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
• 4 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 5 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 8 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 29 sockpuppet investigations
• 20 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 6 Fully protected edit requests
• 2 Candidates for history merging
• 2 requests for RD1 redaction
• 54 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)

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 [26], 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)

  Editing in a manner that brought the restrictions would be the only alternative; is that what you recommend? Peter James (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

  No - I was clearly answering your question "is there recent evidence in favour of keeping them?" I'm not sure how you came up with anything else. Neither I nor anyone else posting here want the disruptive editing to start up again. MarnetteD|Talk 17:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

  The only way for that to no longer be true is for RF to resume editing disruptively. If you don't advise that, is your advice to edit in a manner you are saying is evidence against lifting the restrictions, or is there another alternative I have missed? Peter James (talk) 14:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. I can see no benefit either to Rich Farmbrough or to Wikipedia to lifting these restrictions. If Rich Farmbrough doesn't intend to go back to causing disruption, then keeping the ban in place causes absolutely no inconvenience, but we've unfortunately learned from long experience that this is an editor who consistently interprets "this isn't specifically forbidden" as "the fact there's nothing in writing explicitly banning this means I'm entitled to do it no matter how much disruption it causes". ‑ Iridescent 14:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• Note, just as a reminder, both WP:MASSCREATION and WP:COSMETICBOT (as well as WP:AWB's logic with respect to WP:GENFIXES) have had significant overhauls since 2010/2011, and are now much more restrictive / clear as to what they encompass. It's certainly possible that the restrictions are no longer needed in light of those updates. As for myself, I'm mostly indifferent either way. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:54, 4 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)

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 [27]. 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)

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 [28]. 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.[29][30][31][32] 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[33], he continued to revert to get his way.[34] He has had a history of disruptive conflicts with other editors if you look at his talk page.[35][36] 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[37] 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.[38] 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 [39] 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.[40][41] after warning me in his colourful style.[42] 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 [43], he noted in the 2nd diff of his attempt to discuss the issue in 2013-2015.[44] 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)

Because the editor has expressed contrition and promised to do better, I now Support Proposal A. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:28, 4 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.[45][46][47][48] Really, "until he can learn to take responsibility for his own behavior, he is useless to the Project"[49] 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: [50] [51] [52] [53] all of which remind me of [54]. 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 [55] [56], 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.[57] The resulting talk discussion does not do any favours on how he interacts with other editors when he doesn't get his way.[58][59][60][61][62] 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)
• Support A but oppose B based on Jack's recognition (see his Talk page) that his behavior toward other editors has been improper and that he criticizes others for behavior that he himself engages in. I think he should be given a chance to demonstrate the changes in behavior that he promises. Schazjmd (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

After reading what others have written, I realize that I do indeed take my interactions with others far too seriously (and personally, if their opinions don't align with mine). Its feels like I have advised millions of other users to at more civilly when I have failed to follow that very same advice. I am fully committed to being more polite. I can disagree with someone in RL without making them feel like crap; I need to be able to do the same here, esp. because of the medium.

Additionally, While I think I have done a lot of pretty fine work on BLPs (admittedly, most of it is removing the term "best known for" or removing peacock language), I clearly went off the rails with the Baccarin edits. As far as the Stoya edits, I should have assumed better faith regarding Morbidthoughts' resistance at adding RS-sourced material regarding her birth name. I should have talked to them more, and widened the loop on the discussion if headway wasn't found. As I've said before, if its cited, it belongs in there. If not, it shouldn't be in the article. What I did wrong there was not to poison the well with the other editor working that article, and I should have asked for more eyes on the article, instead of asking the other editor to do so. But those are just symptoms of the problem. I have been really uncivil to others. I admit that I give as good as I receive, and that needs to change. After all, most of us are here for the same reason. I need to remember that and practice what I preach.

What can I do to make this better? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC) (reply)

• JS has received some good advice and feedback from a few editors on their talk page, and after reading what JS wrote here, as well as the additional stuff at their talk page, I'm thinking that it's always better if an editor can fix their own mistakes rather have sanctions applied, especially a long term productive editor. Maybe some sort of voluntary restriction relating to civility and/or a voluntary 1RR restriction and/or voluntarily agreeing to steer clear of BLPs for a while, until the community's confidence in their editing is restored? The thing about voluntary restrictions is that they don't require other editors to adminster/oversee, and if they're violated, they can still be reported, and I think the community would perceive a violation of a voluntary restriction as being the same as a violation of an involuntary one. In any event, just kind of thinking out loud here; would be curious to know if anyone else has read the talk page discussion and what they think about it. – Levivich 16:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• After a lot of thought, I'm going to Oppose Proposal B and leave a decision on Proposal A up to the rest of you here. As someone who did some stupid things as a young, novice editor a decade ago, I came in wanting to give JS the benefit of the doubt as much as I could. Still, I found his attitude towards other contributors, in particular, extremely concerning, and his continued personal attacks and edit-warring even as he claimed to have owned up to his mistakes, had me ready to support both proposals. Seeing as how JS has finally taken some personal responsibility and committed to playing well with others, however, I'm ready to give him another shot. Again, I'll pass the buck on whether a six-month BLP ban or maybe some voluntary alternative, as Levivich proposed would be more appropriate for the time being. Rockhead126 (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree to a voluntary 1RR on BLPs (as I noted previously, my typical edits in them is to remove OR descriptors such as "best known for"); I hope to revisit that self-imposed limitation after 6 months but even then, I am determined to not have to revert more than once after that self-imposed limitation.

Additionally, I absolutely agree to use article discussions far more effectively than I have of late. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, and being rude or dismissive makes collaborative editing a lot more difficult. I fully commit to being more a part of the solution than the problem. If I have a problem in discussion I cannot resolve, I will widen the circle to involve other users, as more collaboration is better and keeps things from getting too heated. I absolutely commit to not edit-war on any article content at any time (excepting of course blatant vandalism where I will still request assistance and guidance).

In short, I recognize that I need to stop acting like the Lone Guardian at the Gates. Its a bad way to approach editing, and corrosive to collaborative editing. I don't want to be a part of the Drahmaz.

I am open to suggestions that others may offer here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support proposal A - I believe that this will be suitable for the time being and will halt the disruption. The editor has expressed contrition and this measure seems proportionate to the misbehavior described above.Krow750 (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support Proposal A-- that Jack be topic banned from all BLP articles indefinitely. He may appeal the ban in six months. Jack is generally a constructive editor and a usually a net positive. He just needs to be less eager about adding to BLP's that which should not be added.-- Deepfriedokra 04:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I've noted above that I am in fact taking a break from BLPs (with the sole exception of addressing the 'best known for' OR) that pops up in BLPs. I have agreed to a selp-imposed 1RR on articles for that very reason. I am not re-engaging in BLP additions at all, and don't plan to for at least 6 months, if not longer. I don't think I need to be banned from all BLPs as I am functionally doing that anyway. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, the BLP topic ban needs to be formalized. The editor expresses an interest in removing "best known for" language, which has been a highly disruptive issue in the past. That intention is a guarantee of future conflict. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Errr, when has a "best known for" ever been a "highly disruptive issue"? I've never encountered any such disruption, and I've been purging the OR phrase for years. The BLP issues I have had concerned bad sourcing and edit-warring; I've been rather clear on that I have no intention of getting that involved in a BLP. For example, if someone reverts back in "best known for", I'd go to the talk page and ask them to supply a source that says that. No edit-warring, no uncivil language - just normal, collaborative editing and building a consensus for inclusion or exclusion - the way its supposed to work, right? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I assume Cullen is referring to WP:BKFIP... Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

That is correct. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Whoah. I was completely unaware that this was a thing. I'd never heard of this in all my time editing. As much as I hate the OR of fannish Best Known For phrasing, I want no comparison being drawn between me and a long-term IP sock. I voluntarily won't edit BLPs, and hope to revisit the subject in six months. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• I can't speak for Cullen (can't do that weird California accent anyway), and he may disagree, but I am pleased enough with Jack Sebastian's answers here. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
• Above Jack said "I realize that I do indeed take my interactions with others far too seriously (and personally, if their opinions don't align with mine)." Yet, he continues to do that in this discussion between him and me on his Talk page: User talk:Jack Sebastian#User:TyMega. He also displays a very surprising degree of cluelessnes about Wikipedia's guidelines that I might expect from a newbie, but not from an experienced, long-term editor. It didn't matter how many times I explained to him what was wrong with what he did, he continued to respond as if (a) he didn't get it and (b) I was saying something else. In a court of law, his answers would be objected to as "non-responsive". Although he didn't attack me, he accused me of opinions I don't have, misperceiving and misunderstanding just about everything I said. And I was sincerely trying to help him.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

  I'd ask that folks read that exchange; I don't think it intimates what Bbb23 thinks it does. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

  I'm really surprised to find this, but it seems Jack has, apparently, been creating new editors' user pages with the {{Welcome}} template for 9 years [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] (full list). I would say this goes to Bbb's point about Jack being surprisingly unfamiliar with PAGs, but I looked and – again, surprisingly – neither WP:USERPAGE nor WP:TPG seems to clearly say "don't edit other editor's user pages", or (more importantly) "don't create other editor's user pages". I find this point intuitive, but I'm surprised it's apparently not explicitly stated anywhere. WP:NOBAN has a much more vague instruction: "In general, it is usual to avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages other than where it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful." This actually seems to suggest (incorrectly, IMO) that one should edit another editor's userpage if it would be "helpful". It does say, in the {{Welcome}} template docs, to post the template on the user talk page, but who ever reads template docs? Some experienced editor should probably update these policies to clarify this. – Levivich 18:58, 4 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)

Always best to check the facts on a specific case before opining on a case where the specific facts are dispositive. The death of the suspect in this specific case changes the equation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:50, 4 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.[68] 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,[69] it was speedily deleted and then recreated after Phil Bridger contested the speedy deletion because "the negative content is reliably sourced"[70] (immediately reverted by Jbhunley).[71] It was then again moved to draft by JzG [72] 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.[73] 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 [74] 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.[75] JzG even reverted a nomination for draft revision [76] and threatens me with a block for "disruptive editing" [77] 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 [78] 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.[79] 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.[80]. 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 [81] 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.[82] 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, [83] reverted a draft revision nomination, posted a warning to block me on my talk page for "disruptive editing" [84] 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.[85] 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 [86] 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 ([87], [88], [89]) who became embroiled in a scandal with a Brazilian singer over wrongly prescribing anabolic steroids ([90], [91], [92]) and also made news recently when he accidentally posted to Instagram a video of a lewd encounter between him and his wife ([93], [94]). 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)

  (I'm just participating here because I do speak Portuguese and a Portuguese speaker seems to be needed in this discussion) I read all the news articles pointed out by Ivanvector. Most, or all, of the articles are from reliable sources from Brazil (like Veja and Globo.com). However, I'm not quite convinced that there are "depth coverage" about the person in question. He's cited as "celebrity doctor" with a strong presence in the social networks, but few biographical information is given, about him, on these articles. The articles are more about his involvement in doping cases, his prescription of anabolic steroids and other controversial stuff in which he's involved. He might be barely notable or this might be a case of WP:SINGLEEVENT.--SirEdimon (talk) 14:06, 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: [95] This was also reported by quality media in Swedish,(Expressen [96]) Norwegian tabloid Verdens Gang [97] and a Polish sports paper,[98] in case that helps... Omikroergosum (talk) 12:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Omikroergosum: STOP continuously editing your comments. It is disruptive. Jbh ^Talk 13:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• There is nothing stopping the OP from clicking on Draft:Mohamad Barakat and writing a policy compliant article. I explained to him what I thought some of the issues were and why the article was not policy complaint [99], as they asked. Instead of correcting or working to correct the problems he just kept re-inserting the same text and complaining about "abuse" over dozens of edits, at least four talk pages and hours of time.

