creation if it is already disabled globally. The only quesion being raised here is whether it is worth it to re-enable anonymous editing (not account creation) on enwiki from the range Special:Contributions/151.48.0.0/17. Anyone who advocates this might try to click on that contributions link and try to find any useful IP edits from the six months prior to June, 2019. See if you think that anything positive was happening then. Unless some data is presented, I would go with the view of User:Anachronist whose name appears in the block log and so far has not decided to re-enable the range for IP editing. The user Semiplicemente Agghiacciante has an account now, so the block is not impacting them personally, provided they are willing to log in to edit. Simply allowing one person (who has an account) to edit anonymously from that range doesn't sound like a good enough reason to lift the block. EdJohnston (talk) 10:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Anachronist blocked that ip range on my request because he told me he could set account creation allowed instead of anonymous editing but it did not work

The ip range 151.48.0.0/17 does not cointain any more non constructive editing than any other ip range but more important the global block was set to stop an abuser from spamming accounts and messages across the wikipedias not to stop anonymous editing in en.wikipedia.org

And if that ip range is unblocked here it would be even easier to find out any disruptive editing from there because administrators would have just to have a look at the ip range once in a while

Semplicemente Agghiacciante Semplicemente Agghiacciante (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

(I've been away for a while.)

Yes, I experimentally changed the local block settings for this range to allow for account creation, but it seems the global block settings take precedence. I have no idea if this is intentional or not. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Anachronist, I believe you have to use this as well to whitelist the range. SQL^{Query me!} 01:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:RESTRICT Appeal

I'd like to appeal my edit restrictions at WP:RESTRICT as it's been over 6 months. I think I've become a lot better at using edit summaries and making fewer edits to a single page at a single time. Sometimes the preview options still doesn't render the page properly, but I'm looking for alternatives like Special:TemplateSandbox and the parse API. The current system where I need to add trivial edits to templates to the talk page isn't working as no one is 100% sure what queue they should be in and most editors who look at my request don't complete it because they are under the assumption I should be able to make the request myself, even when I put a notice. I would like the restrictions removed so I can make small template edits to navboxes and such, to update template documentation and to remove the vandalism I occasionally see in templates (normally documentation pages). I don't have any intents to make larger edits at the moment and I would go through the talk page first before doing any. The block and forced me into getting into the habit of using the sandbox, and I have no plan to stop doing so. I think the edit restriction has done its purpose by protecting template and module pages from my formally disruptive editing, making me use the sandbox and talk pages more often, making me make fewer edits to a single page at a single time, and making me use edit summaries more often. – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 16:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• I think it would be fine to amend this to "No editing in the Template and Module namespaces (10 and 828) with the exception of the sandbox/testcases/documentation" to allow for editing documentation sets. I haven't really reviewed the rest much. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
• Link to the restriction. Primefac (talk) 12:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
• Their edits to cs/jss pages in their userspace don't give me great confidence, but on the other hand they're welcome to make whatever test edits they want in their own userspace. Perhaps changing the restriction to "cannot create new templates/modules" and/or "max 1 edit per 24 hours per template", with a full lifting of the restriction in due time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:36, 28 August 2019

Extra Eyes Please on The Epoch Times

The article is the subject of a current and critical piece from Brietbart. (Can't post the link due to blacklist.) This could generate some attention from people who are either unaware of (or unconcerned with) our WP:PAG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Breitbart and Breitbart.zh are fighting? MichaelJacksonPopcorn.GIF

All joking aside I'll make sure it's still on my watchlist. Simonm223 (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Breitbart-induced insomnia, the worst kind of all.

-BMK

Not-so-thin Kong

-EEng

Wow, Breitbart really hates me. It's such an honour. Simonm223 (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

They can hate me too. I just SP'd for 4 days. Feel free to unprotect at discretion.-- Deepfriedokra 15:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• Interestingly, the article on Breitbart is slugged as by "T. A. Adler", which, we are told, is a pseudonym for User:The Devil's Advocate. Now Breitbart says (jn something that was undoubtedly written by TDA) that TDA was banned from Wikipedia because he "privately report[ed] conflict of interest editing by one of the site’s administrators." But the banning block notice points here, where it says:

  In remedy 8.5 of the GamerGate case, The Devil's Advocate was 'strongly warned that should future misconduct occur in any topic area, he may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion of the Arbitration Committee.' Accordingly, for continuing harassment of other editors, The Devil's Advocate is banned indefinitely from the English Wikipedia.

  My problem with all this is that now I'll be up all night trying to figure out which version is accurate, and which is a wishful-thinkong fairy tale made up by a long-term disruptive editor. Oh, woe is me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@EEng: I beg to differ. There is another. -- Deepfriedokra 08:20, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra: HUH? EEng 14:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Your pardon, it was Beyond My Ken that added the picture.-- Deepfriedokra 14:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

My fault, for usurping EEng's gig. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:04, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree it's good to keep an eye on possible Breitbart meatpuppets, but it's equally important to scrutinize edits for SPA editors like SecretRussian (talk · contribs), who popped out of nowhere to post the "information package" in the article. Due to the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests, pro-CCP shills are out in full force, with The Guardian reporting thousands of pro-Chinese shills being suspended in Twitter and Facebook. --Pudeo (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• A more charitable reading is that these edits by SecretRussian (talk · contribs) were, for no apparent reason, copying the existing rendered text of the article back into the wikitext. I wouldn't put it past being an utterly fumbled attempt to undo the immediately prior section blanking. Uncle G (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Topic ban appeal/lifting request

I want my topic ban on saints and religious figures removed. User:Primefac allowed me on 10 August 2018 to appeal this topic ban after the passage of six months. It has been more than 6 months and I have faithfully adhered to this restriction. In the meantime I have a strong history of constructive contributions, which can be seen in my edit history. Please lift this ban now. I think I have proven that I can contribute to the English encyclopedia constructively and I have learnt many editig skills which I would like to extend to the area of saints and religious figures. I have grown older and wiser since my last sanctions and I do not see why they are needed anymore. Thanks.— Hammad (Talk!) 05:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

For folks convenience, here is the ANI where that restriction was placed [40]. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support – In reading the ANI report, and looking at BukhariSaeed's history, I was admittedly pretty skeptical. A long block history, lot of nasty socking, that sort of thing. But the last ANI did agree to unblock Bukhari. And from what I can see, they have been a pretty faithful contributor since. A look through talk page history shows no major problems, save for one copyvio issue that seems to have been cleared up. They followed their other edit restriction (article creation by AfC only) perfectly, and created more than a dozen succesful AfC's in the last year. They've also racked up several barnstar/wikithanks in the last year. Plus, they're an admin on Urdu wiki with some 80k edits. Given all that and their good behavior, I think its fair that the topic ban be lifted. Hopefully Bukhari may someday become the poster child of editor reform. But I'd remind Bukhari that the Sword of Damocles still hangs over their head, and any wrong move should this ban be lifted will likely lead to permanent exile. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Having now read the original ANI, I understand why you finished off your positive statement with such a dramatic variant of the "but be warned" finish! Nosebagbear (talk)

• Query - hi @BukhariSaeed: - do you have any specific plan on what you would like to edit in the saints/religious figures area or is it "just" to let you edit it when you desire, without risk of hitting the TBAN? Nosebagbear (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nosebagbear, thanks for your thoughtful query. I would like to contribute to the biographies of medieval South Asian Islamic religious scholars with the use of high level academic sources which I have been collecting and reading. There's quite a lot of new content I can add from thi scholarly material in part of my project to update and improvise biographies of pivotal figures such as Shah Waliullah and Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi. I edit a wide variety of articles for which are non-existent or for typos and Wikification. If TBAN is lifted, I might think of contributing some constructive info in this area as well, although I am not inclined to stick or remain focused to this particular area as I am not a thematic editor. Thanks — Hammad (Talk!) 11:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support - I supported unconditional unblock in the last discussion and remain supportive now. At the time (a little over a year ago) they had 90k edits across multiple projects, and endorsements from admins on some of those. They're now a sysop themselves on Urdu Wikipedia and Urdu Wiktionary, have nearly 90k edits on urwiki alone and 140k globally, and have advanced permissions on eight wikis (including this one, excluding a few more with IPBE). Seems quite certain this user has reformed from their years-earlier disruption and is obviously here for the right reasons. Just one thing: would you consider editing your signature to better reflect your account name? It's not a requirement at all, just a suggestion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Ivan for your valuable suggestion. I'll discuss this (Signature) and many other valuable things with you individually and will definitely try to improve on this area as well.— Hammad (Talk!) 12:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

FWIW I think it's fine if some puts a real name in place of their username in their sig - if that's what's being done here. I can think of at least a couple editors who do this. My bigger issue is that on my tablet I could not make out the letters clearly so I wouldn't have even known what name it was supposed to have been. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support - no indications I can find of violations, and lots of the good areas to show good faith. 6 months was picked as the appeal time, so unreasonable to necessitate more. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:15, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support. The user duly complied with the ban and has shown to be a productive editor in multiple fronts/projects. – Ammarpad (talk) 10:40, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support Appears to be editing "within bounds" and appropriately. He's served the time and regained trust. Continue contributing in this manner and I see no future problems. Buffs (talk) 19:12, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

