Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive363

Request for intervention concerning User:Aearthrise

Original request for assistance containing examples of insults/communication style and individual difflinks

Hello admins, I'm kindly asking you to intervene in a matter concerning Aearthrise (talk · contribs) and the article Pennsylvania Dutch which I believe is getting out of hand and is harming Wikipedia. In little under two years time, a single user (Aearthrise) has basically claimed sole editorship of the Pennsylvania Dutch-article. If statistics are to be believed, Aearthrise has since become the author of over 50% of the articles content and is responsible for 83% of all edits to the article within a two year timeframe. [1] Now there is of course nothing wrong with a single author being prominent or more involved in an article, but I'm afraid that in this particular case it has resulted in significant damage to Wikipedias reliability, neglect of its principles and a severe lack of respectful communication. In practice Aearthrise adds what he wants, deletes what he wants and does so in a manner which I can only describe as browbeating or just plain bullying. Any attempt to engage in a meaningful discussion concerning the articles content is impossible as all of these discussions follow a basic pattern: a question is asked by another user or Aearthrise himself; which is soon followed by a large amount of green quotes from various websites and Google Books. Any attempt to bring in professional literature with an alternative POV is ignored or waved away and the discussion quickly gets unnecessarily personal and unpleasant. Exploring or questioning the validity or reliability of the green quotes is equally not appreciated. Regardless of arguments made, sources provided or discussed: Aearthrise does what he wants. Currently there are 4 talk page discussions involving Aearthrise, which I've tried to describe and summarize below. I've added diff links and excerpts which (I hope) give a good idea of the problem at hand, but would advise anyone involved to read the talk page itself and check the recent article history to get the complete picture; especially concerning the first one as I feel it illustrates Aearthrises attitude and debating style as no other. In the first talk page discussion involving him, Aearthrise reverts an edit made by @47thPennVols: several times and then posts a comment on the talk page, asking for a source on how ″Dutchman″ can be considered a slur for some Pennsylvania Dutch. The entire discussion can be read here. At one point 47thPennVols, who remains friendly and professional throughout the entire conversation, curiously asks why Aearthrise (a user who claims to be a French Louisianian from New Orleans) has such an intense interest in Pennsylvania Dutch history. To which Aearthrise replies: My grandfather was Dutch, and unfortunately he passed away during the pandemic. I do miss speaking Dutch with him, and I wish I spent more time with him. Developing this article helps me connect with my German heritage. [2] Reacting to this and the issue at hand, 47thPennVols posts a comment which can really only be described as heartfelt, well-meaning and constructive. In this comment she gives her condolences, tries to make a personal connection and goes on to explain why he wants to address the issue raised and explicitly says he wants to reach a workable middle road.[3] It receives a single sentence reply: What is your citation that "Pennsylvania Dutchman" is a derogatory term for the PA Dutch people? [4] — despite the fact that 47thPennVols already gave her citation. To his credit, 47thPennVols stays on topic and expresses her concern with the 5 quotes that Aearthrise previously provided. 47thPennVols explains that the publisher of some of these sources (Stackpole Books) has come under scrutiny on Wikipedia over the years and is not considered to meet Wikipedia quality standards. He also goes on to cite an academic review of one of the sources provided by Aearthrise, which said the source contained ″numerous errors″, ″interpretive and rhetorical overstatements″ and ″needs to be handled with care″.[5] Instead of reflecting on the sources used, Aearthrise doubles down, writing: You are continually waffling and nitpicking, but you have not yet provided ONE source for your claim. I've already provided 5 sources both historic and recent that demonstrate the usage of Dutchman in regards to the Pennsylvania Dutch community. [6] and; You have not proved your claim that Dutchman is a slur in Pennsylvania Dutch community; it is therefore not appropriate to remove the term- this is based on your original research, and not based in reality. I suggest next time you make an unsubstantiated claim, you find the evidence to back it up. Your attempt to remove the term is completely unjustified. [7] 47thPennVols then writes: I'm asking you, respectfully, to stop now. Despite your repeated claims to the contrary, I have, in fact, presented you with a source that confirms that the terminology you used in the article has been considered a slur. I have presented that source to you twice. I have also documented that, of the five sources you have used to back up your claim that the term you used was not a slur, two were completely irrelevant because they were published before the period when the slur began to be used against Pennsylvania Germans and the Pennsylvania Dutch community, one of your other three sources contains known factual errors, according to at least one prominent historian, and the other two are considered potentially unreliable as sources by multiple, experienced Wikipedia editors because those sources are produced by companies known for publishing the works of self-published authors that are not considered suitable for scholarly research. It is clear from your insistence on pursuing this dialogue, despite the evidence I have presented, that you are unwilling to consider my sincere perspective. Therefore, we must agree to disagree. And because of that, I am, again, asking you to stop, reflect and then move on to another matter deserving of your attention. I will not be continuing this dialogue with you any longer, but do sincerely wish you all the best with your future research. Kind Regards. [8] Aearthrise responds twice to this, in a manner which speaks for itself: Your "perspective", i.e. original research, is invalid; the only citation you've provided is a weak Dictionary.com entry that is not at all related to the Pennsylvania Dutch. There is nothing to "agree to disagree"- you have not provided sufficient proof for your claim, and your attempts to remove "Pennsylvania Dutchman" from this article are completely unjustified. I shall roll back your last edit. [9] and; You undid my reversion of your post claiming "Ther term "Dutchman" is considered to be a slur by many in the Pennsylvania Dutch community"; either produce reasonable evidence of your claim now, or I shall revert it again. [10] Regrettably but understandably, 47thPennVols gave up his attempts to edit and improve the article. The second talk page discussion involving Aearthrise concerns a long bilingual quote that Aearthrise has added to the article. The quote is very wordy (in fact the quote has a higher word count than the section its in) but the main point of disagreement is that Aearthrise insists that the original Pennsylvania German quote (from a book published in 1903) should use the Fraktur font — which 𝔴𝔥𝔦𝔠𝔥 𝔩𝔬𝔬𝔨𝔰 𝔩𝔦𝔨𝔢 𝔱𝔥𝔦𝔰 and is something highly uncommon if not nonexistent on Wikipedia and in professional literature. When @Theodore Christopher: addressed this, a very unpleasant discussion again unfolds, which can be read here in full but contains remarks directed at Theodore Christopher such as: Although I already answered this question in an edit, which you choose to ignore now, I shall entertain the question with this response. [11] You speak on that the usage of Hebrew and Greek are irrelevant to Palatine German- this is another statement without a thought. [12] Your inability to comprehend that is telling of your mindset; you ignore sound arguments and prefer to just waffle and blather. [13] Your words are based in ignorance, coming and from an outsider to Pennsylvania Dutch culture, you who don't even speak the language nor know our cultural traits. [14] As I said in my previous post: "your thoughts are not worth very much. [15] Lastly, your (...) quote is completely incorrect, and it shows you lack knowledge of Pennsylvania Dutch culture or basic understanding of the message. [16] Your arguments and words are all vapid nonsense (...) [17] Theodore Christophers edit were repeatedly reverted by Aearthrise and he (once again, regrettably but understandably) stopped engaging with the article. When I joined this discussion some time later and wrote I fully supported Theodore Christophers changes and argumentation, this too was ignored or waved away and edits reverted multiple times. The third talk page discussion involves a NPOV-dispute concerning the etymology of ″Dutch″ in ″Pennsylvania Dutch″. There seem to be two main trains of thought: one is that Dutch was used in an older broader meaning, the other that is an anglicization of the Pennsylvania Dutch word for themselves ″deitsch″. Both views have reputable academic publications behind them and are widespread among scholars. Per WP:NPOV, both views should be represented in the article, as they were in the past and are represented on other Wikipedias. Aearthrise opposes this, considering one view to be ″the truth″ [18] and the other nonsense and again and again [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] removed the second view from the article. The pattern described at the beginning again appears: large amounts of quotes are spammed on the talk page. Most are from travel blogs, personal websites or books that are well over a hundred years (1900, 1870) old, followed by insulting or suggestive remarks: This is your problem- you want to operate on ignorance and your emotions rather than from evidence and knowledge, and you've shown that time and time again. Even now, you're showing how your feelings were hurt and trying to use that to win the argument. You have a bruised ego. [24] Your commentary makes you seem like the type who doesn't like learning, nor wants to learn [25] You deleted my responsse here earlier for making a discussion here, but yet, as a hypocrite, you started a discussion here yourself! [26] You are hypocrite and are playing a game to get your way.[27] I came to the same conclusion as 47thPennVols before me in realizing that a discussion with Aearthrise wasn't going to go anywhere, so I made a Request for Comment-request to try and persuade others to voice their opinions on the matter. As I'm writing this, I don't think that RfC is going to be very successful as it immediately got spammed with large amount of green texts and personal remarks which have nothing to do with the purpose or subject of the RfC. At one point, he started adding large amounts of text to comments that had already been replied to [28] and despite explicit requests and warnings not to do this, he continued anyway [29]. In the fourth discussion involving Aearthrise an anonymous IP asked the perfectly normal question if there was a source for the claim that Elon Musk is of Pennsylvania Dutch ancestry, to which Aearthrises replied: It takes a "special" person to ignore the citation that's already present on the article, and a lazy person to not take it upon himself to make quick a google search. [30] and again added a lot of green text from questionable websites. He has my sympathies for losing his Pennsylvania Dutch grandfather, but this has clearly resulted in a case of WP:OWN with regards to this article. Aearthrises behavior has resulted in many unreliable and/or outdated material finding its way into the article, it's been tailored to his personal preference to the point of the fonts used and the talk page and article history clearly show that he is unwilling to accept additional or alternative points of views, even when valid and reliable sources are clearly provided. In addition to the harm being done to the reliability and neutrality of the article, his aggressive, insulting and bullying style of communicating is driving other committed users away from an article which is not very well known or has many involved editors to begin with and is preventing improvements or changes to the article being made. This needs to stop before it gets out of hand even more than it already has. Wikipedias principles on personal attacks, proper use of sources and NPOV need to come out on top and I would therefore kindly ask you to intervene in this matter. Vlaemink (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Original response indicating Vlaemink's attempt to avoid direct argumentation

Vlaemink has continually made poor arguments not based on hard evidence; every single point i've made in our discussion includes evidence. Vlaemink added false information to the article, and also attempted to make an anecdotal argument equal to one that is filled with a plethora of hard evidence. Vlaemink has showed he doesn't want to argue and has deleted my arguments several times on the discussion page; he would rather play a game of ego rather than prove that his information is correct through well-reasoned arguments. All of my edits are based on citations and evidence that are reasonable and well-sourced. Vlaemink here has cherrypicked four arguments, one from 47thPennVols that was completely based on his personal opinion, and which he could not provide evidence for. He tried to talk around the issue instead of providing evidence. The second, from Theodore Christopher whose whole argument was based on treating a specific Fraktur variety of Pennsylvania Dutch language, that was made to be rendered in Fraktur for historic reasons, the same as German language, which I argued was incorrect and should be treated differently, due to the circumstances around this form of language, and that Pennsylvania Dutch language is completely separate to German language. He kept returning to the same point about how we treat standard German without addressing any of the points of contention I gave. The third is Vlaemink's own argument about adding content that, partially was misleading, and another part completely false; I talked to him about how parts of his added content were misleading, but he didn't want to address the argument. The fourth is an anonymous IP who said "The section talking about famous folks of PA Dutch decent says family of Elon Musk. Is this correct? Can this be substantiated with any evidence?", with a source of evidence right next to the word Elon Musk. I produced 4 more quotes in addition to that one, and wrote my response in a way to show the hubris of taking the time to write a whole section on the talk page, but not taking easy steps to view the evidence already provided, which is why I called it lazy. Vlaemink wants to say that I claimed ownership of the article, but that's not true at all. I improved the article's quality and content with cited material. He claims "signficant damage" to Wikipedia, but includes no evidence for this claim other than points of his bruised ego from himself having not made good arguments for his addition of content. He wants to make you believe that this whole article is questionable now on nothing more than his word.

Hello admins, I ask you to intervene in a matter concerning Aearthrise and the article Pennsylvania Dutch, which I believe is harming Wikipedia. I made a previous request which was too long and detailed; it can be found in the above collapsable for specific insults and more difflinks and here is article's talk page.

In under two years, Aearthrise has dominated the Pennsylvania Dutch article, contributing over 50% of its content and making 83% of all edits.[31][32] While single authorship isn't inherently problematic, in this case, it has led to significant damage to Wikipedia's reliability, neglect of its principles, and a lack of respectful communication. Aearthrise adds and deletes content as he pleases, often in a bullying manner. Meaningful discussions about the article’s content are impossible. Attempts to introduce alternative perspectives are ignored, and discussions quickly become personal and unpleasant. Regardless of the arguments or sources provided, Aearthrise does what he wants. Four talk page discussions illustrate these issues.

In the first discussion, Aearthrise reverted edits by @47thPennVols:: and demanded a source on how "Dutchman" can be considered a slur. 47thPennVols provided a citation and raised concerns about Aearthrise’s sources, which were aggressively and unilaterally dismissed. 47thPennVols eventually gave up on editing the article.[33][34][35] [36][37][38][39][40] The second discussion involves a long bilingual quote added by Aearthrise in Fraktur font, highly uncommon on Wikipedia. When @Theodore Christopher:: addressed this, a very unpleasant discussion ensued. Aearthrise made derogatory remarks and repeatedly reverted Christopher’s edits. My support for Christopher’s changes was also ignored.[41][42][43][44][45][46][47] The third discussion is a NPOV-dispute about the etymology of "Dutch" in "Pennsylvania Dutch." Both views should be represented, but Aearthrise opposes one view and repeatedly removes it, despite valid sources. He spams the talk page with quotes from unreliable sources and insults, questioning others’ motives. An RfC was similarly spammed, deterring other participants.[48][49][50] [51][52][53] In the fourth discussion, an anonymous IP asked for a source on Elon Musk’s Pennsylvania Dutch ancestry. Aearthrise responded insultingly and added text from questionable websites.[54]

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

I'm condensing this section because Vlaemink has edited his original post to make it smaller, and is making different claims now.