  There is no need to undelete the old article. it was crap and WP:TNT is the best thing for it. Jbh ^Talk 13:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

If I had not assembled all those difflinks to show you are wrong I doubt the wrong decision would have been overturned. Thanks for acknowledging you went wrong. Please stop shouting and using condescending language like "crap". And as the decision was wrong please undelete immediately so that all the previous work by several editors is not lost and the abuse of admin powers keeps being documented. As three administrators above pointed out (and you Jbhunley as you pointed out are not an administrator although you like to behave like you were) the decision to delete was wrong in the first place. Also please finally block the three single purpose vandals who inserted Portuguese text and advertisements and deleted well sourced content without discussion. Omikroergosum (talk) 13:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• In view of the above, I'd like to request a short block on Omikroergosum for continued personal attacks, such as calling me a liar. I won't do it myself - I'd like to see consensus. Deb (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

You wrote notability is not established although there are dozens of reliable secondary sources, even from international quality media, with in-depth coverage. Where please are my "_continued_ personal attacks"??? Is that an implicit lie? You were shown to have circumvented a deletion discussion by draftification in violation of explicit wikipedia rules and never brought up any even botched justification for this. And now you want me to get blocked? Are you serious? Omikroergosum (talk) 14:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, yes she is and should you continue as you are it will most likely happen. Now, serious question: You seem to have assembled sources enough to write a good article; There is nothing stopping you from recreating the draft and putting it through WP:AFC for an independent review. So why are you not doing that? Is it that you are just incensed and mad or do you expect something else to occur here? If the former, it is just a waste of energy; if the later what outcome are you looking for? Jbh ^Talk 14:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The decision was overturned, so I wait for the article to be recreated as per wikipedia rules. I will not allow you to make me redo all that work you tried to destroy. Omikroergosum (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

You really, really need to take on board everything that has been said here and elsewhere, not just the parts you want to hear. If you do so I believe you will find that what you assert is not the case. More so, I can pretty much guarantee that, whether the article is undeleted or you recreate it in draft, should you simply replace the BLP violating material without regard for neutrality, the policies for BLP and WP:WEIGHT, you will be blocked or topic banned from editing BLP under the special sanctions regime for living people. You have already received the required notice so please, please spend the time to read and understand those policies rather that blithely asserting you understand them and how they apply to your subject. Jbh ^Talk 14:49, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I already replied to your largely unfounded claims in the article talk page. If you have nothing else, please just refrain from editing an article for which you don't even understand the sources. If you have any specific concerns, you are very welcome to bring them up on the article talk page rather than here. Your continued use of threats to a user who is contributing with content from high quality secondary sources is disruptive. Omikroergosum (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'm just going to point out that any editor can draftify, pretty sure the only special permission involved here is automatically deleting the redirect instead of flagging it for speedy deletion. There is no "abuse of admin power" involved in this draftification. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 14:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Do you seriously want to claim that any editor can draftify articles like Adolf Hitler, Katy Perry or Platypus - without even providing a justification on request??? Have you even read the rules on draftification that I pointed to when starting this discussion? Did you notice two administrators have overturned the decision to draftify or delete the article - even though so far no one has taken action? Omikroergosum (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth. I merely said that any editor is able to draftify (though I will clarify that I mean this in the technical sense - any editor is able to move an article to draftspace or run the draftify script; I have done so several times myself), and so this does not qualify as abuse of administrative tools. I said nothing about whether Deb's action was correct, nor did I mention justifications, Hitler, or platypi. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 15:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Do you seriously want to claim that this obscure person is anything like Adolf Hitler or Katy Perry? This is starting to sound like a WP:CIR issue. Guy (help!) 19:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I never wrote Barakat is like Adolf Hitler, Katy Perry or Platypus (!!!!), and I guess, JzG, even you are able to understand that, you are just using a strawman argument because that is easy to beat. I brought the extreme examples to show it is very obviously wrong to claim any user can just draftify any article.

Overall, Omikroergosum, the problem is that you say you are here to argue that process has been abused, but all you are doing is making arguments that the process arrived at the wrong result. This is a distinction that I hope you are able to grasp. If you believe a process (including unilateral process) has arrived at the wrong conclusion, you appeal it. It is understood and widely accepted that no process is perfect, and that there will be mistakes. That is why avenues for appeal exist. But even if you prove that a process got the wrong result, that does not prove that the process was abused. You would have to prove that an admin did something he knew or should have known was incorrect. It's very clear that you believe they should have known the actions were incorrect, because you refuse to believe that anyone could draw a different conclusion than you did. But convincing yourself over and over does not improve your case. Truth is, this never should have come to AN. You asked Deb to undraftify the article, she suggested asking someone else to review it. You went to Jzg's talk page to... really just vent, it looks like. I really think you should just, generally, chill. Whether your goal is to get your article back up, or to "note for the record" that bad admin did bad thing, the first step is the same: get a consensus that the article should be kept. And the discussion to arrive at that consensus does not take place on AN. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Someguy1221, I showed very clearly right at the beginning that the process was wrong as the rules clearly say a draftification is not acceptable as a means to circumvent a deletion discussion. The same holds for the current "courtesy" blanking. I don't care about any single admin, I care about repeated abuse of admin powers, and not only in this case. SoWhy agreed with me that draftification is generally used in a way that, as I believe I have clearly showed right at the start of this discussion, is violating the rules on draftification. If you believe my editing here depends on an article on some celebrity doctor who according to many credible sources makes his money prescribing dangerous medication to healthy people, just look at my history (including in other language versions). Omikroergosum (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• Note that Luz & Batista Jr 2017 is not about this person's life and works. It is about a general and widespread problem in Brazil of which this person is one case. Shoe-horning it into the biography of a person is quite wrong and grossly misrepresentative. (Wikipedia:Not every story/event/disaster needs a biography) The "Bomba tô fora" people seem to be trying to make the point that this is about the general population, not just sports, moreover. And certainly not about just one person. Uncle G (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Luz, Sérgio Ruiz; Batista Jr, João (2017-06-01). "Os médicos que receitam bombas". Veja (in Portuguese). {{cite magazine}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • "anabolizantes" (in Portuguese). Sociedade Brasileira de Endocrinologia e Metabologia. 2019. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

This guy is noteworthy as a doctor omnipresent in Brazilian media who treated a Latin Grammy Award winner (without any allegation of wrongdoing), several soccer world stars, a popular singer who accuses him to have ruined his health with steroids and two undercover journalists who showed he easily prescribes doping to healthy people. It is not just some random doctor who does what countless others do in Brazil, and for which it will be very difficult to identify more than 20 reliable secondary high quality sources even from international media, and had you really looked at the case you could have seen that yourself. I agree there should be an article Doping in Brazil as there are already Doping in the United States/Russia/China, and I already suggested it at the page for this and created Category:Doping by country. I also agree that my own article Júlio César Alves cannot remain in its current state as in this case, in contrast to Mohamad Barakat, that doctor maybe also due to his very common name, is difficult to be identified as notable for anything else than the doping, which can be seen as a single event (even though it was reported twice in different cases). Omikroergosum (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• Just noting here, Omikroergosum, that the claim you made earlier is neither a threat nor anything resembling one. Using fake claims in order to influence the outcome of a discussion is disingenuous if not downright dishonest. I would prefer to AGF and assume you inadvertently selected a wrong diff, but that will be for the community to decide. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, you found a link where I went wrong. Could have just looked at my talk page to find the right one: [100] Is "stop your disruptive editing. ... you may be blocked from editing." threat enough? Omikroergosum (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• I have restored the article and nominated it for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohamad Barakat (2nd nomination). The article is courtesy blanked and full-protected until the discussion concludes. You might call this an WP:INVOLVED action but 1) this path has been independently suggested three times in this thread; 2) a slim majority of editors commenting desire further discussion; and 3) this thread is devolving into partisan sniping. Also 4) an AfD will put a definitive rest to the matter. So WP:IAR. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Isn't IAR normally for cutting through bureaucracy, rather than adding to it?-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Nope. IAR generally creates more problems than it solves, because we have good reasons for the rules we have. There's an unsolved question of whether this individual warrants an article at all, even one that is properly written, and only AfD can really definitively answer that question. So we can bicker about whether to restore it or not and then bicker about whether to blank it or not and then bicker about whether to have a discussion or not and then bicker about whether this warrants a deletion review before a subsequent discussion (because it was speedy deleted) and then bicker about what is the right venue for that discussion (because it was moved to Draft:) and only then come to a final result, or we can just cut to the chase and go straight to AfD without all the extra steps. Hence IAR. If it passes AfD, or if it doesn't, the rest is moot. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Discussion

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)

@Ivanvector: I'm still seeing errors for most cite web templates. Perhaps more than just that edit needs to be undone? Trappist also edited Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration and five other Module:Citation/CS1 pages. Ss112 13:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, he undid IV's reversion. Can Trappist the monk please come here and discuss the changes? ——SerialNumber54129 13:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3) Well now we've got lua module errors coming out the yin-yang. Please look at Adolf Hitler or Schutzstaffel. This needs an Unbreak Now! please. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• • • (edit conflict) Trappist the monk reverted my change, which had not fixed the problem anyway. Presumably they're working on it. If it becomes clear they're not working on it, someone should block them and roll back their last 24 hours of contribs, as that's clearly the source of the problem. I have notified them of this discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Your revert was ill-advised so I have undone it. What your revert accomplished was to un-synchronize the suite of modules that is cs1|2. When that happens, MediaWiki will emit glaring red script error messages for almost every cs1|2 template (there are millions of those).

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank god that Trapist did revert. IV's edit made the situation so much worse. Everybody calm down. This has been discussed to no end. Sorry you missed the discussion at Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Italics_of_websites_in_citations_and_references_–_request_for_comment --- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I acknowledge that the revert was ill-advised. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

That is a completely different discussion, Coffeeandcrumbs, with no bearing on this issue. ——SerialNumber54129 13:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, no it is not. You are just not understanding how one relates to the other. There was an RfC to make all website names italics. That means all instances where publisher= was used to avoid italics should be flagged.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

No I am just not not. It was an extremely narrow topic with extremely broad consequences, and it is disengenuous to claim that because of A = B. ——SerialNumber54129 13:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree, the discussion was on placing url names in italics, a much bigger broader discussion was needed for a module change. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I get the |deadurl= is being replaced (except that it should have been implemented as an alias first, then removed from articles via bot, then deprecated, to prevent errors), but what's with the update to |publisher=, where "Cite web requires |website=" is reported when |publisher= is used instead of |website=? -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, a simple semi-automated change of rolling back this template change would fix it nicely. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• What amazes me is that a change this massive was made with no advance warning to editors! For example, who thinks it's a good to force removal of the dead-url parameter! Even if it's "redundant" now, there's no reason to not just leave it be (and maybe let a bot slowly remove it). The removal of the work redirect is even worse!... The handling of this entire thing has been FUBARed from Day #1. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@IJBall: I agree. especially because there are other redundant parameters that are ignored.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Better preparation

Can we please change things back to the way they were UNTIL this mess can be sorted out and fixed? This is disruptive to the entire encyclopedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, this is now showing cite web requires |website= for sometimes half of all citations on articles now. Unnecessary. Ss112 13:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3) Trappist doesn't seem to want to participate here, but from the discussion and what they seem to be up to elsewhere, I'd say they made this change to the cite templates/modules to improve the documentation and consistency of citation tags (all good things), implemented the change (causing errors because some of the parameters are deprecated), and is now working on a bot run to replace the deprecated parameters with their new equivalents. If that's the case, then presumably this is going to work itself out in however long it takes for that bot to run. Probably the bot run should have been programmed first and this breaking change made after it would no longer break things, but here we are. Do we just wait it out? I don't know what the alternative is - someone has already demonstrated that just reverting the module is a bad idea. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

See, I was interpreting the "dead-url" change in the same way as Ivanvector above - as a temporary inconvenience that would be fixed by a bot in due course. Perhaps using such a to-be-replaced parameter some kind of special error message along the lines of "Parameter is being replaced, please change to Foo as appropriate" and only after the bot pass is done switch to the normal error message. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not ignoring this discussion. The notion that a bot run should have been done before the changes is nonsensical. Before the changes implemented today, cs1|2 did not know about |url-status=. Had I run a bot to change |dead-url= and |deadurl= to |url-status=, the bot would have been quickly blocked because such changes would have caused unrecognized parameter error messages (such a bot would never have been approved anyway because part of the approval process is to show that the bot does as it is intended to do through short trial runs). See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Monkbot 16.

Where a bot could have been run, I have done that: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Monkbot 14. This particular bot fixes the wikimarkup errors and the periodical requirement for known named periodicals. Running this bot was limited by the ability of cirrus search to provide sufficiently long lists of article names so now that cs1|2 templates with these errors are flagged, the bot can be more productive.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: regarding the newly-required parameters (|website=, |newspaper= and such) and the related error messages, how much work would it be to temporarily code the modules to only display the errors in preview, or to display the message that Jo-Jo Eumerus suggested above? It would still encourage editors to update the citations to the standard format, but would not generate new red error messages on however many thousands of pages that didn't have errors before this morning. And is there a maintenance category for these errors? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I understand the desire to show error messages only in preview mode. My anecdotal experience is that such messaging is more often ignored than heeded. If push comes to shove, preview mode can be employed for the missing periodical error messaging.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Definitely true that error messages only shown in preview are more often ignored than corrected. But so are the red notices in reference sections, except for a dedicated handful of editors. The difference is in how disruptive they are to non-editor readers. We can't force editors to fix these errors, and readers just see things that are broken. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Just speaking as a random editor here, I know that oftentimes citations to, say, publicly-released government documents will include the publisher (i.e., United States Government Publishing Office, United States Department of State) but not the website if doing so would essentially be restating the same information (www.gpo.gov, www.state.gov). This isn't inconsistent with the examples given at Template:Cite web. There's an argument to be made for having website be the preferred parameter, but, as this has the potential to affect a large percentage of the encyclopedia, I think more discussion - or, at the very least, more preparation - is necessary before making this change. Rockhead126 (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Why are those required and where was the consensus to do so? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

There are four cs1|2 periodical templates: {{cite journal}}, {{cite magazine}}, {{cite news}}, and {{cite web}}. The cs1|2 periodical templates display an article title in quotes and the periodical title in italics. So, the article title: "Newspaper Article about Raining Frogs" in the newspaper title: Local Daily Gazette. All cs1|2 templates produce COinS metadata for readers who consume citation template bibliographic data using reference management software. When periodical parameters are omitted from cs1|2 periodical templates, that important bit of information is omitted from the metadata. A lot of the reason for the error messages arises from editors misusing |publisher= in place of an appropriate periodical parameter – sometimes with, sometimes without italic markup. COinS does not support a publisher object for periodical metadata so while the periodical name information (in |publisher=) may be rendered visually by cs1|2 periodical templates it is missing from the metadata.