New admin user-script for processing requests at WP:REFUND

A new user script is now available for easily processing REFUND requests, User:SD0001/RFUD-helper, that automates most of the tedious work associated with undeleting pages, including userfications. Any feedback or new feature requests are welcome. SD0001 (talk) 05:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for putting this together! The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:14, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Likely to be really useful, thanks! N.J.A. | talk 01:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Nicely done! Thank you for designing this! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I went and added a small section to the administrator instructions of that process to point to the script you wrote here. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:44, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Can't create my own sandbox

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

---

I cannot create 2,144, ⅅ, 2,146/sandbox at this time. Please help. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2,144, ⅅ, 2,146 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Your username contains a problematic unicode character. Killiondude (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it's the ⅅ, I think. I'm surprised you were able to create that account. As it stands non-admins can't even create the account's user talk page. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that’s a blacklisted ⅅ. – Levivich 23:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Correct. Only admins, template editors, and page movers can create pages with names that match an entry in the title blacklist. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

The account has no edits (apart from the above) and was created two minutes before posting here. I recommend abandoning the account and creating a new user with a less confusing name. Johnuniq (talk) 23:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Soft blocked and given templated response for how to request a username change. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Admin needed to lock article (Extended confirmed protection)

This article is within the scope of ARBPIA: Trump_Heights

IPs has repeatedly shown up and pushed a strong non neutral pov. It needs extended confirmed protection. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done. But better to list such requests at RfPP in the future. El_C 06:09, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• Why is EC protection needed to keep out IPs? And why is any protection needed at all when there have only been 4 IP edits in August (one of which was fixing a typo) and only 2 in July? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:53, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

  This is an ARBPIA protection. We stopped protecting ARBPIA articles preemptively, but here we clearly have disruption, and usually we just need as much disruption to apply the ARBPIA ec protection. I believe this is the current practice, which can be changed (the upcoming PIA-4 case could be a good place to discuss this).--Ymblanter (talk) 08:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

  So EC protection is the *only* protection allowed by ARBPIA and there's no admin discretion? It looks to me like it's just standard discretionary sanctions that apply to ARBPIA articles. And if it's an ARBPIA protection, shouldn't it be recorded at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

  @Boing! said Zebedee: ARBPIA includes the General Prohibition on IPs and non-EC-editors editing articles. The preferred enforcement is ECP. So there is discretion and other protection is available, but this is different to standard DS. GoldenRing (talk) 10:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

  Ah, I see, thanks. What about logging the protection? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:54, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

  The ARBPIA protections must be logged, but many admins are just not aware of this.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, I believe this is correct. It's not often done though. There was a period where many articles were being pre-emptively ECPed and I doubt many were logged. GoldenRing (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

  OK, thanks folks. I have to say it's all the bureaucracy that always kept me away from any DS or Arb sanctions. Anyway, it was just academic interest. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

  I'm aware, I'm just forgetful! El_C 17:06, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

South Korea trying to manipulate Wikipedia (VANK)

Copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea

• VANK guidelines (in Korean, backup in case they take this down)

I've received this from someone @ Korean Wikipedia. The guide documents how to create an DRAFT for WP:AfC, how to bypass AfC by being autoconfirmed (with something wrong in the docs), and the initiative to change the some page title to Dokdo and East Sea. I am not sure where to post this so my natural choice is here.

— regards, Revi 05:27, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. Not sure if any admins are following this page. Might be worth copying this to talk pages of potentially affected pages. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:36, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Left a pointer to this page on the talk pages of two primary target, Liancourt Rocks and Sea of Japan. — regards, Revi 08:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

(For the sake of centralized discussion, I would like to ask to comment on the WT:KO#FYI: VANK trying to manipulate Wikipedia. — regards, Revi 08:52, 30 August 2019 (UTC))

2019 Arbitration Committee pre-election RfC

A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. Mz7 (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Cullen328

I was wondering if its appropriate for an admin to come to my page and threaten me with a block and follow it up with a threat of an indef block?
That happened within the last 12 hours with Cullen328. Out of the blue (though I suspect he was contacted by an editor with a grudge), I get the following message:

"Please consider this a formal warning from an administrator: If you use this gossip website or any other gossip website again, you will be blocked. Is that clear?"¹

"Read ZergNet before you say anything foolish"²

I followed up by pointing out that I had indeed read the wiki-en entry for zergnet (the source's parent company) as well as checking RSN to see if the source in question had ever been tagged as unreliable. Neither the source nor its parent have ever been mentioned at RSN. In response, I received the following from Cullen328:

"I am here for one purpose only: to enforce Wikipedia's policy, specifically BLP. That policy says: Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." That is why I am being firm with you. That policy says Avoid repeating gossip. Nickswift.com is without a doubt a gossip site. They call themselves a gossip site. They are widely called a gossip site online. It is absolutely unacceptable to use gossip sites on Wikipedia. If you disagree with my assessment of this website, then you must gain approval at WP:RSN. If you believe that I am being a "dick" then report me to WP:ANI. If you do not take those steps and I see you using a gossip site again, you will be blocked indefinitely"³

So, we have gone from a pretty dickish hello and a threat of a block to a threat of an indef block for asking for proof that the source has been determined by Wikipedia to be a "gossip site" (and no, the website doesn't call itself a 'gossip site').
Look, I know being an admin often sucks and y'all have to deal with some people that deserve to be slapped with a trout forever, but I think Cullen went pretty aggressive on this rather quickly. It was hugely unnecessary to warn me with indef block over a source that not even they can't prove is unreliable.
I decided to get some guidance here because I am concerned that, by further discussing the matter with Cullen328 will ruffle their feathers enough to just up and indef block me. Also, (s)he doesn't feel their behavior was at all inappropriate and suggested I come here to discuss it.
Content discussion aside, should I be worried about this admin's behavior? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Notice of notification: here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Cullen. This is aside from your edit war on the page. You're in the wrong, and it's pretty clear.--Jorm (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

It appears to me that the source of the trouble is your edit here [41]. Why did you think it was vital to make such a characterization in a biography, and to source it to a site that appears to trade in clickbait and celebrity gossip? I'd say Cullen's warning is on the mark. Acroterion (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Please note that I have mentioned here and elsewhere that RSN doesn't note that Nickisiwft or its parent are considered unreliable sources. That's what we are check before adding unfamiliar sources. Hindsight, it isn't the greatest of sources, but threatening me with an idef block for trying to ask about it seems pretty out of hand. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not close enough to OK that you should even have to ask, and you edit-warred to reinstate it after another editor told you it was inappropriate. RSN isn't a shield. Acroterion (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

My personal opinion that the reason that nickswift.com has never come up at RSN is because no one has ever seriously thought that they needed the community to weigh in on the fact that it isn't one. The "About" on the website (which was maddeningly difficult to click on, as it kept loading additional content every time I scrolled down to it), reads in part: We dish out the good stuff on all your favorite celebs, add expert analysis, then move on to the next hot topic. Furthermore, two of the main content headers are "The Dirt" and "Crime". Perhaps they aren't using the actual word "gossip", but they are doing so in as many words. CThomas³ (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

In the past 2 days, User:Jack Sebastian has had several uncivil incidents in response to BLP-related removals with colourful vernacular and personal attacks in his edit summaries and responses.[42][43][44][45] The last two diffs are in response to an administrator's warning. He has edit warred in response to the removals, demanding discussion and ignoring the WP:BLP mandate that poorly sourced material should be removed without discussion. Ignoring the warning from Cullen[46], he continued to revert to get his way.[47] He has had a history of disruptive conflicts with other editors if you look at his talk page.[48][49] Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Remember that editor I mentioned with a grudge? Morbid stalked my edits to the Baccarin article. What the user's diffs fail to show that they themselves were edit-warring. Kinda transparent, actually. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• Although the issue involved here (BLP) is much more serious, Jack's approach to an admin warning him is eerily similar to what happened at User talk:Bbb23#About refactoring. I suggest that Jack should be "worried" about his own behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian:, would you like to withdraw this complaint? MPS1992 (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• This is the online marketing tag for nickiswift.com: "The Dirt - Nicki Swift. Breakups, makeups, scandals, and more. Sort through celeb gossip dirt with your source for style and smarts." I rest my case. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Along with using a completely unacceptable source the edit summary includes the statement "please do not stalk my pages" which indicates WP:OWNERSHIP issues by JS. MarnetteD|Talk 17:45, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• Jack Sebastian should be blocked for his comments addressed to Cullen. If this thread hadn't been started, I would have, but now it's a community matter. I already see some consensus that Jack Sebastian needs to re-educate themselves on BLP/RS, and a block for these pretty dumb insults should be an option as well. A week is a good start, esp. on the heels of the comments directed at Bbb. Ironic: didn't their insults aimed at Bbb involve a boomerang? Drmies (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Please be aware of this related thread Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Morena Baccarin. MarnetteD|Talk 17:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Okay, let's address that comment, Marnette.