He claims that 1.my challenging 47thPennVols insulted him, so it scared him away; this is untrue, as I asked for evidence for the opinion he was presenting, but he did not produce anything beyond a weak quote unrelated to the topic.

2. Vlaemink claims I made derogatory remarks and reverted Theodore Christopher comments; none of those links he added shows "derogatory remarks", it's just long-winded debate, and for the reversion, it's because Theodore Christopher completely removed content, which I challenged the removal, and we subsequently discussed it.

3.Vlaemink's problem is not the addition of content (beyond the false content he added), but rather the misleading nature of equating a consensus based on an abundance of hard evidence with an anecdotal folk etymology debunked by experts on the topic.

4. Vlaemink says I insulted the anonymous IP by calling him lazy for asking for evidence, when evidence was already present on the article, attached directly to the information he read; the anonymous IP didn't at all make the post about reliability. Now, on this thread, Valemink is now claiming these are questionable websites. Forbes is a questionable website? I don't think so, and if it is this isn't the place to discuss that, it should be done the article's talk page. Aearthrise (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Vlaemink and @Aearthrise these are both quite extensive walls of text. It is far more than I and many other editors or indeed administrators (all of whom, remember, are volunteers contributing in their spare time) will have time to read. I'm sure you both carefully crafted your comments and were aiming for completeness but I'd urge you both to condense your concerns down to the most salient points. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 22:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I can condense this whole argument: Vlaemink is mad that because he can't argue with hard evidence, he would rather make an ego-filled post here to administrators about how my words could hurt people's feelings, instead of actually providing well-sourced proof for his arguments. Vlaemink wants an administrator to step in and save him, rather than address the points of discussion. Aearthrise (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

This type of combative WP:BATTLEGROUND response doesn't exactly defend yourself well from the complaints above. The Kip ^(contribs) 23:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

That's your opinion, but it doesn't change the fact that this whole post is about how Vlaemink says my words may hurt other people's feelings, and that he made it here because he wasn't willing to wait for comment on the article's talk page (he already put in a request for comment); his arguments weren't convincing through discussion and evidence, which is why he is taking the route of notifying administrators- his actions show that he's not confident that he can win with his own arguments. Aearthrise (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about ″winning arguments″, it's about finding sources and finding consensus. The fact that I asked for a third opinion, RfC and now have taken to the Administrators Noticeboard is anything but a sign that I do not believe in the validly of my sources and the need for their inclusion.Vlaemink (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about showing what is verifiable and true, and that is "winning arguments"; Wikipedia is all based on evidence. There is no evidence that Dutch is just a corruption beyond that people have said it. The consensus on the origin of Dutch has an abudance of evidence to show why it's correct, and that's the view scholarship accepts. Aearthrise (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Any Wikipedian familiar with Wikipedia's principles can tell (and show you) why that is completely false: Wikipedia does not show what is ″true″, it repeats and summarizes what has been written about a particular issue by reliable and valid authors. And if there are multiple views, then multiple views are to be mentioned to provide the reader with the full scope of an article. This an encyclopedia, not a bundle of personal essays. Vlaemink (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

That is 2000 words. You'll need to cut that down by like 75 percent at least. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

While this is far too long, I'll just say that from inspection, Vlaemink raises some good points, and Aearthrise needs to adjust their behavior even if they're right (which I don't think is a given). In #4, an IP address asked a harmless question, and Aearthrise was pointlessly rude and insulting, and even made their case seem worse by linking some truly awful sources like random websites with "A brief biography of Elon Musk for young kids" (looks obviously AI generated! Terrible formatting, alien wording! [55]). See WP:BITE, there's no need to be hostile to a standard question, just politely link your source and move on, or ignore it. (And frankly, given Musk's reality distortion field, it wouldn't shock me if it was at least possible that someone just made it up in the past, so there is an interesting question here.) For #2, We absolutely don't do fancy Fraktur fonts because it was contemporary, and I don't think the Miller quote is worth including at all, let alone 4 full paragraphs of it that is extremely partial (I'm sorry, but Eastern Pennsylvania was not the "model of the world" for agriculture, the good professor was deluded, why are we quoting this guy). Aearthrise claims that German nationalism only existed in the "late 19th century" (diff), which is 1000% false to anyone who knows anything about the German question. For #1, I'd argue that one Aearthrise has a point on the merits, but he was still needlessly hostile on the talk page, seeming to invoke ownership rather than finding some compromise, like a footnote discussing the issue from both sides. Similarly, for #3, even if we grant for a moment that Aearthrise is correct (we'd need someone uninvolved to examine the literature), then there's probably an interesting missing section about the "folk etymology", its supporters, and reliable sources on why it's wrong. Instead of just deleting it outright. SnowFire (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• Well, I read all of the comments here and Aearthrise, if you can honestly read all of this evidence and blame it all on a "hurt ego", it shows to me that you are taking this too personally and refusing to address the merits of the complaint. Of course no one likes to be criticized but there is some unreasonable and uncivil behavior on your part that you can't wave off with a "hurt ego" comment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  I addressed the merits of the complaint, but my point of contention was that Vlaemink was misleading people by equating anecdotal evidence with the consensus explanation of "Dutch" by linguists and experts, proven by an abundance of hard evidence. Vlaemink refused to revise the content he wrote, and included false content at the same time. Aearthrise (talk) 09:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

You can repeat this time and again, that etymology A consists of ″anecdotal evidence″ and etymology B does not — but it doesn't make it so. It's a debate tactic, it's not based on the sources provided. The talk page contains numerous publications by reputable authors which subscribe to etymology A, and this alone shows that a ″consensus explanation proven by an abundance of hard evidence″ does not exist. One of the authors supporting etymology B even explicitly mentions the fact that etymology A is mainstream among nonscholars and scholars alike. A Wikipedia editor is supposed to report on relevant view from reliable publications, we are not here to create our own preferred version of reality. This is the core issue here. Vlaemink (talk) 13:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

You show you don't want to cooperate on this article, because you ignore the points of contention and want to make the claim based on anecdote equal to the one based on heavy evidence, and is the consensus view on the origin of Dutch.

You don't want to acknowledge how equating these arguments is misleading, and that's the whole problem, not whether we include the information at all. Aearthrise (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• @SnowFire: I didn't claim German nationalism only existed in the "late 19th century" as you're claiming from that revert link, but if it is a point of contention, it can be easily discussed and proven or disproven with proper evidence. I didn't revert Vlaemink's revision because of when German nationalism started, it was because he deleted a lot of content, and for his inclusion of false information, that High Dutch was a calque of "Hochdeutsch", false and not substantiated by the sources added, and misleading content which was saying there was confusion by linguists about an anecdotal folk etymology while there is consensus of the historic of use of "Dutch" backed by an abundance of hard evidence. There is no problem with adding a footnote, but Vlaemink did not want to change his position on the way of writing the content, because he wanted to present them as equal arguments.

  You talk about the quotes for Elon Musk, which as I said were all easily found on a quick Google, and you only mention one, being the last quote. The others are Forbes.com, Industrytap.com, etc.

  As for the Fraktur, which you're trying to dismiss in the same way as Theodore (who called it ridiculous), and Vlaemink who called it (ludicrous), i've spoken at length on the discussion page why it should presented in that form, as it is a classical literary variety of Pennsylvania Dutch written specifically in Fraktur as a way to fight against the complete loss of German education in Pennsylvania. The Fraktur wasn't only a circumstance of being written at that time as you want to claim, it was consciously written like that to be an opposition to fight against the "Englisha rule" Pennsylvania Dutch, which was simply the spoken language of the time written in an English way, and part of the reason it was ridiculed.

  For the quote by Daniel Miller itself, it painted very well the feeling of the prejudice faced against the Pennsylvania Dutch community, and that was the point of the paragraph. Your nitpick is on how Dr.Miller showed that emotion towards the prejudice, and are making an argument about his words aimed at uplifting a marginalized people.

  As for invoking ownership, there is no proof for that claim, unless you're basing it on the passion i've shown to make this a quality article. I always want people to challenge content on Wikipedia, but the content should well-sourced, and if there is confusion about content, it can be discussed until a resolution is made, based on the best argument and best evidence. Aearthrise (talk) 09:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Leaving aside a literal declaration of ownership, there is plenty of clear evidence that you are behaving as if you own this article:

• Over half of the current article content was added by you in less than two years and your edits make up 83% of the total during that period. [56] — and these edits did not come about in a collaborative and constructive way: you are unnecessarily aggressive and insulting.
• Prior to 2022 you did not edit this article. You described yourself as a Louisiana Cajun living in New Orleans, and a professional translator proficient in English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Latin, Greek, Italian and Romanian.[57].
• After 2022, you stated that your grandfather was Pennsylvania Dutch and claimed to speak Pennsylvania German.[58] You started to edit the article intensely and at one point even claimed that you yourself were in fact Pennsylvania Dutch, as evidenced by a remark in which you accused a fellow editor of ″not even speaking the language nor knowing our cultural traits″ [59] and explicitly stated that you edit the article because it ″helps you to connect with my German heritage″ [60].

And therein lies the problem, because that's only half the story. It's clear to me (and I hope also to others) that it's not just your desire to connect or explore your heritage but also a clear desire to shape your claimed heritage to your own personal liking. If you were truly interested and invested in this article, you would welcome every possible view, nuance and sourced addition to the article. Instead, you seem to exclusively want to see your own personal views and preferences in the article page and get abusive as soon as anyone dares to challenge or even as much as doubt it. That's a clear example of WP:OWN-behavior and I really do not see how you can objectively deny this given all the evidence and examples provided. Vlaemink (talk) 10:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Vlaemink, as someone who agrees with you, Aearthrise's cultural background is irrelevant, and I'd recommend dropping the topic. Judge by actions here, not possible motives. The sole thing that matters is refusing to work with others to improve the article and instead insisting on "their" view. SnowFire (talk) 10:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@SnowFire: You are right, I should have stuck to the refusal to cooperate and ignoring of alternative POVs.Vlaemink (talk) 13:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

The refusal to cooperate is on your side. You don't want to listen to opposition and work towards a solution; it's not about ignoring alternative points of view, it's about making points of view that are weak equal to ones that are very strong, based on hard evidence. Aearthrise (talk) 15:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

The problem being identified in the discussion of personal background is the rather blatant inconsistency of the claims, suggesting strongly a history of dishonesty. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

You want to purport that sharing self-identity on the talk page this platform is supposed be an "inconsistency of the claims", and say the writing self-identity on the talk pages "strongly suggests a history of dishonesty". This is an incorrect statement, and users should be able identify however they want on their talk pages, without being harassed about it. Aearthrise (talk) 14:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Vlaemink, you are doing everything to try to save face. You claim WP:OWN, but your only evidence is that I added more than over 50% of the current content on the article, that my talk page identifies me in a certain way, and finally a cherry picked quote from the discussion about treatment of Pennsylania Dutch language in the Fraktur discussion with Theodore Christopher, which his whole argument was based around how we treat standard German.

You're using personal information now to try to prove that I claim ownership on the article, but all you're doing is making a discussion of who I am as person. Aearthrise (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• (de-indent, reply to Aearthrise above, but it seems Vlaemink decided to reply there instead): I'm going to try to keep this brief. A), Yes you did make such a claim on German nationalism, it's right in the linked diff above (and the incorrect statement wasn't in the version of the article in 2022 before your revisions), but if you're saying it was a good edit of Vlaemink's accidentally swept up in the undo, fine, glad we agree. B) Okay, so your sources are right and Vlaemink's are wrong on etymologies. Put a pin in this. C) You clearly aren't understanding The Problems in what I wrote on the IP's Musk question. C1) How would you react if someone on a talk page asks what is in your view a simple and easily answered question in the future? The same way or different? Why? C2) I agree that the Forbes article is the real source. I was saying you only should have linked that before. Instead you linked obvious chatbot splurge as "proof" as well. This suggests you thought it was real proof. This does not speak well for your discerning judgment in figuring out which sources are reliable and which aren't - do you understand that? Everybody makes mistakes, it's no big deal, I've personally trusted some awful sources in retrospect. But an editor who makes mistakes, refuses to acknowledge them after they're pointed out, and then basically invokes their own judgment on which other sources are reliable (say in case B on etymologies) as unquestionable is treading on thin ice. (SnowFire, interjection by Vlaemink)

@SnowFire: I hope you don't mind me placing this small comment in between your comment, but the sources I've provided on etymology A are valid, reliable, and cited in full on the talk page. Also, Aearthrise is trying his utmost to frame this as ″my theory″, but I've provided sources on both etymologies and have no personal preference; my POV is that both should be mentioned as they both appear in the scholarly field.Vlaemink (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC) (SnowFire again:)

That was meant only as a summary of Aearthrise's argument that I'd loop back to (hence the "put a pin in it"). I'm not saying he's actually right about everything and you're wrong about everything. SnowFire (talk) 13:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that, I misunderstood. English is not my native language and I think I got my idioms mixed up.Vlaemink (talk) 13:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

You claim i'm trying to frame this as your theory, but show no proof of it. The point of contention, and we've repeated this several times, is the consensus around the origin of the word "Dutch" in English. The other theory has been debunked by experts of the topic, and the debunking is based on a plethora of hard evidence.

You haven't tried to revise your work as of yet, and you still want to present them as equal arguments. Wikipedia is based on what you can prove, and you can prove that some people mention it as the etymology of Dutch in English, but it has no evidence behind it beyond anecdote.