A recent RFC determined that website names in citations are to be italicized. For the reasons described above, and because it is the duty and obligation of the templates to do formatting, website names must go in one of the periodical parameters (it doesn't matter which – the error messages only suggest a most-likely parameter name).

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe there is any consensus that {{cite web}} describes periodicals. Kanguole 12:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

In the classic sense of something published at regular intervals with volume and issue numbering, à la journals, magazines, etc. strictly defined, websites probably don't qualify. By a less strict definition where a periodical is a collection of individual articles, pieces, texts, whatever, bound into something published at regular or irregular intervals (a website) then clearly there is an obvious resemblance between the website and the classical newspaper, magazine, and journal.

From its earliest days, {{cite web}} has supported a work title parameter. In the present day cs1|2, work title parameters are |journal=, |magazine=, |newspaper=, |periodical=, |website=, and |work=. While there may be no formal consensus that declares {{cite web}} to a periodical template, our long-standing (15 years) treatment of {{cite web}} as a periodical template indicates that a silent consensus does exist.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I would argue more, based on the talk page discussions over the years at MOS:ITALICTITLE, that more people, in using cite web, jumped onto the "work" parameter because it italicized the name when the website name was usually italized, and publisher when the website name wasn't to be, but otherwise producing the "site title" in the expected location in the template. I suspect 90% of the editors that use cite web/cite news are doing it blindly without any real care in terms of precision that would be important to those in informational science (eg the distinction between website and publisher), as long as they visually get the result they want - which includes that not all website names are italicized per MOS - and that complies with referencing consistency needed for quality articles. There really needed to be an open discussion on this change beyond the technical group's scope, because we're dealing with that 90% being told they were wrong in a rather harsh way. --Masem (t) 13:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

MOS:ITALICTITLE fails to acknowledge that citation style is not subject to MOS. I wrote this elsewhere on this page but will write it again here: "MOS cannot override citation style else the provisions that allow editors to choose any of the various different citation styles, per WP:CITESTYLE, would not be permitted." I suspect that "Other types of websites should be decided on a case-by-case basis" (from WP:CITESTYLE) also contributes to the confusion problem because now editors must make a decision without any substantive guidance (what is meant by "type of site" and "kind of content"?) There are no examples or descriptions of website titles that should not be italicized.

Editors tend to go all glassy-eyed when I mention metadata, but that is important to those who consume citation templates via the metadata. Periodical templates that do not use a periodical parameter deprive those users of that very important bit of information that is the periodical name (website name).

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I think this is what it comes down to: it is a good thing to be concerned about metadata now that we have Wikidata and the like. We want things to be computer-legible so that we can improve on how information is used, so there's nothing wrong with trying to standardize a citation template to use that. But, that is coming at two points: people who have adopted their understanding of citations from the MOS or via example, not from citation template needs and desires, and those who are now wondering why all their references have red text that don't seem to match with current expectations. Being "right" does not overrule creating disruption for a lot of people, especially when most were not aware of this. There should have been a longer period of discussion on that specific changes (not just italicizing "website" but also making it mandatory for wikidata), as well as getting editors to start updates before introducing the lack of "website" as an error. I still think there needs to be wholly separate discussion if websites are periodical citations (perhaps there's actually a new class here of a data source that is based on a web site but not considered periodical, I dunno), and if that decides that cite web needs "website", great, let's notify en.wiki and give editors 3 or so months to make changes to their cs1 templates before marking it as an error. --Masem (t) 15:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

My mistake, I didn't realize you intended to ask that question of me; thanks for clarifying. I have no idea, I'm just intending to propose a path forward without trashing everyone's work on it and generating new errors in pages that have already been updated to the revised format, but I don't know the technical ins-and-outs. Also, note that pings don't work unless you re-sign your edit. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

So there was a change that effected millions of articles done without consensus? I mean its okay if you have no idea, but this is now a big problem. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

It is also confusing with the inconsistence in Template:Cite web/doc, which currently ([101]) lists dead-url= as the parameter to use (in the parameter list and examples), and does not mention url-status=, except for the part that includes "csdoc", or Template:Citation Style documentation/url, which has been updated with the new parameter url-status= ([102]). Oceanh (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: - Please stop making changes while the discussion is ongoing as its only leading to more confusion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Imagine how the references section of 2019 Papua protests, which is currently on mainpage, is totally defaced because of these changes. This disruption appears worse than I initially thought. – Ammarpad (talk) 17:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Your edits are in good faith but there is no way you can undo the damage done to millions of articles. If the changes are allowed to stay then editors are going to be spending months on it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Where was the testing that is supposed to occur before something like this goes live? If there was any testing why didn't these problems show up? MarnetteD|Talk 19:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to overturn the mass change made to Module:Citation/CS1

The (now-hidden) problem

Since Wikipedia operates on consensus, making such a mass change that affects a large number of articles is, as noted by many contributors, disruptive to the project. For now, the mass change should be undone so that other users could continue editing without having to worry about fixing problems that don't have clear instructions. Sk8erPrince (talk) 13:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
EDIT: Per request, I will now clarify which changes that I would like to see reverted for the time being:
1) |newspaper= and |website= errors [1]
2) |dead-url= error [2] Sk8erPrince (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support: As proposer. Sk8erPrince (talk) 13:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support: Not every cite web template should require website= (although a majority should use it), but we should not be forcing this upon everybody without a very broad discussion considering it affects a very broad number of articles. Ss112 13:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support - This needed to be taken to the WP:PUMP, not discussed casually. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Point of order - I already did that. It didn't fix anything. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Then we need someone to undo all of the changes. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• User:Ttm synced from his sandbox. ——SerialNumber54129 13:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

  Serial Number 54129, what does that mean, "synced from his sandbox"? – Levivich 17:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose The website in italics inconsistency issue exists and we have ignored it for too long. There are too many articles that have websites in italics and not italics in the same article. This will effectively end the messy practice. There is no point to just brushing the mess under the rug. What is more constructive is to have a bot fix all instances of |publisher= with no |website=--- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

  This can be fixed by placing the "title=" in italics. (title=''example'') - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Knowledgekid87: Kindly, you are continuing to spread FUD and disinformation, whether you know it or not. Please take a look at where I pinged you at Help talk:CS1. Thanks. --Izno (talk) 13:49, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

  No, it will not. You are misunderstand the issue. It has nothing to do with |title=. The issue is that some people avoid using |website= because it is in italics but an RfC has concluded that it should be. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

  Can we all agree that asking for a website when a website is already clearly in the source is considered redundant? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

  You shouldn't just assume that every citation across wikipedia that does not use the work=/website=/newspaper= parameter does so because "the editor wanted to avoid italics". Many of them that only have a publisher parameter actually include a publisher in that parameter and that publisher is generally not the same as the website/newspaper title and now unnecessarily produce error messages. Whether or not italics would be used was almost never considered by the editors who added those citations.Tvx1 21:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support - utterly fed up of the continual fiddling that goes on with these templates, each time introducing bazillions of red "errors" that then require bots to flood watchlists in order to fix. - Sitush (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support - A change that makes most every cite on the Wiki go red is bonkers. The initial discussion made reference to a bot that would resolve this, but there is no sign of it having happened. Surely the bot should be run and allowed to get the number of red cites to a manageable level *before* the parameters are put to red. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 13:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Monkbot 16. For your information only. Please don't go there just to complain about the change (WP:NOTFORUM applies) but if you have a constructive comment about the operation or approval of the bot, feel free to add it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment (|website=) This change to the module is correct, and long overdue. A website is not a publisher. It is a medium (like a journal, or a book) through which information is conveyed. Its "title" (represented by the parameter website) is important. The website domain's publisher (usually the owner/operator) is the information publisher of record, just like a journal or book publisher. 108.182.15.109 (talk) 13:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support as suggested in the section above, there is a policy-compliant method of dealing with historic problems such as this. Broad discussion as VPP followed by consensus which then, if necessary, leads to back ups first and change second. If this—particularly the latter—had been followed today, we would not be in this situation. And per WP:NODEADLINE, that an issue has been problematic for too long does not override the need for discursive consensus building. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 13:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support If I'm sourcing the City of Potsdam webpage, why do I have to put website=potsdam.de as well as publisher=City of Potsdam ? or yadvashem.org when using Yad Vashem's website? It's redundant and it looks amateurish. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

This is obvious if you know what "Potsdam" or "Yad Vashem" is. Does the average Wikipedia citation editor know? 108.182.15.109 (talk) 13:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Surely "City of Potsdam" is self-explanatory. "Yad Vashem" can and should be wikilinked on first occurrence. Regardless, how does adding yadvashem.org to the citation make anything clearer? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Diannaa, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the "website" parameter has always been for the name of the website, not its URL, though I think this is widely misinterpreted, understandably given the name of the parameter. For example "website" wouldn't be "potsdam.de", but Landeshauptstadt Potsdam (or State Capital Potsdam if you're citing en.potsdam.de), according to the "og:site_name" property in the html source. The publisher in both cases is the corporation of the city, Landeshauptstadt Potsdam, which is not translated on the English site. When the website and publisher are substantially the same, the publisher should be omitted. Similarly, the "website" is Yad Vashem. The World Holocaust Remembrance Center, not "yadvashem.org", and the publisher is the same and should be omitted. So for these two examples, you should already have been using "website" only, and omitting "publisher", and nothing is different with the new change requiring "website". Not to say there are no problems with the new change, just that these examples don't really show them. Hope this helps... --IamNotU (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The above is broadly correct. There is need of a required |website= as this is explicitly presented as the "work", i.e. the source. This parameter carries more weight than |publisher= in identifying the source and verifying the material. To me, as a reader of a citation, there is definite and useful semantic information in making these distinctions. In any case, in both examples given, the publisher could also be given as "self-published". The website name though (i.e. whatever the page title is of the index/start/etc. page) is critical. It is like citing a chapter of a book but omitting its title. 24.105.132.254 (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

IamNotU, thank you for the useful info. However most of our editors will not know how to view the source html of a webpage, and though I do know how to do that, I did not know that the page name was encoded there (or how to find it) until you told me just now. The majority of people upon seeing this parameter will just paste in the url or a shortened version of it, creating a different kind of error. In fact that's what they are often already doing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Just to clarify: the "og:sitename" is not a standard part of an Html page, nor of the Html recommendation. It is a proprietary tag suggested by Open Graph Protocol for use in social media. So, looking for that property won't help for lots of web pages. Otoh, the Title property is part of standard Html, and is present on practically every web page. In your example, it is: <title>Landeshauptstadt Potsdam</title>. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Correct. And even though the documentation of |website= at {{cite web}} does not explicitly say so, the html property title is what is meant to populate this field. Previous documentation of the citation templates was not uniform, but was more template-specific. A better thing imo. In older documentation, this was the suggested treatment of |website=. The one size fits all approach to the documentation of these templates can generate unnecessary confusion. 108.182.15.109 (talk) 00:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

[Edit] The html property title of the website's index page (or equivalent) is what was meant above as the content of the |website= field. 108.182.15.109 (talk) 00:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

A common idiom is for the HTML page title to contain title and publisher eg. "The History of AARNet | AARNet" [103] We place the former in our |title= field and the latter in the |publisher= field of the template. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support - Evidently not a fully thought through change. It's not worth creating huge number of errors for the sake of correcting some incorrect italicisation. SmartSE (talk) 13:49, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support In many cases, using the |publisher= parameter is sufficient, and also creates the proper (lack of) italics. GoingBatty (talk) 13:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support per the multitude of above comments. I'd say it's snowing... -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • It is not snowing. This is an echo chamber. I have placed a notice at Help talk:Citation Style 1. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

    One oppose. We don't fix thousands of articles by breaking thousands/millions more articles. -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

    I already placed a notice there Coffee, and I don't see this an echo chamber. There are clearly editors with valid concerns that should be addressed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support - Creating a massive problem to solve a small problem is never the way to go. Came here due to confused editors at the Teahouse, and my attempt to help them only exposed what a mess this is, with confusing and incomplete documentation suggesting this hasn't been considered properly and planned out in a methodical way to minimize disruption. Hug^syrup 14:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: I don't know what's right or wrong, just get it fixed. But I hope something is done so that publisher fields are replaced with website fields as should be. Publisher fields should NOT be used for websites. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
    • That's true for many but not all sources. See my "City of Potsdam" example above for one example. There's many more like that. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

      If "Publisher fields should not be used for websites", then why does the paramter exist, and not get deprecated even by this mess of red in reference lists? How is "www.thing.com" a more useful piece of displayed information for a reader than a wikilinked "Thing Enterprises" or whatever the company is actually named? I use Cite web for an enormous diversity of online material that is not "news". Why do I suddenly find every article has a sea of red in the references? --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Per Sitush's "utterly fed up of the continual fiddling that goes on with these templates ..." (and GoingBatty's "In many cases, using the |publisher= parameter is sufficient, and also creates the proper (lack of) italics"). I wish some editors would stop playing with functions that effect the entire encyclopedia as if it's their own personal toy. JG66 (talk) 14:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support Change ignores the discussion of MOS:ITALICTITLE (which has been brought up several times in its archives). Not all "cite webs" use a website that should be italized, eg things like IMDb, etc. --Masem (t) 14:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Question I'm far from an expert on templates but couldn't they have been updated to recognise both the new and old parameters, had a bot run to move data to the new parameter, then remove the old parameter? Wouldn't that have avoided filling every other article with error text, or am I missing something? Sam Walton (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

  Exactly what I suggested above. That is, for the deadurl parameter. Not sure what it is that they're doing with the publisher parameter. -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support - Should have been much more widely noted, and given instructions to editors on how to fix this error. Was working on 2019 World Snooker Championship, which now has around 80 ref errors with no notes as to how this happened, or how to fix these issues. The "errors" in turn also are still written as being in the correct in the cite web template. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I fixed the "dead-url" errors on that article for you. There's a few "website" and "newspaper" errors left that someone more familiar with the topic should look into. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose (notwithstanding my "point of order" comment above) - changes are in good faith and clearly intended to implement consensus and best practice. The errors related to the "dead-url" parameters are temporary and being addressed by a proposed bot run, AFAICT. The errors related to cite web requiring a website parameter are unfortunate but valid, since these refs are in error based on the recent discussion on the module talk page linked from a few places already, and for the most part they require human intervention to correct. I just went through and corrected the errored refs on Canada jay (a featured article), I suggest fixing any featured articles you are familiar with is a good place to start. Reverting the updates to the modules doesn't improve the encyclopedia.