User Morbidthoughts takes issue with my edits at an article (Stoya). After presenting a highly-biased RfC, the user edits in another article where I have posted (the Baccarin BLP) - an article where they have never, ever edited before. I don't find the appearance a coincidence, esp. when Morbid tends to edit porn-related articles almost exclusively.

I do not consider any article - including my own talk space 'mine'. I apologize if my phrasing suggested own-y issues; I was simply asking an editor to stop stalking my edits. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I saw the blatant BLP violation while reviewing your diffs to build the evidence for the RfC post that you double dogged dare me to[50] and a prospective ANI complaint which you preempted with this complaint against Cullen. Funny how that worked out. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

By the way, I learned about this matter at WP:BLPN just before bedtime, evaluated the website, made my warning, and went to sleep. No other editor informed me directly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

A couple quick thoughts: I don't know Mr. Sebastian and want to note that I think a "don't stalk my edits" summary is, perhaps not ideal, but just fine in the overall. I don't know about any other articles or related conflicts, but I have to say: edit warring over this content, using this source, gives me real pause. Dumuzid (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

As I noted in my reply to Marnette:

"User Morbidthoughts takes issue with my edits at an article (Stoya). After presenting a highly-biased RfC, the user edits in another article where I have posted (the Baccarin BLP) - an article where they have never, ever edited before. I don't find the appearance a coincidence, esp. when Morbid tends to edit porn-related articles almost exclusively."

When a user scopes through another user's edits to snipe-revert, its usually considered stalking/hounding. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Look, maybe the source wasn't the greatest; I recognize that now, and would have abided by any decision made by the BLPN - had the filing user (the stalk-y one with a grudge) notified me of the discussion. Maybe I am used to admins who know how to approach a situation without threats, and double-down on those threats when asked about their handling of it. Subsequent comments on my talk page by Cullen328 seem to imply they are really, really aggressive, traits usually seen in admins, and certainly not at the first contact.

I had not knowingly interacted with Cullen before, and this behavior seems problematic. Am I wrong for thinking this? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)edit-

It appears to me that your judgment with BLPs is the problem: a topic ban from BLPs may be in order. Acroterion (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Jack has been here since 2010 and has over 11K edits. I think his misbehavior extends well beyond BLP and that a topic ban wouldn't resolve the problem. Despite users telling him here that Cullen's warnings were well-founded, he doubles down, not about the BLP issue, but about Cullen. It's the same thing he did to me on my Talk page, although he wasn't foolish enough to report me for my rather tame warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

In the meantime, Jack continues to edit war violating WP:BLPPRIMARY this time.[51] Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, without gaining talk page consensus, and in the midst of this discussion, Jack Sebastian is trying to add the birth name of porn performer Stoya to that article. The problems with this are several, not the least of which is that two different birth names float around porn fandom, and that whether or not to include one name or another has been debated at Talk:Stoya for a decade, and that the performer objects to people trying to use her real name. So, another BLP violation has occurred during this conversation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:59, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Rule number 4 on Jack's talk page is: If I have asked you to not post on my usertalk page, please respect that request and don't do it. If you do anyway, I'll simply delete it and seek your block. I have never interacted with this user before, but the "seek your block" part seems concerning. Clovermoss (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I used to get people who would come to my page, capslock scream at me and wouldn't go away when I asked them to. I am allowed to ask people to not post to my page and to seek redress for continued harassment, right? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian I agree that being harrassed is not acceptable and I understand why you wouldn't want to be attacked on your talk page. However, I don't think making comments like this [52] is the way to interact with others on Wikipedia. I don't see how anything Morbidthoughts has done could warrant that response. Clovermoss (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have refactored (ie. stricken-through) my post to reflect a less snarky tone with a page stalker (1).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Sebastian (talk • contribs) 15:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Yet he complains that I didn't notify him for the BLPN post.[53][54] after warning me in his colourful style.[55] His attempts at wikilawyering are clumsy. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

After reflecting on this and upon the advice of others, I am withdrawing my complaint against Cullen328. If the behavior is as problematic as I initially reported, I won't be the only person addressing it in the future.

For my own part, I apologize for using a source that wasn't the best. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• Jack has now filed a report at ANEW against Morbidthoughts regarding the Stoya article.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Post-boomerang

• (edit conflict) @Jack Sebastian: Cullen328 was entirely correct to act as they did. I am blocking you for a week for your ongoing edit-warring at Stoya, itself highly problematic in light of WP:BLP. Sandstein 19:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
• I don't believe that Sandstein's block should end this discussion. First, I think we need to return to Acroterion's suggestion of a BLP topic ban. Second, I think we should consider a longer block than a week. As far as I know, I didn't know Jack until he commented on the Talk page of a sock I had blocked...I undid his edit...he complained at my Talk page about essentially what a dreadful administrator I was. His style in that discussion, in the discussion with Cullen, and in this thread, which he had the very poor judgment to initiate, demonstrated cluelessness that you would not expect from an inexperienced user, as well as a passive-aggressive approach to talking to other editors. Worse, I don't think even now he has any insight into his own conduct. For those reasons, apart from the topic ban, I would block him indefinitely (I don't see the point of a limited duration block in these circumstances). That wouldn't mean he would be blocked permanently. Through the unblock process, he may demonstrate that he sincerely understands what's wrong with his behavior and how he intends to resolve it in the future. I don't think that's possible in the near-term based on his "withdrawal" comments here. OTOH, he says he is withdrawing his complaint against Cullen after "reflecting on this and upon the advice of others". Nothing wrong with that statement, but he then effectively says that the future may show that Cullen is a lousy admin: "If the behavior is as problematic as I initially reported, I won't be the only person addressing it in the future." He does something similar with the BLP violation except in only one statement: "For my own part, I apologize for using a source that wasn't the best." The apology is the good part, and "wasn't the best" is an attempt to diminish his reponsibility by making it sound like the source was acceptable but not ideal.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
• Their immediate unblock request was far short of what I would expect for such a lengthy series of problems in such a short span of time. Their interactions with other editors elsewhere have been dismissive. At the least, a long BLP tpoic ban is warranted. I've filed the necessary paperwork for discretionary sanctions, but that doesn't preclude restrictions imposed here by the community. Acroterion (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, I agree with Bbb23 that this discussion should continue, and if Jack Sebastian has comments, he can make them on his talk page and another editor can copy them over here. Saying that the source "wasn't the best" is failing to recognize that the source is absolutely and unequivically unacceptable. I admit that I was very firm with him but I believe that is called for when an editor persists with egregious BLP violations and tells another editor who brought the matter to community attention, "Don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining." Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I hope he was a fan of Garbage. I agree that he has no business editing BLPs with such a shaky knowledge of reliable sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen328: @Bbb23: Just letting you know that a ping and a signature have to be added at the same time to work. I learned that after making a typo in the username of someone I was trying to ping a few months ago. Clovermoss (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Note: Jack Sebastian has made a second unblock request. Clovermoss (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

You don't need to ping me in the future. His unblock request is entertaining, though. He calls the block excessive, punitive, and his behavior a "hiccup".--Bbb23 (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Are not BLP's covered by discretionary sanctions? Just topic ban him from BLP's in general. Its bad enough trying to keep them WP:BLP from drive-by randos without having to deal with long-term editors who know perfectly well what they are not supposed to do. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but the necessary paperwork (formal notification of the editor that there's a problem) came only after they were blocked for the present issue. To be strict on procedure, imposition of an AE ban would come into play if the behavior recurs after the warning. A community ban from this discussion has no such prerequisite. Acroterion (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Copy from Jack's talk page:

:Thanks, @Clovermoss:. I find that I do have something further to offer to the discussion:

Regarding BBb23's comments, it appears that he was upset that I asked him not to refactor (ie. remove my post). I didn't suggest that he was a "dreadful administrator". He asked me to remove my post and, after discussion, I did as he asked. I disagreed with him threatening me with a block right off the bat - I tend to get pissed at anyone who starts off a conversation with a threat. That, Bbb23 and Cullen had in common.

I will also reiterate that I did check with RSN to see if the source had been noted as unreliable or unsuitable for use. After the discussion continued in BLPN, I accepted the consensus that emerged. I even posted the findings at RSN, so that any other editor - checking as I had - would now find that the source was unsuitable. I thought it was the responsible thing to do.