Oxford for example lays the term out perfectly "from Middle Dutch dutsch ‘Dutch, Netherlandish, German’: the English word originally denoted speakers of both High and Low German, but became more specific after the United Provinces adopted the Low German of Holland as the national language on independence in 1579.". Oxford on the same page explicitly mentions the Pennsylvania Dutch as an example that falls under the historic use: The German language, in any of its forms. Obsolete except in High Dutch n. A.1a; Low Dutch — Pennsylvania Dutch, a degraded form of High German (originally from the Rhine Palatinate and Switzerland) spoken by the descendants of the original German settlers in Pennsylvania. Aearthrise (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

At this point I think there can only be two options: either you never understood what is being discussed to begin with or you did but are now purposely creating a smoke screen: nobody is contesting that the word ″Dutch″ at one point had an older, broader meaning in English which, in today's terms, could also include Germans. I wouldn't be able to name a single professional etymological or historical linguistic publication that has ever disputed that. That's not what being discussed here: the issue is not whether ″Dutch″ had additional meanings in the past, but why the ″Pennsylvania Dutch″ are called ″Dutch″ — and that question has at least two possible answers. Yoder in his 1980 article assumes ″Dutch″ is a relic of an earlier meaning surviving in American English, another explanation found in reliable sources is that its an Anglicization of ″deitsch″ or ″deutsch″. That's two theories, both of which should be mentioned in the article. The fact that (etymological) dictionaries prove that ″Dutch″ had a more diverse meaning the past does not mean they validate or prove Yoders hypothesis, it merely means Yoder used a historical dictionary as part of his explanation. Your quote from an 1897 Oxford Etymological dictionary entry (which also defines Pennsylvania Dutch as ″degraded German″) is in the same ballpark: it supports Yoder, but this has no relevance on the fact that other scholars hold a different view and that this view should be included per WP:NPOV. Louder already explicitly mentioned the popularity of the alternative among scholars, proving its relevance and further casting doubt on your continually repeated claim that a ″total consensus″ exists on the matter. Vlaemink (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

First, this Oxford post is from the online dictionary, which they've updated with all of the information they've collected, so you're claim that it's just an 1897 quote is unsubstantiated here. You say "Louder already explicitly mentioned the popularity of the alternative among scholars, proving its relevance". Dr. Louden like Dr.Yoder explicitly states that this idea is incorrect, and he provides reasoning why, the same that I have presented to you over the past few days.

Dr.Louden says: "Contrary to a widespread belief among both nonscholars and scholars, though, the Dutch in Pennsylvania Dutch is not a historical mistranslation of the native word Deitsch...", and Dr. Yoder was quoted: Dr. Don Yoder, father of American Folklife Studies, and co-founder of the Kutztown Folk Festival, tackled this question in 1950 for previous generations: “When they stepped off the boat at Philadelphia, they were called by the English-speaking people ‘Dutch’ and ‘Dutchmen.’ This term was not, as you often erroneously hear, invented in America as a mispronunciation of the German word ‘Deutsch’ which means ‘German.’ No, ‘Dutch’ was in 1750 already an ancient and well-established term. It has been traced by the Oxford English Dictionary as far back as the late Middle Ages.”

Online beyond Oxford, the University of Wisconsin-Madison clearly shows Although scholars and some language advocates prefer the term “Pennsylvania German,” the use of “Dutch” here does not reflect a (mis)translation of “Deutsch” or “Deitsch.” The English word “Dutch” was used in earlier times to describe people of both German and Netherlandic origins.... I can produce so many more quotes and evidence, so many already being on the article's talk page.

You're still trying to push the definition not based on any hard evidence to be equal to one that does. Your thought process is like using a paper tiger. You can't prove it isn't a tiger by looking at it, but it doesn't hold the weight of a true tiger.

This is the whole point of contention, which your unwillingness to compromise has lead you to create several RFC requests, and being impatient, skipped over them to make this call to administrators because you're not getting your way. Aearthrise (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Louden does not provide any reasoning why the alternative is incorrect, he defers to Yoder as anyone looking up the source can see for her or himself. If you take a close look at the online Oxford Etymological Dictionary (which is an active project, not a finished dictionary) you'll find (in the top left corner a disclaimer stating whether an entry has been revised since 1897 or (as in this case) not. Vlaemink (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Louden does provide reasoning why the alternative is incorrect. The expanded quote, from his book "Pennsylvania Dutch: The Story of an American Language" reads "Contrary to a widespread belief among both nonscholars and scholars, though, the Dutch in Pennsylvania Dutch is not a historical mistranslation of the native word Deitsch, as earlier pointed out by Don Yoder. Although the words Deitsch and Dutch do share a common Germanic etymology, both German and Dutch were used in earlier American English to mean 'German.' The two synonyms differed in terms of formality. The word German, which was borrowed from Latin, traditionally had a neutral or formal connotation, while Dutch was used in more familiar and informal ("folksier") contexts." Aearthrise (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

No he doesn't, as can be clearly accessed from both the quote above and the source itself. He expands on why he thinks Yoder is correct, he doesn't address why the Anglicization hypothesis is wrong, unlikely and/or impossible anywhere in his book. Vlaemink (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• On Fraktur, I'm sorry, but unless the passage is specifically on fonts or art, it isn't how things are done on Wikipedia, and the other editors were correct. We don't have Kulturkampf in Fraktur despite it being the contemporary font in 1870s Germany. Maybe we need an explicit passage in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting forbidding this but I think this just has never come up before. On the very long Miller quote, it's very, very common chest-thumping that thanks to its language only gets seen by its intended community. You could find near-identical statements in Norwegian in 1903 Minnesota, or in Yiddish in 1903 New York, or in Guarani in 1903 Paraguay, talking about how wonderful a local group is and how people look down on them but they're totally wrong and we're actually awesome. It's all standard cheerleading written a million times before, not just the wild claim on agriculture. But this is more a vanilla content dispute. Suffice to say you haven't made the case that this is really a worthy quote to include both the translation AND the original text.
• Your final comment on demanding "proof" ownership is occurring is very strange. What do you think the purpose of this AN thread is? SnowFire (talk) 10:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that German nationalism was a just swept comment, and if it needs to be corrected, it should be. The focus of the reversion wasn't about when German nationalism took place.

  As for the quotes I added, I simply added four extra web pages (in total 5 with the Forbes quote already present on the article, and the next four web pages after it) to demonstrate that it was easy to make a Google Search to find the information.

  On the Fraktur point, the literary Fraktur Pennsylvania Dutch should be given consideration due to its history and unique circumstances, and should be treated in the same way other languages are uniquely written for their circumstances (I mentioned Yiddish and Coptic Greek for example). Nevertheless, the whole paragraph on prejudice against the Pennsylvania Dutch is unnecessary on the article and can be removed; the removal of content so far has been about how the language information was presented.

  As for the final point, I asked for proof of ownership, because the only points Vlaemink provided are my passion for the quality of the article, how much of the article i've contributed, and who I am as a person. Aearthrise (talk) 10:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  For your Musk quotes: AN is a little tense for a "learning experience", but you still don't seem to be engaging with the problem here. It doesn't have to be a big deal, exactly, but you seem to think that more quotes is better and the other person was very lazy (your words, not mine) for asking the question. Did you read what I wrote above that "you made your case seem worse by linking some truly awful sources like random websites"? If someone asks what the capital of Illinois is and you link a terrible AI-generated source, it makes it look like you don't know what you're talking about, even if the source is accurate. If you couldn't be bothered to critically examine the websites at all and were literally just pasting Google links, maybe don't do that? To back up a little here, your enthusiasm in researching the Pennsylvania Dutch article is a good thing. But learning what sources are reliable and what aren't is a key Wikipedia skill - one that frankly most of the world is bad at (most people believe memes shared on Facebook uncritically). Please click on your own links. Discarding sites like that are the basics of learning how to source. If you agree that those non-Forbes sites weren't useful, then great, we can move on to tougher questions like when to trust old sources from 1878 or whatever. But if you still don't see the problem, then nobody is going to believe on your judgment anywhere else.

  On that note, you didn't answer my C1 question above. If someone asks an in-your-view "easy" question in the future, how would you respond?

  It's moot, but for future reference, you will want to distinguish fonts and language scripts. Yiddish and Coptic are written in non-Latin scripts. Pennsylvania Dutch, like German and English, is written in the Latin script, of which Fraktur is one font. Varying up the script to match a language is fine; varying up fonts within a script is very unusual and not done just because it would have been contemporary without a very good reason.

  On ownership: I think Vlaemink has made his case. I think you have two ways you can defend yourself: A) Actually, everyone else IS really wrong, and you were just performing good stewardship by stopping these wrong editors. But given some of errors so far in your preferred versions, you're not making this approach the easy one. B) You commit to accepting feedback and not reverting and working with others. If you commit to B, and then actually follow through, that'll actually be the happy case - but you have to understand that you will sometimes "lose" and other editors will put in the "wrong" stuff and you'll need to develop a consensus on the talk page otherwise, politely, and without bludgeoning. Are one of these doable? SnowFire (talk) 11:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Vlaemink, you claim that there are very serious issues, but show very little to make the claim about severity; your whole argument is about time period and a nitpick of a six sources, but don't point out any flaws of the information they corroborate.

Dealing with the topic of Pennsylvania Dutch, Pennnsylvania Germans, the height of information about this culture was written between before the American Revolution and World War 2, with the period between World War 1 and World War 2 being heavily obscured and marginalized.

I've spent a lot of time researching this topic to bring light to facets of this culture, corroborated by many different sources, because prior to my additions, there was almost no history mentioned, only information on the Amish.

If you see something that you find questionable, then bring it up, and it can be discussed, but without better evidence you're just inventing claims about "very serious issues" based around only 6/130 sources you claim are questionable and fifteen sources from dates before World War 2. I have made a response to your claim on the discussion page.

This addition is still part of your tactic of character assassination to win your argument on the discussion page, this whole post being because I reverted your deletion of my arguments, which you deleted three times; trying to silence me, you threatened to complain to administration only because I restored my arguments. Aearthrise (talk) 15:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Aearthrise, please try to keep consecutive edits down to two or three, by using the "show preview" button. It's hard enough to read all of these walls of text without watchlists being flooded too. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

It's time for you (Aearthrise) to stop doubling down, to stop pretending to be a victim, to stop twisting words and to stop defending what cannot be defended and to get back to reality.

At no point, did I ever threaten you. I asked you to stop making significant changes to your comments well after they'd been responded to and after asking multiple times I told you I would seek assistance from the admins if you continued [61], which you did without any hesitation — so I did what I explicitly told you before.

You also cannot bluff your way out of the serious sourcing issues described above: I've very clearly stated that of the 130 sources in the article, I've only been able to take a look at the first 50. Discounting sources used multiple times, effectively half of these references were unacceptable by Wikipedia's standards with regard to valid and reliable sources. You're now actively trying to misrepresent the facts by speaking of ″fifteen sources published before World War II″ — which is absurd and extremely misleading, given the fact that these invalid sources include material published over a decade before the start of the American Civil War and leaves out untrustworthy (personal) websites, self-published books, falsified publication dates and copy-pasted references from other Wikipedias!

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

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

There are a great many recent and reliable academic sources on just about every aspect of Pennsylvania Dutch culture, past and present, and these can be found and used by just about any editor. The proposition that you had to use thoroughly antiquated material because nothing of note has been published since 1945 is simply not true and frankly ridiculous. Vlaemink (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

You're bouncing around between discussions on this page and the article's page, and this is just another character attack. You're copying this argument from the article's talk page under Talk:Pennsylvania Dutch#Very serious problems with the reliability and validity of the sources used. There, I pointed out a lot of the problems with the routes you're taking to get your way; you don't use evidence, and make statements based on nothing but your word. Aearthrise (talk) 09:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable Sources is extremely clear on what constitutes a reliable source and with whom the burden of proof rests and I'm not going to debate these community standards with you. You are not in any position to make any demands: you've added a huge amount of unreliable, questionable and/or outdated sources, in several cases even falsifying their dates of publication or misquoting the source material, and it is highly likely that most if not all will be removed from this article within the next couple of weeks because of this. The quality standards apply to all and to all equally. Vlaemink (talk) 10:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

You made a claim on that page of what is "unreliable", and you didn't back up your claims. I addressed your claims, but you ignore them and show that you would rather make a character attack than directly argue with evidence and well-reasoned arguments. Aearthrise (talk) 16:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• Holy wall of text, Batman! Gents. Please endeavor to be more concise. @Vlaemink:, please point out 2-3 sentences and the associated sources you believe to be incorrect, incomplete, misleading, or inappropriate. @Aearthrise: I understand your frustration and find comments here to be less-than-collegial. Let him present his evidence and then we can address them. Buffs (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. Wouldn't normally try to backseat a report, but since Vlaemink isn't very experienced with AN and also said English is not their first language, I'll just note that Vlaemink's original post did include lots of diffs showing uncollegial behavior from Aearthrise, since collapsed after told it was way too long. (Then they spent a bunch of time holding their content dispute here anyway...). While since then there's been uncollegial behavior on both sides, the accusation is OWN, and an even casual inspection of the talk page & page history shows that Aearthrise has indeed been defending their "turf", at least in the past (although did say a few good things above on easing off some matters). However they seem to have backed off the article at the moment and are letting Vlaemink make some changes, so maybe the problem is moot? SnowFire (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

    You're saying "defending their turf" and "backed off on the article", like that was the point of the arguments I had with Vlaemink. This is a complete mischaraterization on your side.

    This whole discussion was about Vlaemink adding content that was untrue (writing High Dutch was a calque invented by Americans of Hochdeutsch, which is false and didn't have any sources), and making an argument had a little weight beyond anecdote equal to one that there is consensus and is backed by an abundance of hard evidence.