(edit conflict × 4) If Trappist the monk (or anyone familiar with the citation modules) could write in code to hide the "dead-url" errors until after the bot runs, that would be helpful. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect, there appears to be a nearly solid consensus here to undo the changes as redundant. A lot of editors have problems with the changes as I have mentioned above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I think you're wrong there. There's a wall of "support" comments here but it's pretty mixed between editors wanting to roll back because of the error messages, editors wanting to roll back because the change was hasty, and editors wanting to roll back because they disagree with the result of the RfC and want to use this opportunity to contest its result for a wide variety of procedural and creative reasons, as well as the usual pile-on "I fear change" and "per everyone else" comments. The end result may be that we end up rolling back the changes, but that will hardly solve anything. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Well maybe then we can all have a proper centralized discussion then at the WP:PUMP where a more broad consensus can be reached. I don't think editors are against change, I think its how things were done is the issue here. You cant expect something that effects millions of articles to go unnoticed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

It is possible and relatively simple to hide the deprecated parameter error message. That is not my preferred choice but if compelled to do so I will after Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Monkbot 16 is approved so that the BAG editors at can confirm without a doubt that the bot works.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The problem with saying that refs using |publisher= as an alternative to |website= are errors is that many people are not going to fill in |website= correctly. So unlike this {{cite web|url=http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=birdviewing.backyardbirds&species=jays|title=Alaska's Backyard Birds — Jays|website=[[Alaska Department of Fish and Game]]|publisher=[[Government of Alaska|State of Alaska]]}} "Alaska's Backyard Birds — Jays". Alaska Department of Fish and Game. State of Alaska. which is the desired output as I understand from your changes to Canada Jay is that an awful lot of editors will produce {{cite web|url=http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=birdviewing.backyardbirds&species=jays|title=Alaska's Backyard Birds — Jays|website=www.adfg.alaska.gov|publisher=[[Alaska Department of Fish and Game]]}} "Alaska's Backyard Birds — Jays". www.adfg.alaska.gov. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. if they include the |publisher= parameter at all which looks even worse. Nthep (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Editors using the parameters incorrectly is something that should be solved with better documentation, or an error identifying URLs entered in the |website= parameter (which IIRC already exists for other parameters where this has been an issue), not continuing to make the template work in ways that it should not. I admit I'm not sure that my change to the Alaska's Backyard Birds citation was correct, I just saw the discussion regarding the use of those parameters and did something to resolve the error. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually |website= already throws an error if you put a properly formatted URL in it (one that starts with a protocol). |url= throws an error if you don't. Therefore editors familiar with the templates ought to already know that we use full URLs, and you get errors if you don't or if you put them in the wrong place. Editors who aren't familiar will just get used to doing things the proper way. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose as written. There were many changes introduced in this module update. The proposal should clearly state which of the changes listed in this announcement should be reversed. The rest of the changes should remain in place. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Specific change/reversion accept |publisher= as an alternative to the periodical parameters already listed. Nthep (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support -- from another confused editor, who is puzzled on how such profound changes are being implemented. Rfassbind – talk 14:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Looks to me like a change to the templates was made in order to impose the results of a small discussion upon a vast number of articles. Since it has broken things, it should be thoroughly reverted, tested in a sandbox with testcases, and discussed before it is implemented again. If a bot run has been "proposed" to correct the alleged "errors", that run should receive consensus and be completed before the template is updated to cause errors to appear on articles. ST47 (talk) 14:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support - I have not been this angry at a change for a ling time and it has taken every inch of my resolve not to swear lots. (Personal attack removed). Undo the change ASAP and start a proper discussion to make any amendments. GiantSnowman 14:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose in favour of having these particular parameters that are deprecated & can be solved by bots throw some kind of "X is being replaced, please replace with Y as appropriate" custom message until the bots are through. As I said on Help talk:CS1 the normal deprecation error message is confusing in these circumstances where a parameter is being changed, rather than simply being wrong. This was a "social" error, not a technical one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support - there are 38000+ pages affected, and became visually disturbing. These shall be fixed first then when the majority is fixed shall it be changed, hopefully according to consensus. I may reconsider my support if this number gets lowered by a magnitude within a week, which I don't see as feasible, but I can't know what was the idea behind. --grin ✎ 14:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: Too rash, too fast. We, the people that don't understand the changes, shouldn't be jumping the gun to undo them merely because we are pissed at the way they were carried out. The ones that oppose it on the basis that it's an undesirable change in itself irrespective of the way it was implemented, are apparently in opposition to consensus, established via an RfC, no less. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 14:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose mass revert, but certainly support fixing the two main issues. a) |website= shouldn't be a required parameter, and b) |dead-url= shouldn't be emitting a red error either, but rather maintenance categories until is not just deprecated but unsupported. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Why not roll the whole thing back and re-implement it when the fixes are made? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Because any LUA coder, especially of Trappist's skill and familiarity with the CS1 templates, can easily code this in 5 minutes. I would do it myself, but it's LUA, in which I have no skills. Mass reverts would be a fall back that causes new errors due to the new parameters now being used in articles. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Something has to be done though so at least "website=" and "newspaper=" aren't mandatory. This would get rid of a lot of the red error messages. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support: A mass of red error messages on most of the pages I am working on, that don't actually need "fixing", e.g. Cite web requires |website=. There often is no such thing. Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 14:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Millions of pages are showing cite errors. Please don't do this kind of thing without first running a bot to make sure most existing content continues to display as before. Guy (Help!) 15:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as written. Trappist the monk is being blamed for these changes, but it wasn't even their fault in the first place that all the changes were blocked for months. No deployments could happen for months until a long-proposed change was removed from the sandbox, which only happened after a months-long RfC was closed. You cannot demand that consensus be followed and at the same time make remove the tools used by those who do their best to implement said consensus. However, I hope the most controversial changes can be taken out sooner rather than later, to be given a broader look. Nemo 15:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• I would argue that WP:CONLEVEL can apply here as this discussion is getting more attention on the matter. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support: While the change, in code is small, its effects on Wikipedia articles are massive. We have thousands of articles affected with red "errors". For one thing, they look ugly. For another, such an importang and big change should have been discussed extensively before being implemented. I, and I'm sure many other editors, didn't even realize what was going on. At first I thought I screwed up the citation and kept editing it to fix it. Imagine people trying to do that with every citation and not even realizing that it wasn't their fault. I also don't think it's necessary that, when using the {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help) template that we should also include |website=. For one thing, the website itself is obvious from the url. For another, sometimes the publisher is more important than the website. And if part of the changes are going to occur, such as |deadurl= being changed to |urlstatus=, a bot should have being created to change those things, preferably before they had been implemented. PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support, especially reversion of cite web requires |website=, cite news requires |newspaper=, and anything similar. This is not always available or relevant, it sometimes duplicates other parameters (e.g. |title=, |url=, |work=, |publisher=), and it messes up millions of otherwise complete citations with red text. The other changes should wait unless/until provisions for adaption on millions of pages (e.g. cleanup bots) are ready and there is consensus in favor of implementation. ComplexRational (talk) 15:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support absolutely: Have no idea why no clarifications or discussions were had about this prior to its implementation. I saw these two new errors on an article I created and attempted to "fix" them before I arrived here and realised they were new botched changes. SUM1 (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose but support the changes mention by HeadBomb Nil Einne (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: Even {{cite tweet}} generates the error - {{cite tweet|last=Dovere|first=Edward-Isaac|user=IsaacDovere|number=1120717175743045632|title=Biden's team has been fundraising in recent days, and he has been personally reaching out to donors himself - but without so far filing any paperwork with the FEC.|date=April 23, 2019|accessdate=April 23, 2019}} Dovere, Edward-Isaac [@IsaacDovere] (April 23, 2019). "Biden's team has been fundraising in recent days, and he has been personally reaching out to donors himself - but without so far filing any paperwork with the FEC" (Tweet). Retrieved April 23, 2019 – via Twitter.
  • This is easy to fix. Change the instance of | via = →→ | website = in {{cite tweet}}. Any template editor can fix this now. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 15:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes, but your proposed fix would incorrectly italicize "Twitter". GoingBatty (talk) 16:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

      GoingBatty, Twitter is a website and should be in italics per RfC. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

      • • Then please change the Twitter article to italicize each instance of "Twitter". Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
          • That is completely different issue. When in citation, Twitter indicates the source of information (the website) and not the company Twitter. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 18:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
            • Then please change the Twitter article to italicize each instance of "Twitter" when it refers to the website and not the company. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose There is consensus behind most of the changes. Implement the changes, then re-eval with new consensus discussions. In the mean time, suppress some warning messages until the problems are cleared up. -- GreenC 15:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support unless the problems can be fixed in the next couple of hours. This massive disruption will need all the recent changes to be reversed unless it is fixed soon, Atlantic306 (talk)
• Comment - those saying "there is consensus" - 1) where? 2) how was that discussion publicised? and 3) are you aware that consensus can change? GiantSnowman 15:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• You have a point as I have seen others cite Help talk:Citation Style 1#Italics of websites in citations and references – request for comment as the reasoning, but I don't see where the closer mentioned changing parameters. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• I think an issue is that discussion here is confusing about precisely what people are unhappy about. The recent changes seem to have been mention here 2 module suite after 2 September 2019. There is a link to discussion for individual changes, and of course you could discuss the whole set in that discussion. From what I can tell, there was minimum discussion on most of them. However from what I can tell, most participants of this discussion do not know or care about most of the changes like "support single letter 2nd level domain for .company tld". I do not believe a widely advertised RfC at VPP or something will have received much more interest, instead it's most likely just a waste of the communities time. Frankly the main thing which people here seem to care about are the two things which causes most errors. Requiring website for cite web and the resulting error when it isn't provided, and replacing the deadurl parameter. But I haven't actually seen anyone here suggesting there is a problem with expanding the parameter to allow more options. While I suspect a widely advertised RfC would have received a bit more attention than this did dead-url= and |deadurl=, again I don't believe it's likely many people would care other than, as here, being unhappy with the errors in the interim. As I understand it, the errors were intentional because it helps to test and run the bot, but IMO it was a mistake since not surprise that a large number of errors suddenly appearing has annoyed people. As for the website issue, that seems to be the one that many people disagree with. I believe it came about from this discussion Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 57#4. add error message for periodical templates without periodical parameter. I do think making it mandatory without a more widely advertised RfC was a mistake. Nil Einne (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