With regards to the Stoya article, I would ask if someone could point out where any source I used there was not reliable. At issue in the article is the deliberate effort by a single editor (User: Morbidthoughts) to keep the subject's birth name from the article. This is decidedly unusual, as most of our mononymous-named articles at least note the person's birth name: Cheryl, Shakira, Zendaya, Elvis, Usher, Cher, Madonna and Beyoncé, Rihanna, Drake, Liberace, Morrissey. While those are permutation of her their name - as supposedly Stoya is. Some mononym stage names are invented (e.g. Eminem, P!nk, Lorde), adopted words or nicknames (e.g., Sting, Bono, Fergie). Stoya doesn't get special treatment. The wrinkle here is that entirely reliable sources exist listing two different birth names. After Morbidthoughts reverted (several times) the inclusion of one, I decided to use instead the one that they themselves had sourced and apparently prefered. Morbidthoughts violated 3RR in reverting even that choice out. In short, it wasn't going to matter what I added; it was just going to be wrong. When I reported them for violating 3RR, it was with consideration that this viewpoint doesn't better the article.

So, I used a bad source once - the first time in over five years. I completely acknowledge that I fucked up by using it. It doesn't matter that I checked it against RSN records; I should have erred on the side of caution, and I did not. I did follow consensus once it was determined and even took steps to make sure that someone else didn't try to use the same source. I think characterizing me as someone running around destroying BLPs willy-nilly is factually incorrect. I've worked on several BLPs over the years, and my edits and sources were - until now - never problematic.

I don't like being threatened by anyone. An admin threatening me with a block as a conversation-opener is just plain unhelpful, especially when that same admin can just point out a problem and ask for input instead of assuming the worst. I am not a new user; just talking to me works so much better than a threat. I suspect that's true with just about anyone. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Clovermoss (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian's comments about Stoya are just as ludicrous as his comments about Nickiswift.com, as I explained at Talk: Stoya. First, he wanted to ram in purported birth name A without consensus, and then he shifted to trying to ram in purported and contradictory birth name B without consensus. There is an ongoing ten year discussion about this matter on the talk page, and there is no consensus for adding a birth name. That list he posted of all those mononymous-named performers is a waste of time and not relevant because all of those birth names are well-referenced, uncontroversial and acknowledged by the performers. Mentioning Elvis Presley in this regard is really bizarre since he performed under his birth name. I have thick skin and can take the hostility easily but Jack Sebastian's ongoing personal attacks against Morbidthoughts are really unacceptable. He seems to think that this editor lacks credibility because they work on articles about porn performers. Baloney. We need competent editors working to maintain BLP policy in that topic area or it would soon be nothing but a fetid swamp. In these two cases, Morbidthoughts has been correct and Jack Sebastian has been wrong. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:51, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm also curious that in his 3RR report on me [56], he noted in the 2nd diff of his attempt to discuss the issue in 2013-2015.[57] Even though it's not obvious if he was one of the IP users in that discussion, this seems like a long standing grudge he has had. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposals

I have two independent proposals for sanctions against Jack:

• Proposal A. Jack be topic banned from all BLP articles indefinitely. He may appeal the ban in six months.
• Proposal B. Jack be indefinitely blocked for his behavior toward other editors.

Please include the name of the proposal when you vote.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support Proposal B because of his behavior towards Morbidthoughts and other editors. I do not care about his behavior towards me. Administrators get attacked all the time and I accepted that when I agreed to an RfA. I also support an indefinite block because of his repeated BLP violations at Stoya and at Morena Baccarin. Indefinite does not mean infinite. I hope this editor has an epiphany and files an unblock request in six months or so acknowledging their BLP violations and aggressive hostility toward their colleagues, and pledging to refrain from that sort of unacceptable behavior forever. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment This isn't at all fair — you need a proposal C, no topic ban and no block. I've not reviewed the discussion above and don't have any opinion which I'd support; we just need to have a "none of the above", or people who oppose both will feel like there's no choice for them. Nyttend (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• Of course there's a choice. Just as in all proposals, they can oppose both.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support Proposal A and Proposal B - I'm going to let Jack's own words to other people explain the rationale. He really does know better than he lets on here.[58][59][60][61] Really, "until he can learn to take responsibility for his own behavior, he is useless to the Project"[62] Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Copy from talk page:

When police arrest someone, they tend to over-charge them with every single offense they can think of, with the idea being that when they propose charging them with a crime that would be a hard-sell to a jury, they offer lots of other charges as well. This is to make it seem like they are doing the suspect a 'solid' by not charging them with the entire raft of charges, encouraging a pleas deal or to make the prosecutor look accommodating.

Bbb23 is proposing that I be banned from BLP articles or, in the alternative, be blocked indefinitely - demonstrating the tactic described above. For using a bad reference once. :In almost 10 years of editing. I've admitted my error. I've refactored some of my snarkier posts. It feels like Bbb23 is out for blood here (their comments seem to suggest such), and that is really disappointing. Blocks are not meant to be punitive. They are meant to be preventative, as per our blocking policy. I am not trying to harm the project or any article, and never have. I have made the mistake of presuming bad faith of two users who threatened me and of a user who edit-warred in two different articles - instead of disengaging immediately and reporting the problem to others. I additionally used a crappy source, even though it was not my intent to do so. I believe that a one week block is excessive, as it was preceded by over 6 years of no blockable issues. Therefore, I offer the following proposals: Proposal C - Jack be unblocked with a warning regarding the use of sources in BLPs, and to avoid the articles in question here.

Proposal D - Jack be blocked for a period of 48 hours, in consideration that blocks are not meant to be punitive and that the user apologizes for the use of a non-reliable source and presuming the worst with other editors. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Note: I need at least an hour before I can come to my own support/rationale of proposals. Real life is demanding my attention at the moment. Clovermoss (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

There's more, but I really can't stay around much longer.

(The second post, in response to Cullen's post:)

I deeply disagree with the characterization that I am discriminating against Morbidthoughts because they work primarily in porn articles. I frankly couldn't care less. I pointed it out because - after a disagreement with me, the user came over to an article that they had never been before and their first action was to revert me. No one else, just me. That seems a bit like stalking to me.

I'd also point out that Morbidthoughts has spent almost the entirety of the 10 years reverting out any mention of her name. This despite the presence of good sources that name her explicitly (1, 2). I'd even point out that the aforementioned sources were proposed by Morbidthoughts his/herself. Therefore, there shouldn;t have been any opposition to its inclusion, unless the user simply doesn't want any mention of the birth name. I mean, they have spent 10 years doing exactly that.

Because of this, there is no necessity of privacy, even if the subject wanted it. As well, there is no indication that she is trying to hide her name. So, good sources in an article about a BLP.

As far as the Baccarin article, I have admitted that I used a source found to be unusable. Did I fight it after a consensus emerged on BLPN? No (1, 2). In fact, I immediately went to RSN to notify them of the reliability of the source, as per the BLPN discussion (3). Once a consensus regarding the Baccain source emerged, I did everything I could to implement it immediately across the Project. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Clovermoss (talk) 23:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support Proposal B - (edit conflict) Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see "nickiswift" is a gossip site and that it should not be within a 10000 mile radius of any article on this project! The Telegraph one shouldn't be added for obvious reasons, Given the complete blatant disregard for WP:BLP as well as the disregard for WP:3RR I see no other option than to indef them,

We could just topicban then but we all know they'll wikilawyer their way around it and it'll probably be a repeated cycle, Lets cut to the chase and indef. –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 23:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support proposal A as BLPs seem to have been what led this editor astray. A chance to show they can be productive elsewhere, without the troubling behavior towards other editors feels worth a chance. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Jpgordon suggested in my unblock request that I need to commit to not edit-war, which I am prepared to do. If I disagree with an edit, I will use the article discussion page to do so (reverting only in cases of blatant vandalism - not wikilawyering, just pointing out that visitors will ovgten vandalize articles; and I know the difference between a normal edit and a vandal).
If agreement cannot be found there, I will widen the circle to follow the normal paths of DR. That's the way it is supposed to be anyway.
I am committed to not edit-warring within articles. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC) (reply)

• Support both per Cullen, Bbb, and the diffs in Morbidthoughts's !vote above. I am completely uninvolved in these disputes, but after reviewing some of the history, the problem seems to be more serious than edit warring, source selection, or a "mere" content dispute. JS's recent edits to this article (posting "out of wedlock" six times, before finally self-reverting) and this article (note the edit summary "are you actually arguing that it was not her name at birth?", then two edits later, adding a different birth name, with the misleading edit summary "adding reference")–the only edits they've ever made to those two articles–make me want to go through all their mainspace contribs to see what else like this may have gone unnoticed. Trying to edit war "out of wedlock" into an article is outrageous. That's somebody's parents you're talking about! That's somebody's child you're calling a bastard! Do you know how many BLPs we'd have to add that to, if we added such statements? And to violate BRD and 3RR over it? You've got to be kidding me. Add the "birth name" issue, and what this shows is a complete disregard for any kind of basic decency, never mind propriety–or policy, like BLPPRIVACY, NPOV and V. This is "CIR or trolling?" territory; this is running amok with BLPs. Then there's the WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDHT behavior, for example: [63] [64] [65] [66] all of which remind me of [67]. Deferring to my colleagues about whether B is best or just A is enough, but one of them is necessary to protect the encyclopedia, article subjects, and editors. – Levivich 01:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, I looked, and:
    • At The Boys (2019 TV series), Cloaked gecko changed "gay man" to "homosexual" (contra WP:GAY?)–with the misleading edit summary "Fixed typo"–and YoungForever changed it back. They went back and forth [68] [69], and then JS changed "gay man" to "homosexual" with the edit summary "yeah, just leave it be and leave your personal preferences at the door. Or discuss the change you'd llike to see, as per WP:BRD" (note that Cloaked gecko did the "B" and YoungForever did the "R", so JS is on the wrong side of this BRD here). A few minutes later, JS adds "homosexual" to another part of the article. When an RfC is started and WP:GAY? is pointed out, JS writes:

      As I am the one who replaced 'gay' with 'homosexual,' I wanted to weigh in.