    I reverted his edits because he refused to revise them after being addressed why his addition was misleading. Now Vlaemink is trying many different ways to make his earlier work seem legitimate, but it's not true. His newer edits having nothing to do with that argument, so bringing them up here and stating how I'm allowing them is not needed to be said, because it's completely irrelevant. Aearthrise (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

    This is why I asked him for clearer evidence. I'm not suggesting anyone here is as pure as the driven snow...I mean MAYBE fire ON snow might be ok...I'll have to see the diffs. :-) Buffs (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• Outside observer's summary of the WoT and best steps forward. Since I suffered through reading some of the above already, might as well chip in as someone who's never edited the Pennsylvania Dutch article. There's two issues here: a content dispute (that ideally isn't resolved at AN, but it's here, so I guess it might as well be acknowledged) and behavior woes.
  • On content: While I can't be sure that Vlaemink's "version" is better, I do think that they are correct that Aearthrise's old version was very... credulous... of old and dated sources, or stuff like genealogy websites. Old sources have their place, but in moderation, and maybe more for a "History of the Pennsylvania Dutch" article when desiring a contemporary report's details. This would normally be No Big Deal, Normal Editing, but Aearthrise initially responded hostiley to attempts to bring in alternate perspectives rather than saying "great, let's expand the sourcing." (And per above, I do not really have confidence in Aearthrise's current ability to pick out what is a good source and what isn't on their own, which is not meant as an insult - this is a fixable problem, just please accept advice with good grace rather than defensiveness). For the record, someone like Aearthrise being willing to dig up old sources like Aearthrise can be a tremendous asset to research on the article, just as long as you work with others to figure out which sources are usable and which aren't, and apply them in WP:DUEWEIGHT. I hope that you two can actually work together in the future.
  • On behavior: Vlaemink's depiction of Aearthrise's behavior as being uncollegial and OWN-y are correct per the diffs in his original report. Simply peruse Talk:Pennsylvania_Dutch, or Talk:Pennsylvania_Dutch#Family_of_Elon_Musk? for one obvious example to an IP address - Aearthrise tends to paste some text that supports his position and assumes that denying the printed word is obviously perverse, as if there was one established truth and people don't disagree. Before, he also "defended" his version of the article with salty reverts rather than working collegially toward a better article or as a compromise. (Which would be one thing if Aearthrise was clearly "right" and Vlaemink was a passing crank, but see above on content, I don't believe that was accurate.).
  • Suggestion: If Aearthrise is satisfied that they can do better and is willing to commit to working collegially forward, and understands that not every random old source they find is necessarily that usable for Wikipedia, there's nothing that needs to be done other than perhaps a warning. If Aearthrise plans on just restarting the edit war, and plans on snidely replying to newbie questions while being wrong himself, then a page ban from Pennsylvania Dutch & Pennsylvania Dutch language may be in order. But I'm hoping that isn't necessary. SnowFire (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with the SnowFire's assessment and also support his suggestions (a warning now, a page ban if the previous MO is continued) concerning the use of sources and incivility displayed.Vlaemink (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

SnowFire, you've said your piece four times already and repeating it doesn't make a more compelling argument. You first tried to make a "gotcha" with my sources by making a whole argument around Elon Musk (I simply added the first five sources that corroborated the same point, to show how easy and quickly the evidence could have been found through a Google search) and you nitpicked one while ignoring the others, and presenting it here like the whole post was wrong saying "given Musk's reality distortion field, it wouldn't shock me if it was at least possible that someone just made it up in the past, so there is an interesting question here". I pointed out the other sources, and you back pedaled.

You tried making a completely different tangent about the page by starting an argument about German nationalism, and I pointed out that it had nothing to do with the reversion of Vlaemink's edit.

You say I tend "to paste some text that supports my position"; that's called providing evidence, which is how you prove arguments. Again, those weren't "salty reverts," they were made to stop misleading information from being added. The lack of cooperation is not from my side; if Vlaemink wanted, he could have made well-reasoned arguments and discussed the evidence. Instead, he is going this route of character attack and avoiding addressing points that I made against his argument rather than directly supporting his position. Aearthrise (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I've been trying to avoid the wall of text, but for the record: this was never a "gotcha", Aearthrise. It was a sign of a problem and a genuine attempt to get you to understand that A) Your petty reply to that IP address isn't how we do things on Wikipedia, and B) How to improve in the future. You can choose to take that advice or not. SnowFire (talk) 02:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I understand your sentiments, but I felt I needed to defend against mischaracterization. The crux of this argument, is that it's important to maintain civility, and I agree. I got frustrated with the situation with Vlaemink, and I took it out on the IP address, and that was wrong.

Wikipedia should be a place of civility, and one without character attacks. If we can maintain peace, then the experience on the site is more congenial, especially for cooperation. Aearthrise (talk) 06:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I support SnowFire's assessment of the situation and this response only serves to show Aearthrise's WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. It is quickly getting to being beyond the point that a warning would be sufficient. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 04:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

The response was just a defense of some the claims that SnowFire made in his assessment. But beyond that, I agree with the background sentiment. This whole muddy post is the result of bringing an ego into the editing process, and clearly chaos is the result. I don't want chaos, I want peace and harmony, and I want the best articles available, like any good Wikipedian.

On a side note, Vlaemink has made the revision that I asked for initially, so that point is out the way; this the fruit of cooperation. Aearthrise (talk) 06:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems I spoke too soon I spoke too soon about Vlaemink's revision. Aearthrise (talk) 07:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Both Vlaemink and Aearthrise have posted far too much here, and Aearthrise seems to have ignored my previous post. Please stop posting and let independent editors decide things. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I see your post Phil Bridger; I understand your point of keeping consecutive edits down to two or three, and I understand that it's to help editors read the history of this thread.

I have made a habit of continuously editing my words for small phrases and grammar mistakes, and I forgot it when writing my response to Vlaemink's most recent charge. I thank you for reminding me, and I ensure it won't happen again. Aearthrise (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• I am making one more short comment here so that this thread isn't archived without action. Vlaemink was not very concise in raising the problem, but that doesn't mean it isn't a real problem, IMO. I've posted my own tl;dr analysis above and would encourage at least some admin to wade through the mud to provide some semblance of a way forward for these feuding editors, even the "bad" kind of a-curse-on-both-your-houses. SnowFire (talk) 02:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you SnowFire; I don't want to be cursed, and I don't want Vlaemink to be cursed either: we've had a discussion with very heavy emotions, and lot of mudslinging- the only result of that kind of behavior being a big mess.

  A good Wikipedian should be able to edit without bringing in such strong emotion; in my final words, this whole experience has been a lesson on why it's important to manage frustration and anger. Aearthrise (talk) 07:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Potential Canvassing on Talk Page for San Bernardino County, California

A Twitter user has posted [62] about Talk:San Bernardino County, California#Election results gone. and seems to have a lot of people saying they are going to participate in the discussion. Just wanted to give a heads up. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 19:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion was held, piling on was ocuring. Nothing more to be gained by the debate so I've collapsed it. Lets all move on as any other issues that need discussing should be done separately to that debate. Amortias (T)(C) 20:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Block review User:Jamiesonandy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Jamiesonandy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Blocking admin: Orangemike (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

The blocked user is clearly an elderly person who misunderstands what Wikipedia is. It was explained to him at the help desk, and he stopped editing. Ten hours later, Mike indef blocked him. I feel like this is far from the first time I have seen Mike come late to a situation and substitute his own judgement for that of others who already adressed the situation. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Egregiously bad block What the hell? Not a single warning on the user's talk page, not a note from the admin prior to jumping to a block, and an indef block at that? For a newbie who seems confused and needs some direction? Have we forgotten WP:BITE and WP:BLOCKP? I daresay I hope Orangemike is able to defend their actions, because I'm not seeing any reason they should be blocked indefinitely for a few questions on the Teahouse and Help Desk (two places designed for people to ask for..wait for it...help!). Not to mention, Orangemike mentions the editor being "belligerent" in the block reason, which I see absolutely zero evidence of, and the rest of their block reason of WP:NOTHERE seems to be a very unsubstantiated position to take. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 22:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

The belligerency was when he demanded, I asked a question; where is your answer? The guy was just not getting it, was using both the Teahouse and Help Desk as general information sources for UK banking questions, and clearly was not going to accept that this was not the place to seek help on this question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs)

It wasn't just one out of place question. It was several on both the Teahouse and the Help Desk, and it didn't seem like the user was ready to give up asking. RudolfRed (talk) 23:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Definitely not a good block. I've taken a look at a number of Orangemike's NOTHERE blocks (I didn't look at others), and there were a number of very bad blocks:

• Special:Contributions/Studio_Atinati, one-edit no warning block
• Special:Contributions/Caroline.j.ashleyy, another one-edit no warning block
• Special:Contributions/Mrpoopbenji, user who stopped editing after warning, blocked more than a day later
• Special:Contributions/Wilburthewigga, no warnings whatsoever; this is not a good deletion either

Nearly half of the blocks I looked at were like this. Orangemike really needs to stop doing these no-to-little-warning blocks. —Ingenuity (t • c) 23:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

If my colleagues really feel that I'm being quick on the trigger, I will accept your collective judgement and take my trouting like a mensch; but I genuinely doubt that any one of these accounts had any intention of contributing to our project in the way that somebody like Sideways [nee Beeble] does every day. Two spamming accounts with spammy usernames, one poop joke, one racial epithet username, and our confused British gentleman who thinks we can put him in contact with a bank account dead for over half a century...... --Orange Mike | Talk 00:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I haven't looked into any of your blocks and so have no opinion whether or not you have acted appropriately, but I would say that the fact that you genuinely doubt that any one of these accounts had any intention of contributing to our project does not override Wikipedia policy, specifically the policy on blocking. The intention behind Wikipedia was to create an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. Policies which temporarily (even indefinite blocks shouldn't be considered permanent) remove an individual's ability to contribute to the project exist only to limit damage and disruption to the project and should generally be considered a last resort, not the first tool you pull out. I am not and have never been an administrator on this or any other Wikimedia project, but I have been an administrator or bureaucrat on multiple MediaWiki installations through my work and can tell you from experience that biting the newcomers in such a way may temporarily put a stop to vandalism or disruption but long-term only harms the project. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 02:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

None of these 4 blocks make any sense, and while I think Mike's explanations are genuine, this is a base breach of the blocking policy, and at least a couple of those user's blocks are concerning. The first, for User:Studio Atinati, based on the contributions looks like they need to be redirected to a different language content project (Google tells me it's Georgian?). The second user, User:Caroline.j.ashleyy, just needs an extra dose of the introduction to Wikipedia, not a block for heaven's sake. The third user, User:Mrpoopbenji, based on their contributions just seems like they need some help getting started, something the Growth Tools like mentorship are supposed to help with. Finally, the fourth user, User:Wilburthewigga, is the only one I'll say should probably be blocked, but not for WP:NOTHERE. If anything they should have been blocked for a UPOL violation, but not for their contributions or whether they are HERE or not. To be quite honest though, their edits are just to their user page then a question to their mentor. Of those edits to their userpage, they didn't seem to have any malicious intent either. In addition, they appear to have responded to the block notice, stating they would learn from it, which isn't typically a trait associated with blocks for WP:NOTHERE. On just a closing note as well, the deletion, unless something else had been added that was horridly obscene other than the page creation with "Woo!", I would say that's a violation of WP:DELTALK and the deletion policy in general. Based on the API result here, there doesn't appear to be any other edits to the page, though. Just out of curiosity, Ingenuity, would you (or of course any other administrator) be able to confirm if there's still a deleted revision on User talk:Wilburthewigga? If there is, I wonder if it would be possible to restore that revision, as it doesn't appear to be a proper use of the deletion tool. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 01:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I remember encountering Mrpoopbenji (talk · contribs) through WP:UAA, and discovered that all of their edits were created by a large language model. Ther sandbox was deleted for this reason. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Someone with a username that's slang for "white nigger" needs only a swift kick in the ass out the door. I'd have blocked on sight as well. As to the others: one is an obvious username violation, with another the text being in Georgian is the least of the problems given it was an obvious attempt to hijack an article with blatant spam about an entirely unrelated subject, and the last was as flagrant a case of noble cause syndrome as it gets. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Just wanted to point out that the blocked editor did not stop editing once it was pointed out (not only on May 14th, which they may have not seen, but also on Jun 14th at 18:34, again at 18:34, at 18:35, and at at 18:44) that wikipedia, including the Help desk and Teahouse, was not an appropriate place for their query. Rather, 20 minutes after that last response, the editor reposted the question asking for legal/financial advice on the userpage. Secondly, while the editor said that they had "contributed to Wikipedia for a number of years" at least this account seemed to be dedicated to a single purpose that was not that of building an encyclopedia. Finally, as Girth Summit eloquently explained on this page a short while back, albeit in a different context, one motivation for applying an indef block is to get assurance from the blocked editor that the problematic behavior will not be repeated.