May I add, regarding the 2 parameters in question (website and dead-url): there have been re-occurring discussions over the years about these two at the proper forum. There has been broad support by followers of these discussions for addressing link rot in an understandable manner that includes developments such as hijacking of urls etc. Similarly for website, a main impetus was the (inadvertent) misuse of the parameter by editors. It is also broadly agreed that the documentation is confusing and unhelpful. And, the implementation regarding those two is a mess. But: the rationale is correct (to say nothing of the effort to provide a better citation platform). At some point, these changes should be implemented. 24.105.132.254 (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support, per many of the above, particularly Diannaa. - SchroCat (talk) 15:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support, the template {{cite web}} identifies that only the "url" and "title" parameters are required. That other parameters are now (effectively) treated as required is (at best) a bug. And (at worst) unnecessarily and excessively disruptive to almost every article which uses that template. And other/related templates. Effectively negatively impact almost every article on the project. Recommend reverting until the impact can be further discussed/considered. Guliolopez (talk) 15:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support clearly this was not thought out well enough. The template {{Cite tweet}} mentioned above is a good example, the template doesn't even use |website= and still outputs an error. Also, the documentation of Template:Cite news makes no mention of the necessity of |newspaper=. These types of major changes to citation formatting need to be done in separate parts over a longer period of time, with documentation properly updated and a helpful explanation to editors prior to being finalised. Otherwise we end up where we are now. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support Total reversion to the version that did not introduce those unnecessary changes to millions of pages. Consensus for the change should be sought at well-advertised RfC not on obscure module's talkpage. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Strong support overturning and speedy close. Introduction of hundreds of thousands (or more) error messages across the English Wikipedia is an unprofessional look if nothing else. The parameter was and should remain optional. — Bilorv (talk) 16:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose rollback of new features which do not affect existing code, but the new error messages should be temporarily suppressed and the change should be re-implemented with more consultation. And there is a big difference between deprecating "dead-url", which can be solved by a bot, and requiring parameter "website", which demands a lot of manual effort. Strobilomyces (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Suppress Messages - The deadurl deprecation is easy enough to sort out with a bot, so I'm not worked up about that, but the sudden requirement for |website in cite web, even when |publisher is present, is a massive disruption that cannot be easily fixed with a bot. At minimum, that error should be suppressed. --PresN 16:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: These errors feel unfriendly to casual editors. Even if templates were appropriately documented to indicate that parameters are now required, are these missing parameters so essential that it warrants invoking an error instead of a warning? Many editors fill in the information that they can find; calling missing parameters "errors" may discourage them from adding a citation at all if they don't have all the information. If are truly errors, it would likely be helpful to point editors to citation templates with less stringent rules. —Ost (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support - An over-hasty and ill-advised change. I have a TFA coming up which is now littered with these errors. Such a drastic change, without an automated way of resolving the millions of error messages caused, cannot be sensible. KJP1 (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support total reversion until consensus achieved and better preparation is done, especially for the website parameter which is practically everywhere. This has very bad impact on how articles look and was very unprofessionally done. --Muhandes (talk) 17:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Please unbreak everything. If you can't make changes with software without breaking everything, you should get out of the software business. Excelsiorsbanjo (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support No discussion was held and i was surprised to see errorts in refs that were not there yesterday. Let's discuss and see what's helpful and what is not (this as of now is not). Kante4 (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support This change has widespread consequences that will require extensive work to fix hundreds of thousands of articles manually. There's no reason the articles with empty addresses in webcites can't be in a maintenance category for those who want to do the legwork, but there's no reason to wreck reference formatting like this. Acroterion (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support. - Dank (push to talk) 17:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support – Widespread damage, and no consensus for the change. Put the template(s) back to how they were yesterday (when they were working fine), and try again. Help talk:Citation Style 1#Italics of websites in citations and references – request for comment is not consensus requiring the |website= parameter, e.g. so {{cite tweet}} shows cite web requires |website=. Maybe I missed it, but I don't see a discussion anywhere about making |website= a red-error-requirement. The implementation problems of, e.g. deprecating |dead-url=–leading to red errors while we wait for a bot to clean it all up–could have been avoided; see the suggestions above by Alex21 and Sam Walton. We should return to the last good version and then proceed again, this time seeking consensus first for making |website= required (an RfC), and with better implementation for deprecating |dead-url (allow both old and new parameters until the bot is done, or at least suppress error messages until bot is done). – Levivich 17:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Suppress the error messages, restart discussion—there are many other useful changes that would be lost if the module updates were rolled back en masse. Many editors commenting here forget, or don't know, that changes to the citation templates and modules are bundled together in periodic updates. An update for a map citation-specific issue made in isolation could cause millions of articles that don't cite maps to run through the job queue. Rolling back this month's update just to remove the error messages at issue will also remove and further delay pending updates that have been waiting for months to be implemented.

  That being said, if, however, the error messages were suppressed, then discussion about some specifics could be restarted before the error messages are restored, and the remaining updates would be left in place. Suppression of the error messages won't prevent the forthcoming bot task to convert |dead-url= to |url-status=, and once that bot task completes, that specific error message could be restored in the next periodic update. Imzadi 1979 → 17:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

  • To be clear, my support !vote is support for rolling back the entire monthly update. We should restore lgv, immediately, for our readers. Then go forward again with the update: remove from the bundle that which needs to be removed, change that which needs to be changed, and then roll out the update. Further delaying pending updates is a good thing. This update caused problems, we probably should take a second look at all the future updates, too, to avoid this kind of thing from happening again. Not breaking the encyclopedia is more important than keeping to an update schedule.
• Support, the recent changes are really unpleasant. I get red errors (i.e. "Cite news requires |newspaper= (help)") even when I cite news agencies (Reuters, Agence France-Presse, Associated Press, etc.) using the cite news parameter agency=.--Russian Rocky (talk) 17:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support, red errors everywhere and I can't see the stupid from the OK ... IABot's been using dead-url until recently and maybe still is unless I'm mistaken. Disruptive change needing rollback are more careful implementation and its wasted 30 minutes of my time today before I've got to this proposal! Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support Maybe people doing maintenance on a massive software system should learn some basic first-week lessons on how to do that? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support I prefer how it was before, nothing wrong with the citation element before the change and it worked fine. Govvy (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support It's beyond me how someone would think plastering thousands of articles with error messages was a good idea. Kosack (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support There are cases where "website" is redundant or provides no value. The domain name is already in the URL, anyway. Dgpop (talk) 18:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Support:This abrupt change to settled practice has wrecked havoc on the Ref sections of many articles and is totally unnecessary. Even Featured Articles are now branded with the shameful scarlet letter stigma of dozens of deprecated‎ tags. What is the reader to think?This ill-conceived, ill-planned, and ill-executed change should be reverted forthwith.  JGHowes  ^talk 18:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment for Sk8erPrince, the proposer: By my count, at least 40 changes were introduced in this update to the CS1 module code, including many bug fixes that have been in development and testing for months. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Please specify and list in your proposal which of those changes you would like to reverse. From my reading of the comments above, it appears that the following changes may be objectionable to editors:
  • deprecate and replace |dead-url= and |deadurl=; discussion; note that a bot has been proposed that will update these deprecated parameters
  • periodical templates missing periodical parameter error messaging; discussion

Thank you in advance for this clarification. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support' - All of this should have been tested and worked out in advance English Wikipedia is not a test wiki. There have been far too many times when a "consensus" discussion involving a small number of people begets ill-thought out changes that the majority of Wikipedians don't really want, and create messes such as this. The message here is clear, whether you're a template editor, a developer, or the WMF: do better homework. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Strong support - no need to create red error messages. Perhaps just create a hidden category and run a bot to change "publisher=" to "website=" when "cite web" is used and remove Italics where not needed when we have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:CS1_errors:_markup .Patapsco913 (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

  The category is Category:CS1 errors: missing periodical, and a bot run to change |publisher= to whichever periodical parameter applies to the template used would be a bad idea since usage is highly inconsistent. These errors need to be corrected by humans. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Most wikipages have more than one error. Look at Barack Obama, List of Jewish American businesspeople, 1000s of biographies Antonio Guerra (bishop). It will take a lifetime to clean up what are basically formatting errors when the information needed for the user is provided. I do not see why we need to red error messages everywhere.20:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support undo in favor of a wide discussion. References are difficult but extremely important in maintaining verifiablity in Wikipedia. Major changes to the reference structure need wider discussion than happened here. The current documentation at {{cite web}} does not indicate that "website" is a required field. Indeed, not all of the examples given there use "website" and are showing error messages. I can't find any discussion of making this a required field. It often isn't needed if the link is to the main page of the site and would be the same as the title. In addition any change in a field name, such as dead-url, also needs a wider discussion. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support too many things broken because of the change. // sikander { talk } 🦖 19:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support This is not a sandbox! Why can't each "enhancement" be implented one by one, so each one can be fully bug-tested? Is there a rush to deploy all this? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support The occasional messed up cite that refill or reflinks creates pales in comparison to this mess. MarnetteD|Talk 19:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support – As a developer, I'll resist the temptation to explain how to do this properly, in favor of simply stating a fact: there is a navigation path from where we were yesterday, with no errors and yesterday's functionality, to where you want to be when this is all over, that meets your new functional requirements, and which never results in any red CS1 errors showing on any page, anywhere, for even a second. If you don't know how to do that, consult a developer that does. Mathglot (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Per my comment above, way more discussion is necessary before making this change. If we find consensus, we can do this in a way that doesn't threaten to disrupt millions of articles. Rockhead126 (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support i find it odd that they changed deadurl to dead-url. but recognizes archivedate, archiveurl, and accessdate. I do not agree with this change at all.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support The {{Cite news}} template has been heavily affected on pages by the change. JSWHU (Talk page) 20:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. If we're going to use templates, the template parameters should contain true values, in accord with the definitions contained in the template documentation. The parameters should not be set to any old values that make the output look the way the editor want's it to look. If all the editor cares about is the appearance of the citation, the editor shouldn't be using templates. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The problem I stressed already is that while this forces a website name to a parameter (or for cite news, to a newspaper parameter) (good), it also forces an italics style which is not 100% appropriate for all websites or news sources, this goes against the MOS. Additionally not all urls have "website names", but may instead have publishers, such as various US agencies (Dept of Energy, USGS, etc.) among other examples. --Masem (t) 20:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support. The changes mean we can no longer say "publisher=BBC News". Articles I've edited are littered with error messages, and I'm not going to spend time changing them. The templates are fiddly enough without this. And why would "deadurl" suddenly be deprecated? SarahSV ^(talk) 21:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Support: The harm of making the entire references section of every article on Wikipedia almost unreadable surely outweighs whatever minor gains were made by tweaking the module. PvOberstein (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support - this was badly done, and something so widespread should have been advertised at WP:CENT. I want this rather than the option below because I believe "publisher=" should be accepted as an alias, with bots changing them silently, no indication at all for the editor. No harm was being done in the current setup, fiddling was, and is, counterproductive. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support removal, erspecially of cite web requires |website=, cite news requires |newspaper=, which go against the MOS. Don't see the rationale or consensus for any of these changes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support Reference sections now look terrible all over the place. XOR'easter (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support rolling back of the 'website'/'newspaper' requirement especially. Requiring those parameters was not the subject of the RfC that supposedly justified this change, so just downplaying the prominence of the supposed "error" is not an adequate solution. This should not be treated as an error at all unless/until there is a consensus that these fields are required. --RL0919 (talk) 21:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support: There was a better way to roll this out, and a better way to build consensus for the changes. I believe that we should simply revert and try again, in a more orderly fashion this time. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: It's frustrating to see that these largely unilateral changes still have not been reverted, despite the broad consensus to do so. One editor's opinion on the legitimacy of the work= and publisher= params, among other things, should not override the concerns of the entire website. But I guess Wikipedia has long let itself be driven by the often consensus-free actions of a few. It's just disappointing to see it happen again, over something that affects so many editors. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support: This is just ridiculous: https://i.imgur.com/9UKngCm.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-definition_television GlenwingKyros (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support per others. Next time, if someone wants to make a change that will potentially affect every article Wikipedia has, it should be discussed with the community first. Or else there's going to be a mass opposition (and confusion) as you can see here. theinstantmatrix (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support. I'm seeing approximately 138,000 articles listed in Category:CS1 errors: missing periodical as having error messages from references that were previously non-problematic. That is far far too much. And Trappist appears to be taking the position that a narrow RFC on italicizing websites (when present) should have very broad consequences including that a website always be present and that publishers should be forced to become websites; that interpretation is nonsensical, baffling, and a troubling step from the maintainer of such a key template. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support not doubting that these changes were made in good faith, but as plenty of others have commented these changes have laid error warnings on literally thousands, if not millions, of citations which just a day ago were previously acceptable to both the vast majority of editors and readers. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support. There seems to be very clear consensus here; can we fasttrack this so we can un-break the site? Morgan695 (talk) 22:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support partially. The dead-url= error is apparently going to be dealt with by a bot, so I have no qualms about that staying in place. However, there was no consensus to make the periodicals parameter (work=/website=/newspaper=/magazine=) mandatory at all. Only that its content should always be italicized if used. The user made a mistake and made a massive change that affected the whole of wikipedia without it having consensus (making those parameters mandatory wasn't even discussed) and it should urgently be reverted.Tvx1 04:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. The existence of various alternate and clarified proposals below, should not be used as an excuse to ignore what appears to be an overwhelming consensus here in the "Proposal to overturn the mass change made to Module:Citation/CS1" discussion. Carl Henderson (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Voting on clarified proposal

The proposal has been edited to clarify that it applies only to reversion of two changes. This modification of the proposal means that Support/Oppose votes listed above this section header no longer apply to the modified proposal. I believe that Supporting those two changes would be equivalent to Support for items 1 and 2a in the alternative proposal below (please correct me if I am wrong about this). Please comment below on the revised proposal. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• That is not correct at all. The proposal below is not for reverting the changes, it's for keeping the changes but hiding the error messages. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I think we are splitting hairs, since the proposer has not written a proposal specific enough for a coder to make changes to the module in an unambiguous way. Revised proposal 2 above appears to request reversion of the |dead-url= error messages, which appears to be functionally the same as item 1 below. I suggest that the proposer withdraw the proposal entirely in favor of the alternative below. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support clarified proposal - as proposer. Mass changes affecting the entire project should be discussed first, with consensus, or else we get a mess like this. These error messages are highly distracting (especially since there are no clear instructions), so they need to be hidden/removed. Sk8erPrince (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose (as stated earlier) in favour of the proposal below to hide the problematic error messages pending further discussion without reverting the many other constructive updates to the citation modules. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I prefer hiding the error messages as being discussed below. robertsky (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm far from clear everyone is on the same page, I think I've seen a proposal I've voted on changed after I voted on it and I'm concerned about the cite news requiring newspaper= as not all news is from a newspaper ... I appreciate x person years have dilligently gone into this but we currently have y person years of disruption. I'm basically simple. I have been disrupted. and proposals to back out may be hiding a fundamentally bad issue and perhaps more importantly the reasonably clear consensus for an alternative unambiguous proposal to backout is not being presented is a suitably clear way for a stupid mortal like me.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Alternative proposal: hide some error messages and mollify others

In the section above there's mixed support for doing something so that the red error messages aren't peppered throughout the references sections of possibly millions of our articles, whether that's waiting for a bot to fix it, reverting everything back to how it was yesterday, or something else, but it seems that everyone agrees the current situation is unacceptable. The "undo everything" proposal is above; I have a different proposal.