      I was wrong. After looking at the source that YoungForever provided as well as checking both the sources of WP:GAY and limitied online research, gay is a more appropriate term to use than homosexual in practically every instance. Mea culpa.

      That said, I think that Ezekiel's sexuality isn't really explored in the series and since he seems so far in the closet as to practically be in Narnia, I think probably that MSM is probably a more on-target term.

      [emphasis added]

    The bolded part is a bit of WP:OR, like "I recognize 'gay' is more appropriate than 'homosexual', but I think he's in the closet, so let's go with MSM". Then JS changes "gay man" to "MSM", and when it's reverted, restores it with the edit summary "using that reasoning, we don't have a consensus for gay man, either. Finish this in talk, and kindly stop edit-warring". The next day, JS removed another instance of "gay man", and then another. I don't understand what JS has against the term "gay man".

    • At List of The Boys characters, JS removed a statement making a comparison to (competing brand) DC Comics's Justice League, sourced to Wired (magazine), with the edit summary "info behind paywall, unable to verify. Sorry." (Earlier, JS had watered down a similar comparison statement, also sourced to Wired, and other statements of comparison to DC were removed as uncited, see also this 2016 thread.)
    • That same WP:IDHT behavior and misunderstanding of policy at Talk:The Boys (2019 TV series)#Production. – Levivich 03:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support Proposal A based on Barkeep49's reasoning. Jack has made a lot of mistakes, but I don't think that he would've been an active contributer to Wikipedia the past decade if he didn't care about the project. I brought up the talk page and response to Morbidthoughts, and I agree that Jack definitely needs to work on being more civil in their interactions with other editors. Jack hasn't had any recent blocks (the most recent was 2016) and I think that he should have a second chance. Jack says he'll do better and I want to believe him. If his actions don't reflect that in the future, I would support Proposal B. <strikethrough> Clovermoss (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC) Update: What Levivich has pointed out bothers me. I'm starting to wonder if I made the right call here, especially on top of all the other stuff. I don't think behaviour like this is acceptable. Clovermoss (talk) 03:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC) It isn't acceptable. Edit warring over unreliable sources, edit warring on the The Boys (2019 TV series), violating BLP frequently, the incivil interactions with other editors... I've changed my mind. I'm supporting both Proposal A and Proposal B. Being around this long shouldn't excuse Jack's actions, if anything, it should make him more accountable. Clovermoss (talk) 04:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Speaking to Levich's comments regarding my edits to The Boys, I'd point out that I 9/10ths of my edits there were to remove unsourced information or rephrase grammar. As everyone here knows, there is a shit-ton of OR that ends up in our articles, tagged as uncited and left for years.

To me, it doesn't matter whether the article is about Quantum physics, Ferris Bueller's Day Off or Danny Elfman - we can't just toss in information without referencing the statements to a source. And it can't remain unsourced. Fully 75% of my edits in Wikipedia have been about either tagging a need for, removing or seeking out references for statements made within articles. In the Boys series of articles, they were drawing uncited comparisons between, say, the Deep and Aquaman - total OR. I don't care if a character is gay, MSM or whatever; I just want it cited so it is not us as editors making any sort of evaluation, but instead a reliable source. If the term 'homosexual' is cited, then fine. Its the evaluative assumption on the part of an editor who assumes that gay, homosexual and bi are interchangeable that gets us into trouble. In the instance where a comparison was drawn between the characters and DC characters, I didn't oppose the connection because they were a "competing brand"; that's inconsequential. I opposed it because there wasn't a verifiable reference connecting them to one another, and a source behind a paywall is pretty hard to verify. Once any statement is verified, any problem I had to the statement evaporates. Almost every single time.

Bluntly, I don't really focus on what statement is being made (apart from clearly FRINGEy statements); I just care that it is referenced, so it is a source making the comment, and not us the editors. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@JS: ...but when you changed "gay man" to "homosexual" or to "MSM" or removed it altogether, you didn't add a source. Those changes were to unsourced plot summaries. And how is it possible that you've been editing for 9 years yet believe that paywalled sources fail WP:V? I mean there's even a WP:PAYWALL that redirects to WP:V and says "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access" (and there's WP:RX to obtain paywalled sources). – Levivich 05:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: More evidence in the Sophie Turner article that he forces the inclusion of controversial matters in a BLP forcing discussion before removal.[70] The resulting talk discussion does not do any favours on how he interacts with other editors when he doesn't get his way.[71][72][73][74][75] Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• Definitely support A, holding off on B at present as Jack seems to have taken off the Spider-Man suit and come down fomr the Reichstag. Guy (Help!) 20:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
• I would support A Acroterion (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support A what has been shown here is enough to convince me this editor does not have an adequate grasp of BLP sourcing and the BLP policy in general. I do not oppose Option B but I have not looked at JS's behavior enough to feel comfortable supporting an indef from the project and I have no real motivation to spend my time doing so. Jbh ^Talk 20:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
• I want to hear if Jack Sebastian now realizes that shitposting about other users isn't done with impunity. If they do, then maybe such a realization can help forestall an indefinite block. Drmies (talk) 00:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Midland–Odessa shooting

Would an uninvolved admin please close the discussion in Talk:Midland–Odessa shooting#Naming the perpetrator. There is overwhelming WP:SNOW consensus there but one editor refuses to drop the stick and reopened the discussion. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 01:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

It'd be nice if we could continue to discuss, the content in dispute has already been added back to the article, but there is potential for broader discussion... and perhaps a compromise at some point. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

There is overwhelming consensus already that you are refusing to acknowledge. Drop the stick and move on, please. Nsk92 (talk) 02:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I have closed the discussion accordingly per WP:SNOW. El_C 02:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated. Nsk92 (talk) 02:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x2... There were two !votes that offered alternatives worth discussing. The WP:INVOLVED editor closing the discussion prematurely ended the potential for those discussions to bear fruit. Explain to me how leaving the disputed content in the article but not wanting the discussion closed constitutes "refusing to acknowledge" the !voting so far? Remember: this discussion started in the last 12 hours... —Locke Cole • t • c 02:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I think 12 hours is more than enough time when consensus is this overwhelming. El_C 02:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Half the world was asleep for most of that time. It was a strong pattern, no doubt. But a day should be the minimum, just to be surer. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:34, September 2, 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so. It sounds like a bit of a stretch. El_C 03:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not exactly half, and factoring in our userbase complicates the logistics beyond my skill level, but we do have people who schedule Wikipedia time for certain blocks of their days. Some are Alaskan, some Okinawan. I think it's a good idea to go a full turn unless completely consensual; knowing a dead guy's name isn't urgent, like having an active shooter's description (or a tsunami warning) should be. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:36, September 2, 2019 (UTC)

That's if we accept your notion that this wasn't clear enough, which I do not. Seems like that 24-hours rule you made up is bureaucracy for its own sake, in this case. A few hours is enough, however, when the preference ratio is ten to one, I challenge. El_C 03:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

No rule of mine, just a suggestion. You're free to use it or forget it. Can somebody hurry up with the Virginia Beach shooting one, though? Six dead folks have been waiting three months (180 times longer) for this same courtesy. Seems a bit too relaxed. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:53, September 2, 2019 (UTC)

A bit less whimsy would be the respectful way to bring attention to this. El_C 04:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

You have a strange notion of "whimsy". I'm saying six people were shot to death, identified by police, popularized through the media but swept aside on Wikipedia. That's tragedy in my books, and the respectful choice is remembering how they died for an article about their killer counterpart. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:12, September 2, 2019 (UTC)

Six dead folks have been waiting three months seems a bit tone-deaf, is what I'm getting at. El_C 04:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about that. If I knew how many living people are still waiting, I could've invoked them instead, but I don't. I could name more than six, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:26, September 2, 2019 (UTC)

Leaving the name of the shooter out of a shooting article? Yeah, right. Now, I've seen it all. Wow. Just, wow. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

This is the norm per BLPCRIME. Until they are convincted (Which will probably happen quickly in this type of sitaution), and the person otherwise unknown, it is better to leave the name out. --Masem (t) 03:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

He is dead; there will be no trial or conviction. He was killed by the police. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Until this is spelled out for mass shooting perpetrators (and victims), local consensus is going to decide. El_C 04:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I meant that our default position is to omit, but yes, local consensus can override. --Masem (t) 04:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Indeed. El_C 04:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Petition to Amend the Arbitration Policy: Interim Elections

I have started a petition to amend the arbitration policy on interim elections at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Petition_to_Amend_the_Arbitration_Policy:_Interim_Elections. All are invited to comment. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Guidance on duplicate threads?