Hence, while I understand that the Jamiesonandy block was still a judgement call, and that it is natural to feel sympathy for a senior citizen in distress, I can also see Orangemike's thinking in applying the NOTHERE block. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 01:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I've noticed for years that Orangemike is quick to block, often without any talk page warnings but I generally have trusted their judgment. I'd ask them to ease up on the trigger finger and try communicating with an editor before laying down the ban hammer first. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Generally speaking, in my view, a NOTHERE indef block is admissible (although not necessary) if none of the user's edits indicate an ability or intent to improve our articles. This seems to be the case here. It's then up to the user to convince us, in an unblock request, that they are indeed able and willing to edit constructively. Sandstein 08:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

A quick show of hands: y'all do realize that the "reason" you fill in at Special:Block isn't just for the entry in the block log, but is shown to the user every time they try to edit, yes? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:22, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• The thing here for me is that the Teahouse and the Help Desk are exactly where we want users to go when they are lost or confused as to the purpose of Wikipedia. I don't think anyone is defending this users actual edits, but he hadn't posted anything in many hours and the situation seemed to have settled itself when Mike just indef blocked out of nowhere. Mike, like myself, has contributed for many years at WP:UAA Personally, I don't even think most of the thousands of accounts I've blocked at UAA were here in bad faith, they, like this person, just didn't get it and tried to use Wikipedia in ways it isn't intended to be used. So, they use an WP:ORGNAME and write upa draft article on said organization, and the usual response is that we delete the draft and soft block the user, explicitly allowing them to just start a new account and try to edit within the rules. Looking at some of Mike's blocks, he treats "being lost and confused on help forums" the same way most admins treat "actively disrupting article space." I just don't think being clueless in WP space is what NOTHERE hard indef blocks are for, it is for people who come here to push the content to suit their own needs, not for people who ask deeply misguided questions. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'd add that if you look at the language at WP:NOTHERE there's a lot of wording like "long-term history...Extreme lack of interest in working constructively...Major conflicts of attitude, concerning Wikipedia-related activity..." and so on. It doesn't say anything aboout "asks clueless questions at help forums, because help forums are there, at least in part, to help clueless users get some clue. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  I get that in general, but this particular account was going well beyond that. I count 4 separate instances of being told, in various ways, that Wikipedia is not a forum for handling personal bank squabbles that date back to something from 1950s British probate court (!); to respond to said warnings with this tells me that, in a very literal sense, this user was not here to build an encyclopedia. I'm American and even I could point out that a solicitor, not an online community devoted to building an encyclopedia, would be who to ask these questions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• I've brought this back from the archive because this is still relevant. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 03:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Should've let it stay archived. I get the sense of injustice, but I don't see anything useful this user can contribute to the encyclopedia. And that's the benchmark - the project is what's important. I'm not going to undo the block, myself, and I'm not sure any other admin would, either. This isn't an endorsement of the block, I probably wouldn't have made it myself, but I can't see how unblocking makes the project better.--v/r - TP 14:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  I think we all agree here that although Orangemike is too quick to block users, all of the blocks in question except Wilburthewigga were sound. It is evident that all of the users except Mrpoopbenji and Wilburthewigga were WP:NOTHERE, and Mrpoopbenji was a good block because they misused a large language model.

  As for Wilburthewigga, they were unambiguously asking for help because they were new to the project, and the deletions of the userpage and user talk were clearly wrong, but they should have been soft-blocked for an offensive username (the word wigga). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  The closest analog I could think of is a racist username [partial redaction] from 2012, who received the soft usernameblock notice because despite the offensive username, none of their edits were obviously unconstructive (though they were preemptively reverted by The Mark of the Beast (talk · contribs)). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Or you could have just held that thought in your head and not reposted racist hate speech here. That would be fine, too. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 03:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  WP:NOTCENSORED, you might not like it but Wikipedia is not censored and sometimes we have to discuss unpleasant speech in order to effectively maintain the project. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 11:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  This sort of abstract defense is incredibly stupid: if you think the inclusion here can be defended on its own merits (I am skeptical but it seems like a minor point) then do so, otherwise why are you wasting the time of everyone who reads your comment? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  When we have to put up with people making unpleasant, unhelpful comments like yours (incredibly stupid and wasting the time of everyone who reads your comment specifically were unnecessary) in all corners of the encyclopedia, I think it's perfectly acceptable to use a blocked username as an example of how an editor thinks blocks of problematic usernames could or should be done. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 16:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, the example is a fine example; and anyone who thought about it for 2 seconds would come up with ways that use it effectively as an example without needing to include the actual offensive username here. What is unpleasant and unhelpful is dropping of WP:NOTCENSORED without any evidence of having thought about how it applies to the situation under consideration. (Both the policy and the guideline WP:Offensive material recommended by it are thoughtful and are very clear about the context-dependent nature of their application.) 100.36.106.199 (talk) 21:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• @Orangemike:, you say you'll "take the trout like a mensch" if the community disagrees, so while I don't think there's agreement among commenters on all 5 of the blocks discussed here, there does seem to be an agreement that your blocks, in general, are a little too quick. So if you could dial it back, like, 10-15%, I think some of us will be satisfied, and others will at least be happier. In this particular case, I think the block was good if we're confident this is a troll of some kind, and too aggressive if we think it really is a semi-confused person. It seems too quick to just assume the former. Do you mind if I unblock, as a gesture more than anything else (there's a 90% chance it's too late anyway), and as a way to shut down this zombie thread? I'll keep an eye on their talk page and edits. It would make me feel better. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
  • User:Jamiesonandy was totally astray, like an angry ratespayer demanding a VAT refund from a Beefeater at the Tower; but I certainly wouldn't object to an unblock, especially if you attempt to get clear to the guy that he's not just in the wrong pew or the wrong queue, but in the wrong universe. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

    Great, thanks, I've done so. We'll see what happens. By commenting and then unblocking here, I probably shouldn't close this thread myself, but IMHO it's ripe for closure. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Help creating a redirect

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, I hit a title blacklist trying to create Muñoa’s Pampas cat as "REDIRECT [[Pampas cat#Taxonomy]] {{R to section}}". I can't figure out why it is blacklisted, there is nothing in the deletion log. If there is no significant issue, perhaps the redirect could be created, or the blacklist could be removed to allow for a WP:REDLINK page creation prompt? (Seems a viable topic.) Best, CMD (talk) 04:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

It's because because the title has ’ instead of '. The contents of MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-custom-curly-quote should have been shown to you, explaining this, when you tried to create it; did it not? —Cryptic 05:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

It does not. Here is the text I see when I click that red link:

Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for Muñoa’s Pampas cat in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings.
This page is on the title blacklist, so only administrators, template editors, and page movers can create it.
Search for "Muñoa’s Pampas cat" in existing articles.
Look for pages within Wikipedia that link to this title.
Other reasons this message may be displayed:
If a page was recently created here, it may not be visible yet because of a delay in updating the database; wait a few minutes or try the purge function.
Titles on Wikipedia are case sensitive except for the first character; please check alternative capitalizations and consider adding a redirect here to the correct title.
If the page has been deleted, check the deletion log, and see Why was the page I created deleted?

I was also getting the same message with Muñoa's Pampas cat, but I refreshed that a couple of times and managed to get it to work. CMD (talk) 05:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you perchance editing on mobile? It works properly for me while logged out (at Draft:Muñoa’s Pampas cat, because as an IP I can't create in mainspace anyway) on desktop, but mobile view seems to throw away the blacklist custom message. —Cryptic 05:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Afraid not, windows 11. Checking both the original redlink and that draft redlink in an incognito window on Chrome, as well as unlogged-in instances of Firefox and Edge yield the same text I'm afraid. CMD (talk) 06:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I click on that red link and get this message in pink:

• "Warning: This page can only be created and/or edited by administrators, template editors, and page movers because it matches an entry on the local or global title blacklist:

.*’.* <errmsg=titleblacklist-custom-curly-quote> # right single quotation mark with custom error message"

So, does that mean that an admin or page mover can create this page? As an admin, I've never been allowed to override a blacklisted title or weblink (which can happen when fixing old archive talk pages) so I was suprised to see this message implying that we could. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:User access levels#tboverride says that the right to override the title blacklist is granted to admins and bureaucrats and additionally to template editors, page movers and interface editors. Looking at your last edit filter log, you do indeed have that right. Per this old AN comment you get that warning because you have the override right.

Perhaps one of you user scripts changes the default behaviour? – 2804:F1...35:42BC (talk) 20:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I've opened this at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Not getting the curly apostrophe message at page creation as it is apparently more technical than administrative. Thanks all, CMD (talk) 11:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SilverLocust appointed trainee clerk

The arbitration clerks are pleased to welcome SilverLocust (talk · contribs) to the clerk team as a trainee!

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

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § SilverLocust appointed trainee clerk

Birdienest81

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I don't know if this is the good place to notice this and if I'm allowed to do it, but I just want to notice something. I was involved in an edit war with Birdienest81 about keeping and removing WP:red links. The red links were at the 96th Academy Awards page untill Birdienest81 reomved them from 07:30, 26 June 2024. We received a justified warning by Cinemaniac86 on 21:33, 26 June 2024 and an ongoing discussion started at Talk:96th Academy Awards. The warning included 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right. However after the warning, and taking part in the discussion the user continued removing the red links here for example and within his edit also here. While it seems like an experienced editor, I think it doesn't allow the user to own the control of the page. 46.44.158.42 (talk) 11:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a content dispute that is being discussed on the article Talk page. Nor has Birdienest81 violated WP:3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The user ingnores the warning at the users talk page and continued with the edit war. Apart from that I think the user violated the WP:3RR.

26 June (7:30) - The user reverted for the first time a previous edit where the red links were added, as part of this edit

26 June (17:03) User reverted the edit

26 June (17:04) User reverted the edit

(The user was warned on 26 June (21:33) including “Do not edit war even if you believe you are right…. …If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.”)

26 June (23:12) user reverted the edit

26 June 23:16 - user reverted the edit. 46.44.158.42 (talk) 09:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unexplained decline of CSD on several TimedText pages

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I nominated several TimedText pages for speedy deletion per G8 because they were associated with deleted files, but all but one were declined by the same user without any explanation. The admin who declined, Liz (talk · contribs · logs), didn't respond when I asked on their talk page.

• TimedText:Heaven circa 2016.ogg.en.srt
• TimedText:Pe-al nostru steag e scris Unire.ogg.ro.srt
• TimedText:Pambansang Martsa ng PDP–Laban.ogg.tl.srt
• TimedText:My Favourite Mistake (Sheryl Crow song - sample).ogg.en.srt
• TimedText:Avicii - Wake Me Up.ogg.en.srt
• TimedText:Avicii - Wake Me Up.ogg.vi.srt
• TimedText:Test.mp3.en.srt (also per G2)
• TimedText:Cass Elliot - Dream a Little Dream of Me.ogg.en.srt
• TimedText:Pambansang Martsa ng PDP-Laban.ogg.tl.srt

They also declined an attempted CSD on TimedText:File:Title_(Meghan_Trainor_song_-_sample).ogg.en.srt per R3 and G6, after I moved that TimedText page to the correct location. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

These aren't the typical pages we see tagged for CSD G8 which are orphaned talk pages. I haven't encountered many "Timed Text" pages except for some vandals who create Timed Text talk pages which are deleted as CSD G8. I'm sorry that I haven't been prompt in responding to User talk page messages lately but for the past two months I've been taking care of a relative on hospice care who died over the weekend and honestly, sometimes the last thing I want to do when I come to Wikipedia is respond to talk page complaints. That's my failing, I'll admit, I need to improve. I'm sorry that you felt the need to come to a noticeboard about this, if I had responded in a timely manner, I probably would have suggested that you retag them and I'd let another admin who is more familiar with Timed Text pages deal with them. They are not a namespace we encounter much patrolling CSD categories so I probably should have just left them for someone else to deal with instead of untagging them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Deleted all of them. Take care of yourself, Liz. Floquenbeam (talk) 12:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

All the best, Liz. Sorry to hear that. El_C 09:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove pv-magazine from spam-blacklist

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This source has been blacklisted since 2011 MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/June 2024#pv-magazine.com. Several requests have been made to allow it but no action has been taken. Could an admin please review the request? Thanks! {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems you restored the request from the archive... back into the archive - I don't think that's what you meant to do. – 2804:F1...35:42BC (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Let's try this... one... more... time... can someone please fix this? MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#pv-magazine.com {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

It was added by Hu12 on 31 March 2011 as a result of this complaint. The reasoning was that editors -- possibly socks or someone with COI -- were adding cites. That is, it wasn't about whether the publication was spam, it was whether spammers publicized it in Wikipedia. I've seen (and made) fruitless complaints about similar situations to the blacklist/whitelist folks and believe the proper solution would be to allow only confirmed users to add such cites, though I don't know if that's technically possible. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

It was a long way back. So I think it is safe at this point to remove it and if the problem resumes the spam list is just one click away. The site is a legitimate and reliable source. I guess at the time someone from pv-magazine thought they had a "great idea to grow the site quickly" {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Also: why was the source/website blacklisted and not simply the individual spammers blocked? I think the wrong tool was used here to fix this (old) issue and we are now stuck with it 20 years later. Time to fix this especially since multiple editors have raised this issue several times already. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

When sock account after sock account is registered to evade attention while spamming links, the right thing to do is to address the root of the problem (the spamming) rather than playing whack-a-mole with socks. PV Magazine's staff shows up from time to time to complain about the blacklisting, so it is reasonable to assume that they are paying attention and would resume linking if they could. MrOllie (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Should probably continue this at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#pv-magazine.com. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree, thanks. Several editors have raised this issue on that page multiple times (definitely unaffiliated with PV magazine) so if @MrOllie could provide links in that discussion it would be helpful. Thanks! {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Continuous disruption

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Malik256 spamming everywhere "Kashmir" with an edit summary "Added links". Nxcrypto Message 03:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

They’ve also created categories with spelling errors, such as Category:Kashmiri Philosphers 173.22.12.194 (talk) 03:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

This seems to be an exuberant and misdirected new editor. Have you tried explaining WP:REDNOT (with respect to adding categories that don't exist) to them? Chetsford (talk) 03:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I left them a note [63]. Hopefully that helps remedy any misunderstanding on their part. Chetsford (talk) 04:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Seems to be remedied. Simple typos are an easy fix. Buffs (talk) 21:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spam blocking warning templates

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

There is no mechanism for tracking substitution, but {{spamblock}} is linked to from Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Blocking, which suggests to me that it may be widely used. Retargeting {{uw-spamblock}} might result in confusion, since, as you point out, it is short for {{uw-sblock}}. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Someone at WT:UW might be familiar with this sort of issue, since it should apply to non-administrator user warnings as well. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace § Spamblock redirects jlwoodwa (talk) 23:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Correction on list