1. Modify the code for the |dead-url= parameter so that it does not show an error. Then let the bot run and replace these deprecated instances silently. Replace the error message when the bot has completed its run, however long that takes.
2. Modify the code for the |website= and related parameters, based on the consensus here and implementation announced here, so that citations using incorrect format do not generate red error messages, but instead advise (in standard black text) that the use of (for example) {{cite web}} without a |website= parameter is deprecated and should be corrected, with a help link directing to whichever Manual of Style is updated to reflect that consensus. (Thanks to Jo-Jo Eumerus for the suggestion)

   2a. Update the code to categorize any page with such an error in an appropriate hidden CS maintenance category, for editors who want to work on standardizing references project-wide. struck, as Trappist the monk has pointed out that they are already categorized in exactly this way Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

3. Establish a requirement that all future changes to the citation module must be advertised at WP:CENT and ideally discussed through an RfC on one of the village pumps.

   3-alt: Require that all future changes to the citation module be advertised at WP:CENT, wherever they are discussed.

• Support as proposer. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support as a patch while awaiting further action concerning the use of |website=, along the lines of my comment above. ComplexRational (talk) 17:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't think replacing red error text with black text advising a change in as many references as the error is showing up in now is a useful temporary solution either, or that the majority of users would want that. Ss112 17:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• What consensus? As far as I can find, there was no discussion at those links or anywhere else of anything being wrong with using {{cite web}} without |website=. Kanguole 17:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Consensus is in the first link, which determined the desired format recommendation for templated citations. The specific change (generate an error when {{cite web}} is used without |website=, and likewise {{cite news}} without |newspaper= and {{cite magazine}} without |magazine=) was proposed in the second link (third bullet point, see link there to further discussion). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Ivan, the RfC (your first link) doesn't mention in the question anything about requiring template parameters. The implementation thread (your second link, including the discussion link on the third bullet point there) doesn't talk about {{cite web}} or |website= or |newspaper=. Instead, the examples given are of title=. Further, there are two people in that discussion. Further further, it wasn't advertised anywhere except on the template page (AFAICT). Where are you getting that there is consensus, specifically, for requiring |website= in {cite web} or |newspaper= in {cite news}? Those words aren't on those pages?? – Levivich 19:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

You're right. The discussion ("consensus") in the first link had to do with whether the names of periodicals should always be italicized, and it appears the consensus was yes, they should always be italicized. There was discussion there that identified that |website= displays in italics while |publisher= does not, and that those were the two parameters most often being misused. The second link was a proposal for how to implement the italics consensus, and seems to have also picked up a desire to correct the usage of the two parameters. Trappist observed elsewhere that |website= populates metadata while |publisher= does not, so to my mind website should always be used, but that aspect in particular was not "discussed", it was proposed and then implemented by the technical team behind maintenance of the module. So yes, there's a bit of a leap of logic between consensus and implementation. I do think that gap needs to be better discussed and probably resolved somewhat differently than what's actually occurred, but I don't think that warrants throwing out all of the changes. Just hide the error and start a new discussion to bridge the gap. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: It wasn't proposed in your second link, which points at discussion that didn't mention {{cite web}} or |website=. Kanguole 20:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Partial Support for ##1 & 2/2a. However I believe that requiring all changes to be submitted to other forums and/or be indiscriminately subject to RfCs is counter-productive. I would instead counter-propose that all discussion about proposed changes to the modules be advertised widely, including to WP:CENT, so that wider input is received. 24.105.132.254 (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support 1/2 (sans black text). 3 is overkill. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Note - added "3-alt" per suggestions that the original was an excessive imposition. However, it's my opinion that any changes to a module used in templates that might reasonably be expected to be in use on every article on Wikipedia ought to be very widely advertised. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is already a strong consensus emerging above that status quo should be restored (which is simpler to do than any emergency patch). This discussion should not derail that. More in discussion section below. – Ammarpad (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. There problems introduced with newspaper= also. This is a failed changed. Without exploring code details interim are likely to be problematic. Needs back out completely to known good state ASAP. Clean backout and then discuss and test an analyzed and tested change which has consensus.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• hiding deprecated (#1) and missing periodical error messages (#2) is simple; I'm opposed to black text rendering of essentially the same thing as the missing periodical error message (also #2). Articles with these error messages are already categorized (#2.a): Category:CS1 errors: deprecated parameters and Category:CS1 errors: missing periodical. For #3, editors are always welcome at Help talk:Citation Style 1 where almost all changes to the module suite ; alas, most avoid that page because, very often, the talk is technical and so may be difficult for many to understand (we have had that complaint especially about me and my writing). Moving such discussions to somewhere more public is, of course, possible but I suspect will not be very well attended. —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: so please implement that. Like you said, it's simple. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support 1 and 2a only. I believe that item 1 is trivial to implement, and requires a change to only one word in the code. Item 2a is probably relatively easy to do as well; it would allow categorization and tracking of cite templates that are missing these parameters, without putting red error messages in front of readers. Item 2 does not conform to any other behavior of the CS1 modules and would probably result in a different kind of confusion, so I oppose that item. Item 3 seems like overkill; we have been updating the CS1 modules a few times per year for many years without this sort of controversy, adding hundreds of new features and fixing bugs in the process. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Mu because it's 3 different issues that should be handled in three separate proposals, and Oppose 2. Ivan writes based on the consensus here, but that RfC did not address requiring |website= in {{cite web}}. The question the RfC posed was whether website names should always be italicized. It didn't ask whether the |website= parameter should be required. Those are two very different questions–one about a style policy, the other about when a template should display a red error message. There are other ways to implement the RfC result (website names should be italicized), without requiring the |website= parameter (like amending MOS, or updating templates with a missing website= parameter before changing the code to make it required with a red error message if it's missing). This all needs to be discussed, probably in a new RfC, not at AN. – Levivich 18:49, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support 1 only On the deprecation of "dead-url" parameter, it doesn't make sense to mark it as such until the bot had had the chance to fix 99% of the uses, leaving the few oddities to be recognized by the warning message. This virtually accomplishes that after the fact. However, I take issue on the "website" parameter for cite web as well as things like "newspaper" for cite news. These are a bit shortsighted. For example, recently I have had to site to data available on Brazil's INPE (the group monitoring the forest fires there). Their site has data on the number of fires, and the like. "Cite web" is the right template for this, and to identify the work, I would expect to use the name of INPE ("National Institute for Space Research") in the citation, but I would not expect it to be italicized. But forcing this to "website", it will be. To me, if the website has an actual "name" (like "Deadline Hollywood" for deadline.com) that's where the website would be needed, whereas in the case of INPE, they would be the "publisher" and there would be no website name. Similarly on cite news, if it is forcing "newspaper", what about online news articles from network news? "CNN" should not be italicized. There's too many gotchas that the website/etc. decision did not seem to consider that that should not be re-implemented until it is further thought out. --Masem (t) 18:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support 1 as it's basically my idea. Oppose 3 as overkill. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support 1 since the majority of complaints seem to mostly take issue with all the error msgs appearing. This should help quell that. And tbh while I was confused when I first saw the errors msgs appear I don't see it as a real problem since a bot is already in place to start fixing this particular issue. Won't comment on #2 because I'll just wait to see how the bug is resolved. Mass reversion to me is unnecessary. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – I opppose, without prejudice on whether this is a good solution or not. I oppose it, because we should not be discussing how to fix this. We should be stating what outcome we want, such as for example, "no redlinks showing up during the navigation path from the old to the new functionality". it is improper to have a survey on how that should be achieved; that should be left up to designers and developers. Just vote on what you want them to do; not how you want them to do it. Mathglot (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support 1 and Oppose 2: Changing the "error" from red to black doesn't resolve the issue that some here don't think it's an error to use publisher/agency in some cases. GoingBatty (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support 1, 3-alt the updated parameters should stay, they are more semantic inline with the intent. Suppressing warning should be more than enough while bot(s) work on updating the articles. As for underlying changes to the citation module(s), they are basically a foundation to the site, would be nice at the minimum to have a notification of upcoming changes at WP:CENT. robertsky (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support 1, 3-alt - Stick to the "deadurl"s only. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I believe it should be reverted completely until a consensus is met. I still don't understand why deadurl is the only constant in the template that changes when there are also archivedate, archiveurl, accessdate. If there is a bot for dead-url, then there should be a bot for all the others too.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Because dead-url is marked as deprecated while the others you have raised are aliases. Check Template:Cite web for the documentation. robertsky (talk) 05:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
• hidden: because there seems to be some modicum of agreement that the deprecated-parameter and missing-periodical error messages should be hidden per items 1 and 2 above, I have done so. The error messages will go away in time. To hasten the removal of the error messages from article where they exist, you can null edit those articles to force MediaWiki to refresh the article. The errors are still detected and are still being accumulated in their related categories. please pass the word.—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you! – Levivich 22:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • That gets rid of the red messages, but I don't think it's enough. We now have Category:CS1 errors: missing periodical with 244,000 pages, most of them because they have {{cite web}} without |website=, when there is no consensus that this is an error. Although the maintenance category is hidden, it will lead to our watchlists filling with well-meaning gnomes trying to "fix" what isn't broken. Kanguole 22:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Exactly - forcing "|website=" or "|newspaper=" (which are then being rendered in italics) breaks the MOS. Neither cite web nor cite news can have a forced website/newspaper parameter because there are alternate ways of naming the originating work that is not necessary a website name or a newspaper name. This is not a sufficient "fix". --Masem (t) 04:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. This merely papers over Trappist's non-consensus declaration that web page references must be described as being part of larger websites and can neither be standalone web pages nor pages with a publishing organization but with no separate identity to the site other than that they are from that organization. This was never discussed (what was discussed was merely to italicize websites when present), is not a good fit for many references, and makes the citation templates even more rigid, unyielding, and hard to use than they have been made under Trappist's direction. These undiscussed changes should be reversed, not merely made more clandestinely. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. It seems there is a misunderstanding about what a title is. We need to be able to write "publisher=" (no italics):

"Female genital mutilation". Geneva: World Health Organization. 31 January 2018.

{{cite web |title=Female genital mutilation |url=http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/ |publisher=[[World Health Organization]] |location=Geneva |date=31 January 2018}}

Trappist the monk says on his talk page that World Health Organization must be italicized. That is wrong; it would be a style error. That misunderstanding seems to have driven changes to every article that uses citation templates. It's a concern that the normal consensus process has been overturned so that the people objecting have to show consensus. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I admit I'm no expert on this and I last wrote a citation in an academic work (not Wikipedia) in 2002, but isn't this citation wrong? I'm going by an internet guide to MLA ([104]) and I don't know if that's the intended style, but it clearly advises that for websites, the name of the website is always included in italics, and the publisher is included upright only if the name of the publisher differs from the name of the website. Therefore, in this style, the proper citation is:

"Female genital mutilation". World Health Organization. Geneva. 31 January 2018.

{{cite web |title=Female genital mutilation |url=http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/ |website=[[World Health Organization]] |location=Geneva |date=31 January 2018}}

In a cite where the website name and publisher name differ:

Williams, Greg (22 August 2017). "When P.E.I. was the last holdout against the motorcar". Driving. Toronto: Postmedia Network. Retrieved 2 May 2019.