Greetings, this is procedural housekeeping question and request for help.

I started a thread at an article talk page about neutrality. Then I posted a pointer diff at the NPOVN intending to steer traffic to the article talk page, so we could have a single discussion at a single place, per WP:MULTI. What is actually happening is chaos. Some eds post at one but not the other, and several duplicate their posts in both. The two venues are

• intended main discussion at Talk:Climate_crisis#Wikivoice and "climate crisis"
• intended comment solicitation and pointer diff at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Wikivoice_and_"climate_crisis"

If you deem it appropriate, please consider hatting one or the other and steer future traffic to the other. Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Eric Corbett

The Arbitration Committee has been made aware of and has independently confirmed that Eric Corbett (talk · contribs), since his public retirement, has been abusively misusing multiple accounts and disruptively editing while logged out. Eric Corbett's accounts are hereby indefinitely blocked by the Arbitration Committee. Accordingly, the case request involving Eric Corbett, which has been accepted by majority vote, will be closed.

Support

• Courcelles (per mailing list)
• GorillaWarfare (per mailing list)
• Joe Roe (per mailing list)
• KrakatoaKatie (per mailing list)
• Mkdw (per mailing list)
• Opabinia regalis (per mailing list)
• Premeditated Chaos (per mailing list)

Oppose

Recuse

• Worm That Turned (per mailing list)

– Katie^talk 14:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Eric Corbett

WP:Draft

Administrator Deb unilaterally moved the page Mohamad Barakat to draft without specifying any reasons and did not react on my complaint even though as I now saw the rules clearly say

"The aim of moving an article to draft is to allow time and space for the draft's improvement until it is ready for mainspace. It is not intended as a backdoor route to deletion. As a matter of good practice the editor moving a page to draft should mark its talk page with the tags of any relevant projects as a means of soliciting improvements from interested editors. ...

Requirements for page movers

To unilaterally move an article to draft space, you should:

• notify the author (this is facilitated by the script User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js),
• be accountable for your draftification decisions per the standard described at Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability

If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and list at AfD."

I find it very rude to move an article that has numerous reliable secondary sources and to which several users contributed for more than a year to draft without even specifying reasons on request. Ironically this was the reaction to a complaint about repeated vandalism on the page by single purpose accounts Rafaelbernardes, 2804:14C:36:8B7A:E436:A2AA:BB32:F8B, and Nicolegomesa who so far were not sanctioned in any way.[76] I don't remember the cases but this is not the first time I see articles being moved to draft without following due process. Apparently not everyone is aware of the rules - I wasn't until I read them but I am glad they are the way I think they should be rather than how some users would prefer them to be. Regarding accountability I think it would be good to keep track of such incidents. Omikroergosum (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

We can delete it as blatant advertising if you'd prefer? Guy (Help!) 19:11, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Well Deb is I believe an administrator, but it's far more likely this was draftified as a function of WP:NPP. And Guy is absolutely correct. The other alternative is speedy deletion as unambiguous advertising. John from Idegon (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually it only got up to the level of advertising because the BLP violations were removed. There might be enough sources out there to write an article which is policy compliant but it will take an editor who understands Portuguese and does not want to write a hatchet job on the subject. Jbh ^Talk 20:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Jbhunley nominated the page for deletion,[77] it was speedily deleted and then recreated after Phil Bridger contested the speedy deletion because "the negative content is reliably sourced"[78] (immediately reverted by Jbhunley).[79] It was then again moved to draft by JzG [80] ignoring the rules that I pointed to above.

It was advertising when the vandals about which I complained deleted the parts on the internationally reported doping scandals and put Portuguese content, links to his social media pages and amazon links to his books.[81] Draftifying it again without discussion even after I pointed to the rules here clearly saying this is not allowed is scandalous, in particular with the justification that it lacks reliable sources given that even after you deleted the content on the scandals 11 sources remained even though the main content on those touching the doping was censored [82] and everything in the article is based on the sources. I tried to move back but JzG now protected the page from creation. I expand my complaint to include administrators Jbhunley and JzG whou should be held accountable for breaking wikipedia rules in the same way as Deb. It is also erroneous to point to new pages control given that the article is more than a year old and in a previous deletion it had been decided to speedy keep the article and the user nominating for deletion was blocked for sockpuppetry and accused of paid editing.(User:2Joules). Jbhunley even writes in his own edit summary that he doesn't have sufficient language skills to make qualified judgments on the sources but still deletes well sourced content over speculations.[83] JzG even reverted a nomination for draft revision [84] and threatens me with a block for "disruptive editing" [85] although all I ever did is adding content based on high quality reliable sources and I showed here that he broke wikipedia rules. The draft was reduced to non-negative content that to me seems barely notable [86] and those who did that refuse to specify which parts they object to and why. Special interest accounts and administrators who think they need to help them but don't follow the rules should not make contributing to wikipedia such a difficult experience. Omikroergosum (talk) 21:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not an administrator. Jbh ^Talk 22:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Would still be nice if you could help to follow due process and refrain from deletions based on poor foreign language skills. Omikroergosum (talk) 22:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Omikroergosum, In the past hour and a half you've edited the comment Jbhunley replied to nearly a dozen times. Do you have your reply sorted yet? SQL^{Query me!} 00:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• My more detailed reply is on the article talk page to keep content discussion there rather than spreading it all over WP -- per my reply to the OP's comments on my talk page. Jbh ^Talk 01:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

SQL, I carefully did not edit parts of my post that Jbhunly had replied to. I felt I had to add difflinks and give more context as apparently readers are misled by single purpose accounts to believe that the very well sourced article is in violation of rules for articles on living people.

This discussion here is not about the content of the article but about the repeated abuse of admin powers by circumventing draftification in order to circumvent deletion discussions (which in this cases had already been held). Omikroergosum (talk) 06:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Given that JzG deleted the draft even after I showed the rules clearly say draftification is to be undone if a user objects (in this case two users did), a formal deletion discussion had come to the decision to speedily keep and JzG was accused of abuse of admin powers but still kept acting on the case I have to bring this up at the Administrators' Incident page. Omikroergosum (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

There are two competing versions of the article: a blatant advertisement, or your version, which is an attack page. Your seem pretty determined not to hear anything that contradicts your opinion. Guy (Help!) 07:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

OP has now opened a thread at ANI on the same topic. John from Idegon (talk) 07:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing to this that I had announced above already as the repeated abuse of admin powers unfortunately converted this into an urgent case rather than a general discussion on apparent lack of knowledge about the rules regarding draftification. JzG aka "Guy", please stop repeating your empty claim over and over, specify your argument in a deletion discussion if you so much want it and follow due process. Omikroergosum (talk) 08:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I have moved the ANI report back here as a subsection. El_C 08:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I think the discussion should rather be moved to ANI because this is now an urgent case of repeated abuse of admin powers rather than a general discussion on apparent lack of knowledge of rules on draftification. Omikroergosum (talk) 08:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

No, the discussion should not be split, regardless of the perceived urgency — which does not really factor here, anyway. El_C 08:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I meant to move rather than split the discussion. And repeated abuse of admin powers is clearly an urgent incident. Omikroergosum (talk) 08:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• A reasonable solution may be:
  1. Undelete and merge all revisions of the article and draft into a singe edit history;
  2. Nominate the result for regular deletion under WP:notability (people).

  But actually I don’t expect the establishment to desire any solution like it – scores of such cases could in the future deter sysops from thoughtless clicking on [delete] in disregard of the policy. The policy would become more important than the establishment. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Repeated abuse of admin powers

A deletion discussion on the article Mohamad Barakat had come to the decision to speedily keep the article and the user nominating for deletion was blocked for sockpuppetry and accused of paid editing.(User:2Joules). However, administrator Deb unilaterally moved the page to draft without specifying any reasons and did not react on my complaint even though as I then saw the rules clearly say

"The aim of moving an article to draft is to allow time and space for the draft's improvement until it is ready for mainspace. It is not intended as a backdoor route to deletion. As a matter of good practice the editor moving a page to draft should mark its talk page with the tags of any relevant projects as a means of soliciting improvements from interested editors. ...

Requirements for page movers

To unilaterally move an article to draft space, you should:

• notify the author (this is facilitated by the script User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js),
• be accountable for your draftification decisions per the standard described at Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability

If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and list at AfD."