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

There needs to be a reliable source that states her birthday. If it doesn't exist then her birthday and age shouldn't be included in the article. Nemov (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Fwiw, at the time of your comment, the source in the article was a profile of last year's Miss Teen New Jersey, who is a different person. I have removed that source and added a CN tag, but the article needs further attention from editors who are familiar with the subject matter. I've been trying not to be my usual ornery self, but it's not great that this report sat here for 16 hours before anyone actually looked into it. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Glnrcker: What that means is that you need to provide a citation from a reliable published source which mentions her date of birth. Read WP:RS for the Wikipedia definition of what kind of sources are considered reliable. Once a reliable source confirms the information, the articles can be corrected. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea what constitutes an RS in this space, but through a few quick searches I found 2 instances reporting 19[64][65] and haven't found one saying otherwise (or any with a specific birthday). CMD (talk) 05:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• Her birthday is February 21, 2006, according to her birth announcement in the Glen Rock Gazette, April 7, 2006 Page A7, and apparently she is from Glen Rock. Including her birth announcement, there were five mentions/photos of her in that newspaper. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

new page

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

Hi Denizprof. Brand new users are limited in their ability to directly create articles. But you can work on a WP:DRAFT and submit it for review. Please see the template I left on your talk page. If you have any additional questions, I suggest dropping a note at the WP:HELPDESK. It's extremely late where I live, and I am about to go to bed. But you you can also drop me a line on my talk page. Just be aware I may not get to it right away. Happy editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Denizprof, you'll want to check out Wikipedia's general notability guideline and guideline for video game notability and make sure Minecolonies warrants an article before putting effort into creating one. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

A minecraft mod is unlikely to meet our notability guidelines, sorry. Secretlondon (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Problems on a family article's tp

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

Undo a move on a page with a title blacklist

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

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

I tried but failed thanks to weirdness involving long names. Thanks Gadfium for the help. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Well now I think I screwed it up. I had reverted my own move because of the soft hyphens in the title, so now it's at Taumata Hill again. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Requesting removal of perm

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, can my pending changes reviewer permission be removed? I requested it with the intention that I was going to use it, but I hardly ever did and is essentially useless for me at this point. Thank you! ‍Relativity ⚡️ 11:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done by Jo-Jo Eumerus —Ingenuity (t • c) 13:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Allegations_of_genocide_in_the_2023_Israeli_attack_on_Gaza Gsgdd (talk) 08:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I suspect that the reason it hasn't been closed is that very few uninvolved editors have the time, ability and inclination to read and understand what people have said in that discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Yah - its too big. I think we need another page move with only the top titles from that discussion and ask people only to vote for one of them. what do you think? Gsgdd (talk) 08:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Anyway we need to close it asap Gsgdd (talk) 08:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

looks like these are the titles suggested

1. Allegations of genocide in the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip

2. Genocide accusations in the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip

3. Gaza genocide question

4. Gaza genocide

5. Gaza genocide accusations

6. Accusations of genocide in Gaza by Israel

7. Accusations of genocide in Gaza

8. Gaza genocide accusation

9. Allegations of 2023–2024 genocide in Gaza

10. Allegations of genocide in Gaza (2023–2024)

11. Allegations of Israeli genocide in Gaza

12. Allegations of genocide perpetrated by Israel in the Israel–Hamas war

13. Allegations of genocide in Gaza in the Israel–Hamas war

14. Accusations of genocide by Israel in Gaza

15. Accusations of genocide by Israel against Palestinians

16. Allegations of genocide by Israel against Palestinians Gsgdd (talk) 08:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll take a look. It will take some time to read and close. – Joe (talk) 08:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

thanks for closing it Gsgdd (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Subject

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

Have you tried requesting it here? (non-administrator comment) ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 00:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

You're both edit warring, and now it's locked. Please use the Talk page to establish consensus. Star Mississippi 01:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

edit on Gaza genocide

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A user with 225 edit is making edits on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide How is this possible. since its extended protection. User in question is User:Kinsio Gsgdd (talk) 02:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suspected sockpuppet?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I’ve just come across a user, User:Coop443535454, whom I suspect is a sockpuppet. I don’t know if what I suspect is true, however I am saying this could be true because of two very similar sounding users, User:Coop40493 & User:Coop2017. The edit patterns of these users appear to be very similar. Dipper Dalmatian (talk) 04:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

This is what WP:SPI is for. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Drmies, I know it's a long time ago, but the Coops belong to you. Beside the Coops, is there a master?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

No, I didn't see anything, but I don't doubt it's them. No point in writing up at SPI. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sockpuppet page moves

I just blocked Leithiani as a sock of LTA Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SheryOfficial. They performed a bunch of page moves prior to the block, if anyone is looking for a 4th of July /election day project.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

There's also Normanhunter2, a confirmed sock who participated in a bunch of AfDs; their votes should be struck.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Resigning rollbacker/PCR

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

 Done I've removed those two permissions from your account as requested. DanCherek (talk) 01:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. DarmaniLink (talk) 01:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Archiving AN

It seems like AN is archiving awfully fast so I looked at this page and found instructions for two different bots to archive this noticeboard. One states that discussions are archived after three days but they are obviously being archived sooner than that and they are not being archived manually. Could someone who is knowledgeable about archiving make sure that the instructions are clear and not confusing and only one bot is archiving this page? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

One of the instructions is commented out; I changed the other to seven days. BilledMammal (talk) 08:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, BilledMammal. I appreciate you checking on this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Admin Misconduct

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unfortunately, if you add material to an article without sourcing it - as you appear to have been doing - it is likely to be removed again. Editors are regularly blocked for persisting to add unsourced text. If your sources are "in a format that cannot be cited", then you need to find alternative sources. Black Kite (talk) 08:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. Yeah I've never edited that article and you may well have been affected by one of my rangeblocks. Graham87 (talk) 09:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

This is probably 2001:8003:EC74:DD00::/64, who made this edit. Graham87 (talk) 09:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Correct that is the IP (and another one as well which for some reason was given to me when I added over 1000 additional words). An IP block itself would not have been as worrying to me if it was not then followed by another guy completely messing up the article and adding a whole bunch of stuff that sounds like an advertisement and also removing a lot of my work which resulted in the article not making any sense at some points. I would love for someone to review that as well while we are here if possible.

As for the citing, I am still very new to Wikipedia and the format leaves a lot to be desired for me so citing does not make sense. I was hopeful that other editors could come along and take part in some teamwork to get citations for what I wrote but perhaps I should not have been so helpful. Regardless, I do not see how lack of citations constitutes vandalism. I’m getting a lot of my information from QFD resources and brigade training and adding it in. I understand the need to cite, but my priority remains giving people access to information on topics I am passionate about. And I feel a warning prior to a year long IP ban would have been much more warranted and stand by what I have said previously. VollyFiremedic (talk) 11:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

We try to warn users before blocking them but sometimes it's just not practical, especially for wide rangeblocks that affect hundreds or thousands of innocent users as collateral damage, as this one probably is. I can't find any evidence that the IP you're using has ever been blocked. As for citing, it should be a very high priority, given how often Wikipedia content is copied; it can turn up in rather unexpected places. Please see Help:Referencing for beginners. Graham87 (talk) 12:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:TUTORIAL may be of help to you. If you want to make WP edits that can "stick", learning how to add refs correctly is essential, I can't stress this enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

More admin misconduct

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 July 5: it seems User:OwenX thinks that I am not an administrator "in good standing", and says that my status compares to that of someone with a compromised account. I don't know, maybe the racist and sexist trolls have found dates and jobs, and my talk page can be unprotected. Still, if OwenX had looked they could have seen that there was plenty of interaction between me and that editor in other places. But who knows, maybe OwenX can start a procedure to get me desysopped, and we'll see how that goes. Drmies (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The title is appropriate. Failure to communicate is indeed admin misconduct per WP:ADMINACCT. By XC-protecting his Talk page, Drmies knowingly and willingly shuts down the primary means of communicating with him for an entire class of editors. This isn't an isolated out-of-process deletion or something we can wash over with IAR and get back to our daily business. It is a effectively a declaration that any editor with fewer than 500 edits under their belt doesn't deserve to have a voice. DRV is an editorial venue, not a disciplinary one, but the kind of dismissive tone expressed by him above is one I'm sure ARBCOM would have something to say about. Owen× ☎ 15:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

There are ways to communicate that don't involve going on a user's talk page. You have no right to the time, attention, or talk page space of anyone else, even an admin. Yes, failure to communicate can be an issue, but if you refer to WP:ADMINACCT you'll see that "protecting a talk page" is not among the examples of infractions. That said, Happy Friday to one and all. Dumuzid (talk) 15:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

And your use of such an argument at deletion review is inappropriate; the protection level of an admin's talkpage has nothing at all to do with deletion review. However, I gather you're fortunate enough to have never seen the threats and harassment aimed at Drmies and his family from LTAs. If you have a complaint about it, take it up with the arbitration committee, not as a specious argument in a tangential forum. Acroterion (talk) 15:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

OwenX, you are so wrong on so many different levels. It is because of Drmies commitment to the project as an admin that their talk page is EC protected. Calling for Drmies admin actions to be vacated and positing that they should be desysoped by ARBCOM for protecting their own talk page from persistent trolling and death threats against themselves and their family, that they receive as a result of the volunteer work they do here for you and other editors, is beyond the pale.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Acroterion, over the years, I have received many threats and much harassment on my Talk page and my User page, including a recent death threat against me and my family. I reported the recent death threat on AN/I, and it was handled by an uninvolved admin. I don't remember if it was revdel'd or oversighted, you may be able to still see it. It never even crossed my mind to block access to my Talk page. I did eventually, many years ago, semi-protect my User page after 160+ vandalism edits, but that doesn't prevent anyone from contacting me, and it's still open to non-XC registered accounts. Our deletion review policy highlights communication with the deleting admin as a key requirement. A deletion by an admin who prevents communication with him is very much relevant to a DRV appeal. If the only way an admin can deal with harassment is to shut down commincation, then he should hang up the mop until the situation allows him to reopen the main communication channel. Drmies has my sympathy for all the harassment and threats, but that does not exempt him from accountability for his actions. Owen× ☎ 15:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk page protection is not equivalent to 'preventing communication.' This is nothing more than a petulant complaint that you cannot not everyone can communicate in the way you they desire. With all due respect, grow up. Dumuzid (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

OwenX is an admin and extended confirmed. Acroterion (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to review both WP:ADMINACCT and WP:DRV then. I too have received threats, but nothing approaching the volume, virulence and specificity that Drmies has: do you think that should be grounds for desysopping? DRV is not a forum for arguing about technicalities or complaints about other editors in order to gain the upper hand. Take it up with Arbcom if you have a policy-based argument. Acroterion (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I think Drmies should step away from any activity that requires him to be available for contact by non-XC editors until such time as he is ready to reopen his Talk page to all. That includes blocking, deleting, protecting, and most admin functions, with the possible exception of checkuser. Deleting from behind a protected Talk page is an abuse of admin rights, and grounds for automatic vacating when contested in good faith at DRV. Owen× ☎ 16:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

This is so asinine, I'm beginning to wonder if your account is compromised. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't agree with your proposal at all as I don't think Drmies has done anything wrong. I'm honestly more concerned you're calling for that AfD to be vacated for this than about anything Drmies has done. SportingFlyer T·C 16:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Are you seriously suggesting that an admin should refrain from acting as as an admin on the project while their talk page is protected due to abuse? Do you have any idea how easy that would be to game from a trolling standpoint? It's a ludicrous suggestion. And your comment "Deleting from behind a protected Talk page is an abuse of admin rights" is equally absurd. I can't take anything you say from this point forward seriously.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

One can argue that you, an admin of many years' standing, should have a better understanding of policy before making such accusations. Acroterion (talk) 16:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I take your views, Acroterion, very seriously. I'm not one of those who dismisses accusations with a, "Haha good luck trying to get me desysopped". Yet I still don't see how we can simply waive a policy requirement of accountability simply because an admin found no better way to handle harassment than to shut down the main communication channel to anyone with fewer than 500 edits. We used to deny promotion at RfA to candidates who didn't enable email contact. Remember those days? If the situation doesn't allow you to fulfil your admin duties in an accountable way, hang up the mop until you can do the job as required by policy. There is no other way to ensure accountability. Owen× ☎ 16:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Reading the trail on Rocky's page, Drmies has email enabled and that's how he contacted him. Drmies was accountable and accessible, just not in one specific channel so not sure your analogy fits there, @OwenX (and I don't think email is required at RfA anymore, although I may be wrong) Star Mississippi 16:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Star Mississippi, for addressing the actual issue at hand. Having reviewed Rockycape's exchange with Drmies following Rockycape's email to Drmies, I struck out my comment at the DRV. Drmies, please accept my apologies for the inappropriate comment. I still wish you would reduce the protection level on your Talk page to just semi, and handle harassers who have a registered account by banning, which would benefit the rest of us too. Owen× ☎ 17:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

We already do that. How many prolific abusive sockpuppeteers do you thing we see every day? There are some who've been harassing individual edits, posting threats, and wasting everybody's time, for decades, with hundreds of accounts. Admins who take action against them become targets. Acroterion (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