{{cite web |first=Greg |last=Williams |title=When P.E.I. was the last holdout against the motorcar |date=22 August 2017 |url=https://driving.ca/auto-news/news/horse-power-ruled-p-e-i-in-the-early-19th-century |website=Driving |publisher=Postmedia Network |location=Toronto |accessdate=2 May 2019}}

Is that not correct? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

This is not really the place to be discussing the technical aspects of citations (neither is my talk page) but, I agree that what you say is correct. World Health Organization is a corporate entity acting as a publisher of information on its own website. WHO has elected to not give the website name different from its corporate name (which from a branding perspective makes a lot of sense). When we cite an utterance from WHO that is published on the WHO website, we are citing a WHO electronic publication, not the corporate entity (the utterance is 'in' the corporate entity's electronic publication) so we identify that electronic publication (the website) as World Health Organization, the eponymous publication of the World Health Organization corporate entity. |publisher= not required here because it is the same or substantively the same as |website=.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

The citation example by SarahSV is indeed, incorrect. There is no source specified. The source, in web citations, is a website. The cited webpage is an in-source location. Basically what is cited is an article in a journal, and the journal's publisher, without providing the journal name. We don't normally say "I found it at WHO". We say (or mean) "I found it at the WHO website". In the discussed citation, |website= must be used. It will properly emphasize the source as being the citation's most important item. The publisher (who may publish many different websites) can be omitted in this case, since it is the same as the source. The citation as currently mis-formatted, has it backwards. 108.182.15.109 (talk) 12:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that this decision was done without reviewing the MOS, which presently says websites may or may not need italics, after many discussions there. Maybe the MLA way is right and they always should be, but that goes back to where this change was not at all presented to the larger editor audience of en.wiki before it was added. This type of change needed consensus to be made at the larger scaler, in contrast to something like the dead url one which is more technical driven. --Masem (t) 12:52, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There was an RFC that held that, in citations, website names should be italicized (you were there as the first respondent). MOS cannot override citation style else the provisions that allow editors to choose any of the various different citation styles, per WP:CITESTYLE, would not be permitted.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

It is arguable whether citation formats override MOS or vice versa, but I can tell you from the MOS discussions that they were treating those as if they applied to citations as well as prose text (hence my comment on that RFC). There needs to be unity between MOS and citations, not one overruling the other. Any change like that should have been conducted with the envisioned changes at the MOS level as well, and that itself would also affect other citation styles to be consistent with MOS; if the change on citation style is kept, then we absolutely also need to change the MOS to be consistent. Also, that RFC implied it was about the website parameter, but not forcing that the website parameter be used, so as identified above, there's a gap in the level of consensus between that RFC, and the changes actually made. --Masem (t) 13:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hindsight is wonderful isn't it? This edit to MOS:TITLE occurred some two weeks before the RFC started; the reasons for it explained in the edit summary. I do not think that we need or want unity between MOS and citations because doing that would invalidate WP:CITESTYLE which allows editors can use any citation style that they would like to use so we would have to settle on some sort of a 'house style' for citations. Good luck with that.

We don't need to change MOS except to clarify that it applies to prose and does not apply to citations which have their own style rules.

The question posed and the closing statement in the RFC make no mention of |website=. I can only surmise that because the RFC was conducted at WT:CS1, you came to some how believe that the RFC was specific to cs1|2. I disagree. There is no restriction in the question or the closing statement that confines the RFC to cs1|2 and therefore |website=.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Masem. Making the periodicals parameters mandatory was never discussed. The only consensus that was achieved that the contents of these parameters should be shown italicized if they are used. Right now, the change that flags the citations without the periodicals as having a cite-error should reverted. It didn't have consensus (it wasn't even discussed) and causes site-wite disruption. The discussion regarding the fine-tuning of the MOS and citation formats is not one that should be right here right now.Tvx1 15:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

It was discussesd, but only for |journal=/|magazine= of {{cite journal}} and {{cite magazine}}. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Trappist the monk, this is neither here or there at the moment. The fact is that there are many articles using the relevant citation templates with a publisher= parameter which correctly includes a publisher name which is clearly different from what would be the periodical title. There was no consensus whatsoever that this is problematic and needs to be flagged as a cite-error, nor that the periodicals parameters should be mandatory. The only consensus that the discussion you based your change on yielded was the the contents of the periodicals parameters should be displayed italicized if those parameters are used. Thus, per the above lengthy discussion, you should urgently revert your change that causes the omission of the periodicals parameters as an error.Tvx1 13:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes there are many periodical templates that use |publisher= to correctly identify the publication's (website's) publisher. I have never disputed that. There is no prohibition from adding |publisher= to any cs1|2 template except the preprint templates: {{cite arxiv}}, {{cite biorxiv}}, {{cite citeseerx}}, and {{cite ssrn}}. Periodical templates that use |publisher= but do not use a periodical parameter to identify the publisher's publication (the periodical name) are incomplete and deprive readers of that important bit of information. There are many many {{cite news}} templates out there where |publisher= holds the name of a newspaper but |newspaper= (or any other periodical parameter) is not used so that the citation renders improperly with the newspaper's name in upright font. That is an error. Newspaper titles, as we all know, are to be italicized (MOS:ITALICTITLE – a case where MOS and cs1|2 citation style agree). This same applies to journals and magazines. And I will assert that this same also applies to electronic publications (websites) regardless of whether the publication's name and the publisher's name are the same.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

However that is just your view. There is no consensus on making the periodicals parameters mandatory. In fact that wasn't even discussed. Your change making them mandatory is thus inappropriate and you really should revert it as soon as possible. Then if you think this is worth discussing you should start a proper discussion on making them mandatory in the proper venue.Tvx1 16:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Tvx1, stop making things mandatory and get a consensus on it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

It is mandatory to require a source for a citation. A publisher is not a source. What is not mandatory is using these templates. If you think that they hinder verifiability (the only reason they are there) then by all means present your sources the way you see fit. However, the entire CS1/CS2 suite has been misused to no end. Part of that misuse resulted from ill-conceived design decisions, some of which are still in effect. There has been a long slog through the past few years to actually put things right and make CS1/CS2 worthy as a citation platform for non-experts. There have been involved discussions about both major design decisions, as well as minutiae, and several RfCs. The present changes hardly happened in a vacuum. They are part of the long process to rationalize the system. I don't agree with everything that Trappist does, and sometimes our views on the overall direction diverge. But he's doing the grunt work in a very important area with help from only 1-2 others. Was the issue at hand implemented badly? I don't think anyone disputes this. But it seems the pitchforks came out to do away with sound citation design decisions. 65.88.88.69 (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. 1 is not that much of a problem that it should be reverted. A bot is going to resolve it anyway in due time. 2 is not in line with consensus at all. The usage of the relevant cite templates without the periodicals parameters is not deprecated at all. On the contrary. The change flagging this as an error should be reverted altogether. I do support point 3 though. That is a no-brainer.Tvx1 13:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Alternative proposal (Discussion)

• Not sure why this path instead of simply restoring the earlier version which did not introduce this pollution and then gain clear consensus for any proposed change. But anyway, what's clear from the emerging consensus above is that, status quo should be restored. Things should go back how they were yesterday. Nothing is broken that requires emergency disruption like this. Going forward, we need point no. 4 of course. Even though massive disruption like this whether in good faith or not is already prohibited by the spirit of our policies. – Ammarpad (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

There were quite a few changes in the modules with the latest iteration. If the problematic ones could be dealt with in isolation, without any side-effects, why not? 24.105.132.254 (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The disruption is more than the good edits. Hundred of thousands of pages are defaced overnight. To separate the wheat from the chaff we need to go back to the status quo, and that's simpler than any partial solution – Ammarpad (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

No, we don't. Of the multiple changes to the templates that have been wonderfully transparent, there are two causing problems: the "dead-url" error notices, and the error notices related to required/suggested parameter usage in the periodical citation templates. It's the error messages that are problematic, although it seems some editors also want to reopen discussion of whether the guidance on italics with the periodicals is warranted, but regardless, the proposal addresses the error messages. Why mass-undo months of work when the two main issues can be easily resolved? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:49, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

If the problems are easily solved, why haven't they been resolved by now, and a black warning on millions of articles is still an unwanted invasion, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Because it requires someone familiar with LUA, and CS1 templates, to do them. Such as Trappist the monk, who is the primary coder of CS1 templates. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

No, what's required the most is to revert the changes and go back to the status quo; the time before this mess. Thereafter the master guru of the LUA should properly test their changes (maybe on testwiki not on production) before disrupting million of pages again like this. – Ammarpad (talk) 20:49, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• This is taking too long, so I'm going to go ahead and clean up the remainder of your mess now on the pages I care about. If you break them again, I will be back. Excelsiorsbanjo (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Close?

Can we have this discussion closed so that more attention can be focused on the individual proposals? This may be just me but I see a clear consensus above for undoing the changes. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. The plethora of ugly red errors have been in place for too long, and no bot is going to fix millions of articles in a hurry. Ss112 20:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify for the record, I am not in favor of scrapping anything yet and want this to move into more discussions on the matter. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Also for clarification: there appears to be strong consensus to revert the changes to the templates (at least for now). Should it now be okay to do so and revert to the earlier version while discussions on how to move forward are ongoing? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 21:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

It appears the revert was executed.Tvx1 21:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Nothing really has been done though as the error messages remain. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: it takes some time for the changes to filter down from server caching. If you're on desktop, whatever page you're on, add ?action=purge to the end of the URL in your address bar and say "yes" to the resulting dialog, that should clear the cache and update the page for you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Tvx1: But it isn't. The disputed version is still the latest. Trappist only hid the error messages. Still though, better than nothing. theinstantmatrix (talk) 22:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The error messages were the contentious thing to begin with. There might be tweaks needed to categorization, or some other problematic things that came with the update, but there's nothing requiring a mass revert to before September. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with whatever as long as I don't see those pesky error messages. Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I have to disagree with that. From what I see in this thread, there was no consensus to make the work=/website=/newspaper= parameter mandatory in the first place. There only was a consensus that its content should be rendered in italics if used. The person who made the change to the module based on that consensus made a mistake and it should be reverted as soon as possible.Tvx1 04:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I also disagree. It's not the error messages that are contentious, it's the error in the first place. A blank "website" field in a {cite web} should not generate an error, and there was no consensus for having made that change. It needs to be undone, not just hidden. – Levivich 13:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

And it no longer generates an error anymore since the messages reporting missing websites as errors were disabled. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

There is still something broken in this new module code even with the suppression of the error message. Take a look at this article Midland–Odessa_shooting and scroll down to item number 26. After that entry all the cites are indented and messed up. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

That's how that specific cite is coded: as a reference embedding several citations in a bullet list. It's nonstandard but it's not an error with the citation module. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I want to note to any passing admin that there has been no closure nor has there been full implementation of consensus. This really needs to be addressed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree. As evidence that Trappist has implemented the non-consensus "hide the error messages" option instead of the strong consensus "go back to previous behavior" option, I note that Category:CS1 errors: missing periodical has now grown to some 300,000 articles, erroneously tagged by this tracking category as having bad citations. I spot-checked and these are definitely coming from {{cite web}} (which should not require a publisher or web site) rather than from other citation templates where a publisher might reasonably be required. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
    • People wanted to revert to the previous version to get rid of those error messages. These error messages are now gone, so the need to revert is also gone. Whatever further tweak needs to be done to the template can be raised and discussed at Help talk:CS1 as usual. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
      • The overwhelming consensus here is to return to the previous behavior where cite web with no website and no publisher was not flagged as an error in any way. Ignoring that consensus and declaring that this must be handled as a "tweak" in later discussions is the wrong way to go. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
        • Concurring with the need to revert and walk these updates out in a more consensus-driven, careful way, per the massive discussion above. Even without the visible error messages, the error backlog is now needlessly huge, simply because one editor decided to introduce a change (namely, the requirement of "website=") without discussing it first. That, and the unannounced deprecation of so many params all at once, some of them for unclear reasons, has led to mass confusion about how exactly a citation template is supposed to be filled out now. I've been using "work=" since the 2000s, and now it's gone overnight. Chaos like this is not a good practice for the world's most important website. We're big, and that means we need to move carefully, slowly and steadily—none of which happened here. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Revert back to the longstanding behavior and then discuss

While the error messages have been suppressed, citations are still not displaying properly. It is usual to revert challenged changes and then discuss. Lets go back to the April 20 version of CS1 citations and then discuss the individual changes. The module documentation is at Module:Citation/CS1.

The code change was

• 11:06, 3 September 2019 diff hist +7,443‎ Module:Citation/CS1 ‎ sync from sandbox;
• 11:06, 3 September 2019 diff hist +2,920‎ Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration ‎ sync from sandbox;
• 11:05, 3 September 2019 diff hist -207‎ Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist ‎ sync from sandbox; current [rollback] [vandalism]
• 11:05, 3 September 2019 diff hist -1‎ Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation ‎ sync from sandbox; current [rollback] [vandalism]
• 11:05, 3 September 2019 diff hist +1,012‎ Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers ‎ sync from sandbox; current [rollback] [vandalism]
• 11:05, 3 September 2019 diff hist +1,359‎ Module:Citation/CS1/Utilities ‎ sync from sandbox;
• 11:05, 3 September 2019 diff hist -1,550‎ Module:Citation/CS1/COinS ‎ sync from sandbox; current [rollback] [vandalism]

The following changes are what is needed to restore the citation behavior:

• Revert Module:Citation/CS1 to Special:Permalink/893307475
• Revert Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration to Special:Permalink/893779298 (April 23 version)
• Revert Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist to [[Special:Permalink/893307470
• Revert Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation to Special:Permalink/893310188
• Revert Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers to Special:Permalink/900551956 (June 6 version)
• Revert Module:Citation/CS1/Utilities to Special:Permalink/893307454
• Revert Module:Citation/CS1/COinS to Special:Permalink/893307448

Thankyou. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• • oppose a simple revert like this will introduce another set of errors on pages that have already been worked on by users to fix cs1 errors in general. If anything, my only gripe is the sudden new compulsory fields as it may require more than just an automated fixing. The revert you are suggesting include stuff like deadurl and url-status. robertsky (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually, some errors are still present, particularly with |publisher=. I just noticed the error when I was browsing Marzia Kjellberg. [1]

Can someone please suppress the error message for this too? Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Those error messages are actually a good thing and they errors should be fixed instead of suppressing the error messages.Tvx1 16:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

The right thing to do would be to fix the errors, rather than complain that they're being pointed out. Those errors were the result of someone using the |publisher= parameter and trying to use wikimarkup force it to display in italics, which has always been improper. I changed the parameter to |website= and removed the markup, and added the publisher where I could find one; there's no red left in the refs section. I also updated url-status and fixed the inconsistent dates. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