I find it very rude to move an article that has numerous reliable secondary sources and to which several users contributed for more than a year to draft without even specifying reasons on request. Ironically this was the reaction to a complaint about repeated vandalism on the page by single purpose accounts Rafaelbernardes, 2804:14C:36:8B7A:E436:A2AA:BB32:F8B, and Nicolegomesa who so far were not sanctioned in any way.[87] I don't remember the cases but this is not the first time I see articles being moved to draft without following due process. Apparently not everyone is aware of the rules - I wasn't until I read them but I am glad they are the way I think they should be rather than how some users would prefer them to be. Regarding accountability I think it would be good to keep track of such incidents.

After I brought this up at the Administrators' Noticeboard, administrator JzG claimed the article was "blatant advertising" although it was only advertising in the versions by the single purpose accounts I had complained about when they put Portuguese content, links to his social media pages and amazon links to his books.[88]. A user erroneously justified administrator Deb's action pointing to new pages control although the article was more than a year old, numerous editors had worked on it and there was the result of the deletion discussion. The article was then speedily deleted and users claimed it was an attack page. As another administrator pointed out that the negative content was well sourced it was recreated. However, ignoring the rules, administrator JzG draftified it again. The draft was reduced to non-negative content that to me seems barely notable [89] Jbhunley admitted in his own edit summary that he doesn't have sufficient language skills to make qualified judgments on the sources but still deleted well sourced content over his speculations that things might be different.[90] He refused to specify which rules on biographies exaclty had been broken by which part of the article.

JzG then even blocked the article from recreation, [91] reverted a draft revision nomination, posted a warning to block me on my talk page for "disruptive editing" [92] although all I ever did is adding content based on high quality reliable sources and I showed here that he broke wikipedia rules. JzG then even deleted the draft along with the discussion even after I had complained about his violation of Wikipedia rules, which should have stopped him from acting on the case. He also uses a different name in some of his messages, which can make other users think that there are two different users who share his opinion. It was claimed that the artile lacked reliable sources although there were 17 of them from top quality media like ARD, Veja, Globo... Everything in the article is based on the sources. Administrators JzG should be held accountable for breaking wikipedia rules in a much more flagrant way than Deb who has abstained from the discussion after I brought up the complaint at the Administrators' Noticeboard. Special interest accounts and administrators who think they need to help them but don't follow the rules should not make contributing to wikipedia such a difficult experience.

Please block the single purpose vandals Rafaelbernardes, 2804:14C:36:8B7A:E436:A2AA:BB32:F8B, and Nicolegomesa, restore the article and start another proper deletion discussion if you so much want it, warn admininstrators Deb and in particular JzG, as well as user Jbhunley. Omikroergosum (talk) 07:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The final version of the article—i.e. the version from which the BLP violations and irrelevant PR puffery had been removed—in full read Mohamad Barakat is a Brazilian physician of Lebanese descent practicing in São Paulo. He has been sharing his daily life on social media since 2014. He has more than a million followers on Instagram. Barakat has published a book on how to live a healthy life and is a frequent guest talking on the topics on radio and television.! Barakat and his wife have a daughter. If you can write a version of this page that complies with Wikipedia's rules, feel free, but we're not a general webhost; the deletion was completely correct. ‑ Iridescent 07:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Please be specific in how far the well sourced content was in violation of BLP and follow due process, which is to nominate for deletion if a user (and in this case several users, including administrators) object to deletion and draftification. How ironic to claim that an article is an attack page and "PR puffery". He also published two rather well selling books, both of which were well sourced and with ISBN. Omikroergosum (talk) 07:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Can Iridescent explain how is it G10 then? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

It was a blatant attack page; the material quoted above is what was left behind once the inappropriate content had been removed. You can complain all you want, but you're not going to find any admin on Wikipedia who is willing to restore this. ‑ Iridescent 07:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

All content was extremely well sourced. Please explain how an "attack page" can at the same time be "PR puffery". You cannot just make a wild claim to justify that due process was not followed and the article was already restored by an administrator and another administrator had decided to speedily keep. Omikroergosum (talk) 07:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, there were two competing versions. One was your attack page, the other was an advertisement. Given the obvious marginal notability of the subject, we don't need either. Guy (Help!) 08:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

That is your opinion that you repeat over and over. As already at least two administrators and several other users expressed they share my opinion that this is a valid article (Count Count and Atlantic306 in the deletion discussion ruling to speedily keep, the administrator that reverted your deletion yesterday, those users that had edited the article before deletion, and Incnis Mrsi above) and as the rules clearly state a deletion needs to be justified by a proper deletion discussion please undue your violations of Wikipedia policies. Omikroergosum (talk) 08:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, zero administrators have agreed with you on this. But you can add me to the list who think deletion was the right call. This was a straightforward violation of WP:BLPCRIME, and getting over that hurdle requires showing that the subject of the article is either WP:WELLKNOWN, or that the crime of which the subject is accused is obviously notable, rather than WP:NOTNEWS. In any event, this is by no means an urgent issue, nor is there any admin abuse going on. You have all the time you want to put together an argument for undeletion. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

You cannot see what was deleted: The administrator who recreated the article after JzG deleted wrote the negative content is well sourced. You apparently also did not read the deletion discussion whose final decision was speedily keep and in which I convinced that Barakat is not notable for a crime but for being a celebrity doctor omnipresent in Brazilian media and accused of questionable practices by several journalists as well as a singer who won a defamation case started by Barakat. Those actions may or may not be illegal. As I pointed out at the time, Eufemiano Fuentes of course also has his article even though he was even acquitted. Your argument that the guy is not well known shows you have not looked into the case as there were 17 sources, most of them highly reliable and some even international showing he has more than a million instagram followers, published two well selling books, is near omnipresent in Brazilian media and even raised the attention in far away countries like the UK and Germany. Admittedly seeing this became difficult after the repeated deletions by JzG. This is clearly an urgent case as administrators repeatedly violated the rule that deletions and draftifications need to wait for a decision in a deletion discussion if a user objects, and in this case not only I objected but an administrator had even restored and a deletion discussion had come to the result to speedily keep. Omikroergosum (talk) 09:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

A couple items of note Omikroergosum. Someguy1221 is an admin and can see what was deleted. Also the speedy keep was because the AFD had been "Nominated by confirmed blocked sockpuppet" and the non-admin closer did not comment on the content of the article. MarnetteD|Talk 09:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The administrator who had wanted to delete wrote himself in the deletion discussion that he changed his vote to weak keep.[93] If Someguy1221 read the deleted content and still claims no administrator agreed with me the article is well sourced or that Barakat is not well known or that he is only notable for a "crime" I am afraid I have to see he must be either extremely careless or he is just lying. And even if he were right this would still not be a justification for the flagrant violation of the wikipedia rule that a draftification is not acceptable as a means to circumvent a proper deletion discussion. Omikroergosum (talk) 10:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Given that you appear to have now moved on to outright lying, I've temporarily undeleted the talk page in question so everyone else can see that your claims are untrue. ‑ Iridescent 10:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Please show me where I lied and I apologize right away. Otherwise I take this as a personal attack. Thanks for undeleting as I never had a chance to see the finally specified objections by Jbhunley [94] as they were deleted before I could see them. Omikroergosum (talk) 10:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, there's at least two administrators and several other users expressed they share my opinion that this is a valid article when you've not provided an example of a single admin who feels this is valid (as I've already explained on my talkpage, because of the way Wikipedia operates it would only take a single admin objecting to the deletion to get it restored), If Someguy1221 read the deleted content and still claims no administrator agreed with me…, where I've just restored the deleted talk page complete with all its history and it's clear nobody (admin or otherwise) agreed with you, the wikipedia rule that a draftification is not acceptable which you seem to have just made up… ‑ Iridescent 10:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

A) Count Count is not an admin. B) I did not say that Barakat is not well known - I said that it needs to be shown that this is the case. C) You are making an assumption that your own conclusions are so obviously correct that no reasonable person who saw the same evidence could disagree with you. Whether you choose to keep thinking that way is up to you, but it's not a great attitude for collaboration. I don't think you're lying, but I do think you are confused about some things, have made some colorful interpretations of other things, and overall are approaching the situation with an unhealthy intensity. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Someguy1221, quite. I am seeing distinct shades of WP:RGW here. It reminds me of the guy who got banned for trying to blaze the trail in publicising Lance Armstrong's drug use. Guy (Help!) 10:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