You are simultaneously complaining about a perceived IAR and then making up a new policy that an admin who has been abused to a sufficient degree can be driven away, rather than dealing with it in a manner that doesn't conflict with policy. The net result is that trolls can target people and win, according to your interpretation. "There is no other way to ensure accountability" is hyperbolic." And I agree that no action is required, except to ask that you remember to confine your comments at DRV to matters pertaining to the request, not to your perception of the justification for the closer's level of talkpage protection. Acroterion (talk) 16:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OwenX, I think you are wrong here. Mandating that all admins allow anyone to post sexist and racist attacks and death threats, and worse, on their talk pages is a non-starter. I know that's not explicitly your goal, but it is the natural consequence if admins must always leave their talk pages unprotected. Good-faith users can easily contact Drmies, such as by leaving a ping on their own talk page. Or by reaching out to a third party. Or, heck, taking it to one of the admin noticeboards. You say, "If the only way an admin can deal with harassment is to shut down commincation, then he should hang up the mop until the situation allows him to reopen the main communication channel." I'm not sure you are aware of the seriousness of some of our LTAs. I get multiple daily death threats, as do several other admins, and I consider myself lucky that I'm currently not targeted for far worse abuse, as I know Drmies has been. I think it's entirely reasonable to protect user talk pages to deal with such attacks. Disclaimer: my talk page is currently restricted to autoconfirmed and confirmed editors, protection applied by me. It was previously protected by Ponyo in a similar manner. I will note this helps but most certainly doesn't prevent the daily death threats I receive. I strongly believe your approach would, very quickly, result in many admins handing in their mop while LTAs would celebrate their substantial win. I think the balance is wrong. --Yamla (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that admins should receive the same protections afforded to all users. The rules do not and should not allow that admins have to take any abuse from troll accounts. I would expect that the community would want all editors respected and protected from threat and harassment. --ARoseWolf 17:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• This is entirely overblown and absolutely no action needed. I've worked with and highly respect both Drmies and OwenX so I don't think I'm Involved in that sense. This is all because an SPA had their personal project deleted and has spent a week bludgeoning and badgering rather than looking for sources. (Disclosure, endorsed the close at DRV but did not !vote in the AfD). Rocky had two means of communicating with Drmies, which they made use of and Drmies responded, which is all that's required of an Admin. Drmies has always been more than responsive, and self protection is not a reason for de-sysop (self or ArbComm). We are not required to be at the beck and call of users or abuse of trolls.Star Mississippi 16:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• If I'm reading this correctly, Drmies' Talk has been protected since October 2022. That makes it even more unlikely that this is an admin conduct/contact ability issue or it would have been raised sooner. Star Mississippi 17:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  If it's been a year and a half, the protection should be lifted, as maybe the disruption won't continue. All editors, admins or not, should be equally eligible to have their user talk pages protected, eg with a request at RFPP. If anything, an admin's request for UTP protection should be held to a higher standard than non-admins because of adminacct (and because protecting an admin's page can cause problems like what happened at DRV where a non-XC editor was erroneously called out for not discussing with the admin first, which they couldn't do because of protection). Admins shouldn't protect their own pages because they're involved; another admin should review the request. In this case, if it's been a year and a half, the protection should be lifted and Drmies should make an RFPP request for re-protection if/when necessary. Levivich (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  where a non-XC editor was erroneously called out for not discussing with the admin first that was me, and I apologised for it when I got online this morning. The discussion happened via email and on the requestor's Talk, which was just fine. Let's not conflate the two. Star Mississippi 17:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  I also made the same mistake when replying to the editor's enquiry on my talk page, for what it's worth. Daniel (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  If it was proven that Drmies was difficult to contact and unresponsive to editors concerns I would be the first to side with this position. But there are other avenues available to communicate with them and those avenues were used. Drmies was responsive to editors concerns and a discussion was had so I don't see a conduct issue. --ARoseWolf 17:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• From a purely 'policy' perspective and without any context, I tend to agree with Levivich above. But I am also cognisant that Drmies is one of the most targetted administrators we have for abuse, for all the hard work they do with LTAs etc. Ultimately we are all people, human beings, and it is impossible to ignore the human element of this issue — which is that Drmies needs this protection to reduce the impact of their editing on themselves and their family. I think that requires sympathy and understanding, and insofar as I noted my agreement with Levivich as a general statement, I feel like it may be appropriate to ignore this view in this situation. Daniel (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  If Drmies had requested protection at RFPP, it's likely it would have been granted, so we end up at the same place anyway. Conversely, anyone who thinks it shouldn't be protected can request reduction of protection at RFPP as with any other page. Levivich (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  WP:INVOLVED does not apply when dealing with vandalism. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 18:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor and I think having your user talk page vandalized or receiving death threats counts as "conflicts with an editor." (I know some admins strongly disagree with this interpretation because they think it would allow editors to "conflict out" admins by picking fights with them.) Levivich (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Editors and admins who confront people who make graphic threats of violence against them, their families, and others are in no way "involved," as the policy makes amply clear. Acroterion (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The policy also says that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role [...] is not involved. Interpretation of "conflicts" as it is used here to encompass efforts to prevent long-term abuse of the platform strains credulity. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 18:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Administrators' newsletter – July 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2024).

Administrator changes

• Elli
• HouseBlaster
• Pickersgill-Cunliffe

• Brianga
• De728631
• Georgewilliamherbert
• Hyacinth (deceased)
• ProveIt
• The Night Watch

Technical news

• Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki. (T6086)

Miscellaneous

• The Community Wishlist is re-opening on 15 July 2024. Read more

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Advice needed re request to unprotect a draft

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Is there any reason they cant create in their sandbox and move it subject it to review there? Amortias (T)(C) 15:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Scratch that, just realised you mean to unprotect the article not the draft page. Its been submitted for review by AFC, if its approved then an admin could unprotect at that point if it has now managed to reach a suitable style/substance of article. Amortias (T)(C) 15:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. That was the guidance I was looking for. SafariScribe it looks like you will have to wait until that review process has been completed. — Maile (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Maile66, @Amortias, thank you for your words. However, I don't believe this situation will escalate to the notice board. The draft after reviewing it as part of AFC work meets WP:NFILM, and the principal photography has already started–WP:NFF. I was about to accept the draft when a pop-up message indicated that the target page is admin-protected, hence my request for unprotection of the target page so that the draft can be moved. I think there may have been a misunderstanding of my intentions. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I think things got muddled here. @SafariScribe is a longtime editor and AfC reviewer in good standing looking to complete that review that was asked for. I do not have the on wiki time today to process the AfC move but I've dropped protection to E/C so Safari or any other AfC reviewer can accept and move the article. If folks feel as if it's still not notable (haven't reviewed, taking no position), a new AfD to reflect current consensus would be more helpful than a 7 year old one. Star Mississippi 17:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Star Mississippi for the clear understanding. I have move the article as meeting WP:NF or any required policy. I doubt it won't survive AFD if it is taken there. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Self-requested block of my old account

I would like to request a block on my old account M14325 (talk · contribs), which I no longer have access to. The account has already been blocked in de- and metawiki and now I would like to request a block here as well. Regards, Wüstenspringmaus _talk 07:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Wüstenspringmaus, rather than do it piecemeal, you should probably request a global lock at meta:Steward_requests/Global#Requests_for_global_(un)lock_and_(un)hiding. Primefac (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

By the way, Primefac, they appear to have requested a lock at Meta here, though it was declined and they were re-directed to local admins. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 15:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Good to know, I did wonder if they might disallow self-locking. I don't really see much point in blocking an account that has zero edits and was created two years ago, but... meh.  Done. Primefac (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Vanished user returned

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

So per WP:VANISH, If the user returns, the "vanishing" will likely be fully reversed, the old and new accounts will be linked, and any outstanding sanctions or restrictions will be resumed. Though as neither deleting pages (except for user pages) or altering signatures is part of the vanishing process in the first place, they shouldn't have happened and therefore shouldn't need to be reversed. – Joe (talk) 09:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Among the deleted pages are Arbcom candidate statements, an MfD, their own contributions on other users' talk pages, and their own talk page. They also renamed an RfC, altered their own sigs on various pages. Then they returned and now edit under the same name, but I can't see any linking of the old account (which has a generic vanished name) and its edits and logs to the new one. This was all done some years ago, but the editor is active now. DuncanHill (talk) 09:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

That sounds pretty exceptional, though the policy does allow for exceptions. Maybe you should email ArbCom about it? – Joe (talk) 09:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Sounds more like scorched earth than vanishing, but if you do have specific concerns about this issue and do not want to divulge here (which I totally understand) I agree that contacting an Arb (or even an Oversighter) is probably the best bet. I also agree, in general, that deleted pages should not be restored purely because they have returned; it's not like the U1 becomes invalid. Primefac (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Most of them wouldn't qualify for U1 in the first place. DuncanHill (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Removal of perms

Can an admin please remove the perms associated with this account? I tried to come back, but have decided to scramble my passwords and leave this account for good. All the best, Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 18:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I've removed you extra permissions. Let me know if you change your mind. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. PhilKnight (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@PhilKnight you missed autoreviewer I think. The Night Watch (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Now done. PhilKnight (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Looking to fix a defaced wiki page.

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

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

While there are grounds for protection on BLP grounds which I plan to enact and potential blocks, please read WP:OWN. You have no specific role when the content is compliant with guidelines here. Star Mississippi 18:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted to a version on June 22, right before the recent wave of disruptive editing began. Cullen328 (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

and I think I got all of the offending content. If I missed any, @Cullen328 or any admin please feel free to continue. I'm about to hop offline. Star Mississippi 18:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

ETA, I have just semi'ed it. Found BLP violations going back to 2017. Have to hop offline but if someone else has time and can eyeball, that would be helpful. Star Mississippi 19:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

personal attack, spreading rumors

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Extra careful, because you got blocked - who knows what could happen next? Removing cited content is not a great idea, Στρουμπούκη. and You're obviously trolling. Your account has been blocked completely from Greek Wikipedia for abusing multiple accounts, whilst your name is... Dora? Yikes D.S. Lioness (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Voice_of_Reason_-_Afroditi_Latinopoulou&diff=prev&oldid=1233180463 — Preceding unsigned comment added by D.S. Lioness (talk • contribs) 18:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)^<diff>

Once again, this is exasperating. D.S. Lioness has been blocked on Greek Wikipedia for being identified as the person behind the indefinitely banned account ΔώραΣτρουμπούκη. According to Meta, this individual has created over 50 sockpuppets in the past two years [66] [67] [68]. D.S. stands for Dora Stroumpouki, and she even refers to herself as Dora on her talk page. Despite being previously blocked, she has returned with no sign of self-reflection or a willingness to change her behaviour and adopt a more diplomatic approach. What is it that you hope to accomplish here?? Michalis1994 (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

what does this have to do with my contribution to english wikipedia? D.S. Lioness (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Just stop removing cited content. Also, your previous behavioural patterns have been moved to the English Wiki, which is not really a great idea. You have been warned. Michalis1994 (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about? what are you doing here? how can you talk like that to another user? D.S. Lioness (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not the same person! D.S. Lioness (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to stop here. You are the same person and that's why you got blocked on Greek WP. Michalis1994 (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D.S. Lioness/Archive— Preceding unsigned comment added by D.S. Lioness (talk • contribs) 19:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)^<diff>

I would suggest not continuing this discussion. Michalis1994 can file a WP:SPI if they want. It isn't an actionable personal attack. PhilKnight (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

spreading rumors about a user's previous activity it is a serious personal attack and hurts my credibility. D.S. Lioness (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Let's be clear here. You clearly are the same person as is blocked on el.wikipedia, because your global contributions are here for anyone to see. So saying "I'm not the same person" is a lie, and doesn't do you any credit. However your misdeeds, whatever they were, on that Wikipedia do not affect your existence here, as long as the same edit practices do not re-occur. If they do, you can - and probably will - be blocked here as well. Black Kite (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• My question is how the original poster thought it would be a good idea to open yet another noticeboard thread, when Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#No_cooperation,_no_good_faith (also started by them about the same editor) is still open? This is now the third thread started by the original poster about the same editor in a couple of weeks, if you included this miguided attempt that was eventually merged with the existing thread. I suspected there were some significant competence issues last week based on the ANI, and I am not being dissuaded in my view by subsequent developments. Daniel (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  There is also an AN3 report too, which I just found. Daniel (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Conflict of interest VRT consultations, July 2024

The Arbitration Committee has received applications for conflict of interest VRT queue access and has reviewed them in consultation with the functionaries team. The Community is invited to evaluate the candidacies and comment here until the end of 17 July 2024 (UTC).

On behalf of the Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Conflict of interest VRT consultations, July 2024

https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-hant/蔡瑞月

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi Administrators,

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

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

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

Can someone please check the reference and correct this page.

該封禁的查封ID是#560409。--Tjyfoundation（留言） 2024年7月8日 (一) 11:27 (UTC) Tjyfoundation (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

zh.wikipedia.org is a different project. There's nothing that en.wikipedia.org can do for you, you need to raise your concern on that project. --Yamla (talk) 12:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

How to raise my concern on that project? Tjyfoundation (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Multiple reverts

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A user has reverted my edits two times each in First Dutch Military Aggression and Second Dutch Military Aggression. Can someone please prevent him from reverting it. I'm trying to avoid violating WP:3RR. Desertasad (talk) 01:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked the OP for 72 hours for their homophobic comments they posted at NFSreloaded's Talk page, whom they failed to notify of this complaint. Any administrator is free to block Desertasad for longer.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I can tell you that if I were an admin, I'd indef. Saying that the legalisation of LGBTQIA+ is a bad thing is extremely disruptive. I've seen users indeffed for less. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree and have made it an indef. – Joe (talk) 10:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Appreciate the tag. In response to this complaint: the manual reverts in question are here and there on Operation Product, and here and there on Operation Kraai. On the former article OP duplicated information already present in the lead section, on the latter article they moved the informal non-English terms for the military operation up to the first sentence. I considered both contributions redundant and undid them, ultimately resulting in the exchange on my talk page. That said, I don't feel I was pushing any kind of nationalist narrative in this situation or elsewhere. --NFSreloaded (talk) 02:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Withdrawing deletion nomination

I have withdrawn the deletion nomination of a page, see this, an administrator must talk. Hamwal (talk) 10:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Given that two people have weighed in on the discussion with something other than a keep !vote, the nomination is no longer eligible for withdrawal. --Blablubbs (talk) 11:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Well you can add a keep vote with reason and state that you are withdrawing your delete nomination. But that will not trigger close in this case. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Opinion sought

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

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

(Non-administrator comment) Whatever the result of the review above that's a misinterpretation of WP:MREL. Marginal or disputed reliability is not the same as WP:Generally unreliable.