But the problem is that calling these "errors" was a decision made by a few that have unilaterally decided that all web citation must follow a periodical format. That's clearly not consensus from this discussion. Maybe the community would decide that should be the case if put to an RFC to specifically address it, but its been stated that this was made based on an assumption from past behavior, and not by a formal RFC. Because this affects citation format, and not just busy work to help with metadata (as in the case of dead-url) this still remains a problem --Masem (t) 18:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

The errors in this particular case were actual errors, you can't pass style markup in a cite template parameter. Displaying an error message may have been a change in the recent update, I'm not sure, but these were incorrect regardless and needed to be fixed. They weren't "missing parameter" errors. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

At the core is the fact that with the change, the cite web template requires that the name of the site be in website (which is fine for meta-data stuff) but that will automatically render as italics. There are clearly editors that feel that some set of web sites should not be rendered in italics. Yes, these people (including myself) have habitually used things like work= and publication= to get the italics or non-italics without any additional formatting aids in the past. I fully agree that from a proper citation format that's not acceptable in the long run as it can fail to capture metadata, and getting people to use the unified website= for the web site title and stop "mis-using" publisher= in general is something that needs to be fixed. But again we are then back to the fact that there is clearly a concern about forcing the web site name to be italics with this change - its likely why people came dependent on work=/publisher= since that gave them the right control of how the web site name was formatted. Because MOS does not force web site titles in either direction, it is wrong for the new cs1 templates to force this by a few editors (as well as inadvently calling their choice an "error") Maybe after on RFC on the specific issue we'll have consesus that this behavior is appropriate. Or maybe as I've suggested we might need a separate web citation template for non-periodical-like websites. I don't know, but I do know that discussion was absent before the change was made, and absolutely necessary to have now, and per STATUSQUO, we should be seeing how to revert back to the previous behavior until a better consensus is made, without losing the other changes. --Masem (t) 19:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose the pressing issues were fixed. Concerning citations are still not displaying properly, I'm going to put a big on that. If there are issues with anything, bring those to Help talk:CS1. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but no issue was fixed at all. The error messages were merely hidden. I agree that a complete revert is overkill, but the change that flags citations not using the periodicals parameters with a cite-error is still very much active (albeit hidden) and should be reverted as soon as possible as there was no consensus to apply that in the first place. In fact it wasn't discussed at all. Surely reverting that one change can't be too difficult?Tvx1 16:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not technically difficult: the cite web/website issue could be fixed by removing , ['web'] = 'website' from Module:Citation/CS1. But it is proving astoundingly difficult in practice. Kanguole 16:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

The problem was that this caused a dozen billion errors to show up in articles. Now they don't. So yes, the issue is fixed. Further tweaks to the template's behaviour can be discussed at Help:CS1 errors, but reversion does not help anyone. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

The issue is not fixed, as a perusal of Category:CS1 errors: missing periodical (291,000 entries and climbing) will show. This bit of overreach needs to be reverted, not stone-walled from a position of fait accompli. Kanguole 16:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree it needs to be fixed, and the person who made the changes held accountable. Its upsetting to me to still see editors frustrated over this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

It is also forcing the unilateral decision of a few editors that all citations to web sites must be treated as a citation to a periodical, which I think is clear, from this discussion alone, needs to be reviewed and determined at a larger scale. And it is the apparent resistance to revert at least that portion of the set of changes to give time to discuss that raises some questions. Hiding the red sweeps all those issues under the rug, but they're still there. --Masem (t) 16:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

If there is a clear consensus above to not make parameters mandatory then why is it not being implemented? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Among the big singular change made were several bug-fixes and other behind-the-scenes improvements that no one clearly has any issues with, but separating those out from the problem edits is something that takes an expert in Lua scripting to do without breaking anything. Reverting all those throws the baby out with the bathwater. --Masem (t) 17:41, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - the pressing issue was dealt with, and the remaining issues should be solved through discussion. Reverting will reintroduce errors and break other things. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. See Category:CS1 errors: missing periodical. The non-consensus change to make periodicals parameters mandatory is still causing disruption. It should be reverted as soon as possible as it was never even discussed.Tvx1 17:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

The visible errors were corrected. Articles populating that category still have errors requiring repair, but neither the category nor any related error messages are visible to readers. There is no pressing need to revert, and doing so will create new errors. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

There is no consensus that, for example, {{cite web}} without |website= is an error – that was a unilateral decision, without even a prior announcement. Placing these in an error category will invite gnomes to "fix" hundreds of thousands of articles that are not broken. I understand you got your fingers burned, but this one is easy to fix. Kanguole 18:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not an error for websites, no, but it is one for journals/magazines. But that's trivial to tweak, and does not require a revert to the August version. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:52, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - If this solved anything then I would be supportive, but per Ivan we need to discuss how to fix the remaining issues rather than create new ones. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Going forward (discussions proposal)

As was mentioned above, it would be nice to get a full consensus on just the matter regarding any future changes to the citation module. The proposal was as follows:

• "Require that all future changes to the citation module be advertised at WP:CENT, wherever they are discussed."

I think this is pretty straightforward and do not want it to be lost in the conversation here as a lot of other proposals are lumped together.

• Support - As re-introducer. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support - That's self-explanatory.Tvx1 16:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
• No. A) This is the wrong place. AN is not for content-making decisions. You want VPPRO/VPPOL (pick your poison). B) Every change advertised when proposed is insane. You would require or desire the same level of oversight for a bug fix, or a minor feature, as something in this case which affected many many articles. There might be some reasonable discussion on how much oversight is enough, and when, but it's not here, and it's not this. --Izno (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

  This module isn't changed that often as it effects millions of pages, we need a fix to the problem and not editors making major decisions through casual chats. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

  It doesn't change that often because we don't want to break the wiki job queue with thousands of small but livable changes for each release. It's not changed rarely because the changes that are made don't exist. --Izno (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

  The point is that this could happen again if discussions are not done ahead of time with the releases. What do you propose be put into place so something similar doesn't happen again? The facts are changes were made without broad consensus which has angered a lot of editors here on Wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

  If you want to have that discussion, let's take it out of the high-stakes scenario you're putting us in by having an RFC on AN where it is also misplaced. I was planning to start a normal talk page discussion about it at Help talk:CS1 (with perhaps some invitation at WT:CITE and WP:VPPOL), where it is both in-scope and highly-relevant, since I agree that we seem to have caught people by surprise, and I doubt anyone wants to relive the past 24 hours. As I said, here and now is not the right time or place to have that discussion. --Izno (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

  I have removed the RfC, I cant speak for other editors but I share the frustration going on. One person should not be making these changes without consensus per our normal practices. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• No I expect that the smart people dealing with the CS code should be able to make bug fixes without having to seek out consensus. But at the same time, they should be aware when a change will affect a large segment of existing citations and should seek CENT-type consensus building then, or recognize that when there is a situation like this (a change after the fact turns out to be disruptive), to back off the non-bug fixes and then reseek consensus. Nothing that can presently enforced through admins through. --Masem (t) 16:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
• Meh, advertising would not have solved anything that happened with this rollout. Not really against, but that seems like pointless WP:BUREAUCRACY to me. If you really care, then watch Help talk:CS1. if you're interested in CS1 templates. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
• No. Yes, major changes to the way citations behave should be discussed centrally, but that is already true for major changes of anything. There doesn't need to be an additional requirement specifically for the templates and I am sure going forward large changes will have wider discussion. The major problem that turned up here wasn't mentioned in the update description at Help talk:CS1#update to the cs1/2 module suite after 2 September 2019, so advertising that wouldn't have helped. Otherwise that description was very clear and linked to the discussions where the changes were considered. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support - I proposed this originally (somewhere up the page). Changes to citation modules potentially affect every article on the project, there should certainly be some means of notification even if it's just a message like "on <upcoming date> we're rolling out changes to the citation modules, here's what you need to be aware of". If not CENT then a watchlist notice maybe? I mean, otherwise, editors have pretty good reason to be angry when their hard work on constructing a professional-quality article is suddenly and unexpectedly covered by new error messages all over their references, through no fault of their own. I don't expect devs to seek community preapproval for every little bug fix or feature standardization or whatever, but clearly it was intended that this change would produce error messages, and it would have been better to know in advance. At least someone could have stepped in beforehand and said, "you know what, you're going to piss people off doing this, why not hide the error messages or have some kind of transition period?" Otherwise we get AN discussions like this one with mobs demanding blood, and everything goes backwards. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector: re 'someone stepping in'. This would not have happened, because the test suites didn't show these behaviours. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

  Well, fair enough, but that suggests testing was not sufficiently rigorous. I mean, was it not expected that changing the periodical name parameters to requirements and adding visible error messages would, you know, produce visible error messages if a cite was missing the parameter? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

  What was expected was that {{cite journal}} / {{cite magazine}} and other periodical citations throw errors when they didn't have |journal=/|magazine=/|work= set, because either that is clearly a critical omission (or the wrong template used). What wasn't expected was that {{cite web}} would be throwing missing periodical errors, because websites aren't periodicals. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

  So, today, we do publish a notification of intent to push the sandboxes to the live modules approximately a week in advance. That notification usually occurs on a few pages: Help talk:CS1, WT:CITE, WT:AWB, offhand. It looks like Ttm didn't do so for this release outside of HT:CS1. So that's one gone-wrong. I think maybe that list of pages might be too short and perhaps we should include VPM or VPT or VPPRO? Possibly also UT:Citation bot/UT:InternetArchiveBot? So that might be a second gone-wrong. --Izno (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Overturn Bad ArbCom Action

ArbCom recently banned Eric Corbett for "sock puppetry" without providing any evidence of actual violation of WP:SOCK. See Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration_motion_regarding_Eric_Corbett. Eric had his issues and was under editing restrictions. However, this ban was not due process. There are allegations that Eric was severely baited and harassed. Please, let's have a poll to decide whether ArbCom's action was legitimate or not. This poll should not be based on whether you love or hate Eric. Please consider fairness of process, because you could be the one receiving such a ban next time.

Jehochman's view

ArbCom cannot ban users by fiat. ArbCom cannot make policy by fiat. Any action they take has to be justifiable based in policy and evidence. I understand that private evidence is a thing, but in this case it's not relevant. ArbCom must list the accounts that were used abusively by Eric Corbett, along with diffs showing disruptive editing, or else we declare their action to be invalid and we overturn their ban.

1. Jehochman ^Talk 18:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Freeform discussion

Just to point out that Eric is not banned, but indefinitely blocked. Black Kite (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Indef blocked by ArbCom is banned. He can't request an unblock without their permission. This isn't Wikipedia:Quibble about nomenclature. Jehochman ^Talk 18:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• Out of scope. Arbcom has stated that Corbett's sock is confirmed by checkuser data. It's a clear and unambiguous violation of policy to create new accounts to avoid consequences for one's actions under a different account. The access to nonpublic personal data policy governs the release of checkuser data and other private information; the information that Jehochman demands simply cannot be discussed here. If editors think that something untoward has happened with respect to access to private data, contact the ombudsman commission. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • ArbCom has stated that Corbett's ... ArbCom has stated that Ritchie333's ... WMF has stated that Framks ... take out the user based on hidden, secret evidence and your problem is solved. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) Concur with Ivanvector on all points, and I don't think AN is the appropriate place to have this discussion anyway. I would consider the ArbCom noticeboard discussion that this split off of a more appropriate place to gain consensus to overturn the action. Moving the discussion here looks like mild WP:FORUMSHOP to me; I concede that you did link the two discussions, but my cold read of this thread was that you're not so much here to get a consensus to reverse as to find a willing administrator to lift the ban. Please don't take this as an accusation, I just want to point out how it looks to someone who hasn't followed the other discussion. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 18:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the assumption of bad faith. I'm here to have a community discussion to generate a consensus. Nobody should go rogue. Jehochman ^Talk 19:05, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
• Make policy by fiat, no they can't do that. Banning/blocking users by fiat, they certainly can. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Link? They have to have evidence of a policy violation. They can't just wave their hands and hold up a red card. Jehochman ^Talk 19:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Banning policy#Authority to ban, point #2. The evidence of a policy violation is the checkuser-confirmed creation of a sockpuppet with the obvious intent to evade a discussion about their conduct (an unambiguous violation of the sockpuppetry policy). These are all community policies; there was no creation of policy by fiat and no action by fiat by the committee.

If what you mean to advocate for is that Eric Corbett's clear and unambiguous violation of policy should be overlooked because of extenuating circumstances, which seems to be the case, then just say so. I might agree with you. But Arbcom is not in the wrong here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• Out of scope - Your issue seems to be with Arbcom, so please keep the drama there. In my opinion checkuser is pretty strong evidence of socking, I'm sure the admin here have heard time and time again many excuses to get out of it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring on Chernobyl (miniseries)‎

An ip editor seems to be unaware of the ordinary phrase "for dramatic purposes"and has taken against it for an unclear reason, despite it being the precisely correct phrase in context. They have repeatedly changed or removed it despite being reverted by myself and others, and encouraged to engage on the article talk page. I posted on the talk page here and on their user page here. They chose to delete that. Their first edit here, and my reversion, with edit summary. Their subsequent edits:
here
here
here
here
here
here
here

Their latest edit is to imply on my userpage that I have not considered the matter (pot calling kettle imho). Captainllama (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)