If Count Count is not an admin I admit I got that wrong. I assumed if someone can close a deletion discussion it must be an admin. Getting something wrong is not a lie. The article was restored yesterday and a user reverting wrote in his edit summary that the negative content was properly sourced. I assumed if it was restored this must have been done by an admin but as the history is still deleted I cannot even see who it was. I take writing that negative content is properly sourced as an agreement with me. I also take the above question by Incnis Mrsi how the article violates G10 as an agreement with me that it has not been shown how it violates such rules. I also take those several users who edited the article after his creation without deleting content and without asking to get it deleted as an agreement with me that the article has its value. I showed very clearly that Barakat is well known with 17 sources, most of them reliable top quality and several even international, they clearly show he published two books that he presented at many prominent venues, he has more than a million instagram followers and has posed with dozens of (even international) stars. If you claim that does not show he is well known I don't know what to say. And I repeat, even if you were right, that does not justify to abuse admin powers to flagrantly violate the wikipedia rule I pointed to above that draftification is not an acceptable means to circumvent a deletion discussion. I would call it an unhealthy intensity if an admin draftifies a page after he was shown this violates the rules, then deletes it twice even after it was undone, blocks the page from recreation and threatens good faith editors who contribute with top quality sources to block them. This while three single purpose vandals who repeatedly posted Portuguese advertisements and refused to discuss still remain unpunished. I have to admit that I cannot stand injustice and authoritarian condescending behavior at all. I believe wikipedia has its great value because numerous editors respectfully work together. Unfortunately this is not always the case. Omikroergosum (talk) 10:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC) PS: Thanks for the interesting link on Righting great wrongs, JgZ. I hope you have read it. "if you want to ... Explain the "truth" or "reality" of a current or historical political, religious, or moral issue ... on Wikipedia, you'll have to wait until it's been reported in mainstream media." As you will see from my contributions I used to edit on quite a variety of topics so I don't see explaining the truth on anything as my mission here but mainstream media started to report on the questionable practices by Barakat 6 years ago... Omikroergosum (talk) 10:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

In fact, administrators are empowered to act unilaterally in the enforcement of WP:BLP, and so even the sequence of events you describe is not prima facie evidence of misconduct. In other words, you are describing something that an administrator is allowed to do. Administrators are also empowered to evaluate whether there is or is not consensus, and whether that consensus is or is not based in policy. If an administrator has a good faith belief that an article exists in violation of BLP, he is permitted within reason to boldly act on that belief even in the face of opposing voices. There is a process to dispute the deletion of an article. It starts with opening a civil dialog with the deleting admin, and follows with a post to WP:DRV if that does not satisfy. If a single admin is shown, by reversal at DRV, to be habitually out of touch with the community with regards to speedy deletions, then there would be a reason to start talking about warnings or sanctions against them. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Omikroergosum You keep lecturing me on how I am not allowed to do things because you have pointed out the "rules". Have you noticed that you have zero admins supporting your position here? You have 500 edits, largely pushing this "drugs scandal". I have 120,000. It might be that I know the rules better than you do. Ort it might be that I am wrong, but your style is simply spectacularly counterproductive. Guy (Help!) 11:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

As you may have seen, I only started to get drawn away from my other activities by the repeated vandalism of this one article I once created and then the refusal of you as administrator to accept the wikipedia rule that a draftification is not an acceptable means to circumvent a proper deletion discussion. Please explain how the article was restored (twice if I understand correctly?) if there was no admin who disagreed with you. The whole article is entirely based on reliable sources as someone (I thought an admin) that you will be able to identify yesterday confirmed in his edit summary and you refused to specify what exactly you object to. Your zillion edits don't justify a condescending way to react on a well explained complaint about clear vandalism by three single purpose accounts and a clear violation of wikipedia rules (Deb never claimed the article was violating rules on biographies of living people) by abusing your powers and repeatedly keep acting on a case in which you were accused of abusing your administrative powers.

Someguy1221, I don't care if sanctions are taken on Deb or JzG (although in the latter case repeatedly taking action when he himself is accused of misconduct is another violation of wikipedia rules) but I think such cases should be noted somewhere because otherwise users have no chance to see without much effort if an administrator has a history of such conduct. And I think the article needs to be restored to start a proper discussion as it is extremely well sourced and the only ever proper discussion on deletion was to keep it. Please also note that in my attempt to have a civil discussion with the deleting admin he started to threaten to block me and never ever showed precisely why exactly he thinks there is a violation of rules on biographies of living people inspite of another user reverting with the justification that all negative content is properly sourced and Incnis Mrsi asking how G10 was violated and the previous decision to keep the article. Omikroergosum (talk) 11:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Overturn and immediately defer to a new deletion discussion; restore as courtesy blanked - no fault to anyone here but this deletion was botched at several stages and needs to start from scratch. We have a no-prejudice speedy keep in a previous discussion as well as several objections to both G10 and G11 deletion in the deleted page's history; it should have been blanked and left to discussion. Neither G10 nor G11 are listed under criteria which override previous deletion discussions, G10 only applies if the content is entirely unsourced, and G11 is for pages which are blatantly promotional - this was poorly written but not blatantly promotional. As for the real-life situation, I have difficulty Googling for foreign language topics but from what I put together from Brazilian sources, this individual is a notably controversial celebrity doctor ([95], [96], [97]) who became embroiled in a scandal with a Brazilian singer over wrongly prescribing anabolic steroids ([98], [99], [100]) and also made news recently when he accidentally posted to Instagram a video of a lewd encounter between him and his wife ([101], [102]). Someone who actually reads Portuguese should review the sources, I have no idea of the accuracy of machine translations or the reliability of these sources, it's worth noting that I can't find any information whatsoever on the individual in English-language sources, and I'm not really convinced these points establish notability per our criteria for an article (considering BLPCRIME and such) but this is all consideration that should happen in a deletion discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

  I agree. Furthermore, such a restoration would be entirely compatible with policy and is regularly done at WP:DRV (where this discussion should have been held at the first place). Regards SoWhy 12:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

  I'd support that. To be honest, I wish I had just speedy deleted the thing in the first place, since notability had not been established. I saw that there had been a lot of edit warring, and I made the mistake of giving the creator an opportunity to improve it in draft space. Deb (talk) 12:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

It is just a blatant lie that notability has not been established. Read the rules. There are numerous reliable secondary (and even international) sources that have in depth coverage. Notability established. Period. And there was a decision to keep, so no speedy deletion. Accept the rules please. Thank you very much Ivanvector and SoWhy for pointing to due process. Would be nice by Deb and JzG to finally acknowledge that they went wrong on the Wikipedia rules and by JzG to take back the threat to block me (for pointing to the fact he violated rules). Most importantly, as to my knowledge Mohamad Barakat is not accused of a crime but of questionable medical treatment on sports people (that is what he is most notable for as there was in-depth coverage internationally) and using a title he does not hold (which I guess is not a crime but maybe an administrative offence). A source in English is here: [103] Omikroergosum (talk) 12:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Is there a semi-automated tool that could fix these annoying "Cite Web" errors?

Per inquiry, I would like to know if any such tool exists to fix errors like these. They just started appearing out of nowhere today, and if it can be helped, I'd rather not fix these errors one by one manually. Sk8erPrince (talk) 12:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

What page is this from? The history might have clues as to why this is happening. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Also ping Trappist the monk who seems to have been playing with Module:Citation/CS1 today. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

(ec)This appears to have been caused by an edit made to Module:Citation/CS1 by user:Trappist the monk; they have changed it so that the templates ({{cite journal}}, {{cite magazine}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite web}}) require a work or periodical parameter. This will of course mean that a huge number of articles (I dunno, millions I bet) are now showing such errors. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The changes do not seem to be appropriate at all as there are many changes is a widely used template that should not have occurred without a strong consensus, and they should have been widely advertised. I propose that changes to Module:Citation/CS1 be reverted. However rage and discussion is taking place at Help talk:Citation Style 1. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

(ec x2) Those were an unpleasant surprise to me earlier today. I found this discussion which may lead to the answer. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 12:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: It's from Pretty Cure Dream Stars!, but I couldn't see a point in its history wheer the refs failed (looking @Citationbot, e.g.). Mind you, it's had some bizarrely massive fanboy edi-warring in uts two-year history. A discussion some-err-four years ago deprecated hyphenated parameters (i.e. |deadurl= rather than |dead-url=), so I guess it's been restarted. ——SerialNumber54129 12:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: I've screencapped it from Precure: Dream Stars. Though, this is not the only page that has this sort of problem. Almost every page I watch (I have over 1100 articles on my watchlist at the moment) have this problem. Examples include Funimation, Steve Blum, Shinkansen Henkei Robo Shinkalion, etc. Diannaa's analysis is sound - the change made to the template has indeed affected a lot of articles. Sk8erPrince (talk) 12:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

This looks to be a result of Help talk:Citation Style 1#update to the cs1|2 module suite after 2 September 2019 and the discussions linked therein. Sam Walton (talk) 12:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Sam Walton. Tbh, if that's the "discussion", it looks more like a cosy chat between two editors rather than a consensus-building exercise as found elsewhere on the project. ——SerialNumber54129 12:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

So I take it that this is a case of fixing what ain't broke? I'm sure many of us would appreciate it if we were at least notified that these changes will be occurring. Not to mention, as noted above, this change has affected a large amount of articles, so it makes no sense as to why the change was made without consensus. I agree that these changes will have to be reverted for now to prevent even more confusion from spreading. Sk8erPrince (talk) 13:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• I have reverted the change to the module due to it disrupting a very large number of articles, pending its maintainer addressing the errors in the recent update. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)