This was edit warring, reverting reverts of other reverts, even multipole editors only each reverting once could still constitute edit warring. After WP:3RR editors may very well get blocked, but that's not a reasont to get right up to that point.

As with most issue more discussion on the talk page, and less in edit summaries, would likely solve the problem. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Small correction; I didn't say that Amanda was edit warring - while if they had reverted again I think they would have crossed the line, as it was I don't think that was one of the issues with their conduct there. BilledMammal (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

You're comment "I’m just here because people are misusing RSP. I’m not interested in joining the discussion beyond objecting to that." might as well have read "I'm only here to join the edit war". CNC (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagreed with the specified reason for removal - you can't remove a source on the grounds of unreliability if you're not actually claiming that its reporting is incorrect. Editors later raised other reasons for removal, and I wasn't interested in getting more involved in the discussion.

This isn't an unreasonable position, per WP:SATISFY and WP:VOLUNTARY. Editors are allowed to address one issue without becoming permanently involved in a dispute. BilledMammal (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Your argument has helped to confirm my suggestion as now you are trying to justify your reason for edit warring, rather than any acknowledgement that is was the wrong action: you made no attempt to avoid edit warring and your revert wasn't necessary. On 9 July, you joined the edit war with Amanda A. Brant, reverting at 15:18 [69], making your first comment on the topic 5 minutes later.[70] This is a clear case of "revert first, ask questions later". Then at 16:50 after stating "I’m just here because people are misusing RSP. I’m not interested in joining the discussion beyond objecting to that.[71], failed to revert your edit. I say "failed" because once you no longer claimed to have an issue with the removed content based on the argument presented by YFNS, you let your revert stand. It seems you've ignored the concerns Colin has raised in this topic. CNC (talk) 11:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Where's the problem? Someone removed an unreliable source from a page. Fairly reasonable thing to do. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 19:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:MREL is not WP:GUNREL, I'm shocked you haven't understood this yet. Likewise regarding edit warring and WP:BRD. It's unfortunately got to the point where an admin needs to explain to you the basics. CNC (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, MREL is not GUNREL. But if a source isn't appropriate (as in here), it shouldn't be used. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 20:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Even if the source isn't appropriate, editors shouldn't be edit warring over whether it should be used (in that place, in that way). The dispute involves the repeated removal and restoration of this sentence:

• "The organisation has said that lesbians are facing "extinction" because of the "disproportionate" focus on transgender identities in schools."

along with one out of the seven uses of this source in the LGB Alliance article:

• Tominey, Camilla (25 December 2020). "Lesbians facing 'extinction' as transgenderism becomes pervasive, campaigners warn". The Daily Telegraph. London. Retrieved 4 January 2021.

The first sentence of the source says:

• "Lesbian are facing “extinction” because of the “disproportionate” focus on transgenderism in schools, a controversial campaign group for gay rights has claimed."

which could perhaps be faulted on grounds of Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, but I think it is inarguable that the cited source WP:Directly supports the statement which it was being cited for.

I think this ought to proceed as an ordinary content dispute over whether the organization in question actually did espouse this POV, and (if so) whether that fact is DUE for the lead or should only be placed lower in the article. I don't think this should be considered a dispute solely about whether a source that is still used six other times in the article is inappropriate for citing a seventh time.

Also, I don't think that we should be thinking about this in terms of "sides". An editor who seems to oppose everything this organization stands for has removed damaging information about that org from the lead. Their PR team is probably very happy with her right now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

This is not just about the fact that The Daily Telegraph is no longer considered "generally reliable" on transgender issues and gender-critical views, and was listed as yellow on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. There is a nuanced discussion of whether it is appropriate in the specific context (which I addressed) and whether it is WP:DUE in the first paragraph (whether the source is good enough in the specific context is part of that discussion). As I explain on Talk:LGB Alliance, I have reverted exactly once, and only after offering a detailed rationale on the talk page that the other party did not respond to, after being given an opportunity to do so. That is not edit-warring. That is normal editing. Pretty much all the other participants in the discussion routinely do the same thing. I don't think the most recent edit by User:Barnards.tar.gz that basically reinstated my edit with some tweaks is edit-warring either. There now seems to be general agreement to remove the material in question. The only really unacceptable behavior in relation to this minor incident was the abuse of templates and personal attacks by one editor. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 20:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Depending on where one chooses to start counting, you have reverted either once or twice. The question here isn't really "Did User:_____, personally and individually, do anything that should be punished?" The question is more like "Do we have one of those situations in which editors [note the plural] keep flipping back and forth between the same two versions of the article?"

If you click through the relevant diffs ([12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]), then I'd say we have an edit war, even if no single individual has broken any bright-line rules. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

- Just to say that I did ask for neutral admin (or experienced user) to comment as a third opinion, not for existing participants to continue to argue whether they did or did not edit war, or for folk to offer their opinions about which warring edit was the right one. I think such a wise authoritative voice would still be very welcome, as editors are continuing to argue they were not edit warring because they were Right and everyone else was Wrong, on the article talk page. -- Colin°^Talk 21:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

It does look like an edit war, at least the early stages of one. Unofficially, I'd encourage all parties to stop reverting and discuss on the talk page. That's exactly what happened, so I don't think it needs to go any further at this point. The rest seems like a content dispute which isn't really suitable for WP:AN. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• I would be more concerned about the reliability of anything written by Camilla Tominey (stick "Camilla Tominey trans" into Google and have a look at that - don't bother looking at the hagiography that is Camilla Tominey) rather than the fact she happened to write it in the Telegraph. And as far as I can see, regardless of its source, it certainly isn't WP:DUE in a lead paragraph. As a second point, articles such as LGB Alliance are covered by WP:GENSEX so I'd suggest that editors who are pushing their POV consistently across multiple noticeboards and articles have a think about where pushing too hard ad nauseam might lead. Black Kite (talk) 07:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  Can we please not have comments on the content/sources. Go to the article talk page if you want to do that. The concern here is some editors are unaware (or unwilling to accept) what constitutes edit warring. The actual topic is irrelevant. -- Colin°^Talk 11:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  No, the issue here is the material, that was dubious from the start (dubious in the sense that its use in the first paragraph unduly promoted a biased narrative), and that has in fact been removed from the article by various editors. This harping on a supposed "edit war" after a couple of editors "reverted" exactly once each – in my case with a detailed justification and rationale that the other party had been given an opportunity to respond to, and in Barnards.tar.gz's case to attempt some sort of compromise, that now seems to be widely accepted by everyone – is not productive use of our time. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  I appreciate the uninvolved parties offering opinions, so I don't want to rehash all this and I won't add any more than this, but as "the other party" I would like to offer context as I saw it.

  • The page in question is exceptionally hard to attain consensus on for any changes, due to the divisive nature of the subject
  • The content we're talking about has been in the lede unchanged for (I believe) couple of years
  • The change you wanted, you justified based on an updated note on The Telegraph on Perennial Sources that was barely 2 hours old at this point, after a lengthy and polarising RFC we were both involved in, on opposite sides
  • You used this very recent change not only to argue in talk for this removal, wrongly claiming that the Telegraph was WP:GUNREL and should not be used, but also elsewhere on that talk that it should not be usable WRT other disputed neutral wording in the lede
  • Your rationale, aside from being a misreading of the note, cast aspersions about essentially the entire UK media
  • When I pointed out you were overstating things, you replied with what was a restatement of the same claim. At this point, my impression was we were at loggerheads, so wait and see if someone else weighs in. I don't see the point in repeating myself ad nauseum.
  • When you then reverted my revert, it was 2:30am my time. I'm sorry but I don't keep tabs on this 24/7, nor do I see the desperate urgency to remove ancient content such that it cannot be discussed by more editors first.
  • When your change was reverted to restore the status quo ante, I was personally glad of an uninvolved intervention and considered it a call to actually discuss the change per BRD, which I felt your revert had not been in the spirit of. However, with the issue subsequently being raised here as an edit war, I now see things like WP:DONTREVERT say Wikipedia does not have a bias toward the status quo so I guess my understanding of norms about this sort of thing are not correct. Every day is a school day, and I'll certainly bear this in mind in future.
  • FWIW, I have since chucked my 2p in on talk after the fact and endorsed the actual change as subsequently performed by Barnards, for the rationale that emerged on talk which I agree with, but I do understand the concerns about the process.

  At this point I think, despite how it was arrived at, there is actual unanimity about the content, which on that page is a cause for either celebration or to check its not April 1st. Void if removed (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

98.115.164.53's Numerous Minor Edits

98.115.164.53 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

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

This user made a personal attack [72] after I reverted their edit on a page I had watchlisted. And then they put their edit back [73].

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

You could ignore the user and move on. If the edit is truly problematic, you could revert it anyway, and/or you could ask an administrator to protect the page. 98.115.164.53 (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

What of the middle line in the report, the one where they say that they did revert one of your edits and you personally attacked them back and restored your edit?

Also, are you saying that the way to stop you from making problematic edits is to protect the pages you're being problematic in? Are you unwilling to change or discuss your behaviour?

– 2804:F14:8081:3201:9827:3072:74BC:2770 (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• 98.115.164.53, what account or accounts have you used here and are any of those accounts currently blocked? --Yamla (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Yamla I've opened a checkuser request. [74] ⸺RandomStaplers 20:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  98.115.164.53 is CU-blocked by Ponyo. --Yamla (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Yamla IP 2804:F14:8081:3201:9827:3072:74BC:2770 has responded to the CU request.⸺RandomStaplers 20:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• @Yamla I'm looking through the edit filter log... this person was tripping rate warnings left and right. It's amazing this person wasn't caught sooner.⸺RandomStaplers 21:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Durova

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Principle 2 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova, Private correspondence, is changed from
2) In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence) or their lapse into public domain, the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki. See Wikipedia:Copyrights.
to
2) In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence), the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki.

For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 23:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Poggies. jp×g🗯️ 06:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Durova

Some Help with Bot-Like Editing

I ran into OpalYosutebito with this edit. They were trying to address a citation error by removing |agency= from {{Cite journal}}, but also removed all other |agency= parameters from the other citation templates (which are valid parameters in those templates). I reverted and left a message, but then looked at the user's edits and saw what appears to be an abuse of AWB with bot-like editing. Over a recent 40 minute period, they completed 499 edits making AWB changes to unsupported parameters (about 12 edits a minute). However, looking at these edits, they are either making mistakes (like the one I noted above or this one) or are removing valid reference material from the citation template that should be fixed, not outright deleted. As an example this edit, the template should be changed to {{Cite news}}, which would correct the issue while retaining the correct parameter. There appears to be hundreds, if not thousands of recent edits that could be introducing issues like this. My gut says they all just need to be outright reverted. I removed the user's AWB privileges for now and was close to blocking for running an unapproved bot, but just don't have the time to dive into this anymore today. Can another admin take a look and review my actions so far, and take additional ad warranted? Thank you! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Checking OpalYosutebito's contribs, they appear to have begun self-reverting, which is certainly called for. Unsupported parameters in citation templates almost always contain valid bibliographic information, and are usually the result of bot action, template updates, or translations from a sister project. Just removing them rather than attempting to incorporate the information properly into the citations is incredibly destructive.

I'll keep looking, if I can remember, since an AWB run this ill-conceived and deleterious may require a mass rollback while the edits are still fresh. Folly Mox (talk) 23:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm about halfway done with fixing the mistakes I made. They're my errors, my responsibility - OpalYosutebito (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Scott's use of revision deletion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Scott (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Hello. Following discussion on Scott's talk page, I am asking for review of Scott's revision deletions. Despite another administrator and I attempting to explain that RD3 should not be used for all vandalism, Scott has misrepresented previous consensus (the discussion specifically stated that "it was also generally agreed that most vandalism was out of scope for RevDel"), changed the text of policy to suit their interpretation of it, and responded to the other administrator's concerns with "my God, stop being so melodramatic ... This is absolutely pathetic".

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

Accusing me of "spamming the logs" by deleting (hiding) 3 revisions is melodramatic and doing so as a transparent attempt to get me in trouble (based on an idiosyncratic personal interpretation of long-established policy) is pathetic.

I already responded to your concern on my user talk page where you raised it, to remind you that "purely disruptive material" is the definition of WP:RD3 as established community practice, and the last RfC on the topic (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Clarification of RD3 in 2011) failed to establish otherwise.

You accuse me of "changing the text of policy to suit my interpretation" when in fact, I simply corrected a contradictory statement in the preamble (which you highlighted) which had been sitting there invalidating every RevDel criterion except RD2 since 2009. Obviously, nobody interpreted it literally enough to prevent them from using any of the other criteria, but it does seem to have been sufficiently confusing to cause you to think that it should.

As I said to you before, if you disagree with the definition of RD3 then the appropriate place to gain consensus for a change is WT:Revision deletion.  — Scott • talk 21:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Do not endorse. Those are definitely not suitable uses for revision deletion. There's a reason why "vandalism" isn't one of the examples provided for RD3: includes harassment, grossly inappropriate threats or attacks, browser-crashing or malicious HTML or CSS, shock pages, phishing pages, known virus-proliferating pages, and links to any of these or to web pages that disparage or threaten some person or entity and serve no valid purpose. More concerning, though, is Scott's attitude towards this. When someone asks on your talk page why you decided to take admin actions, calling their concern "absolutely pathetic" is not acceptable. —Ingenuity (t • c) 21:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain how the diffs provided above are not describable as "purely disruptive material"?

Also I'll thank you not to misrepresent my words - aggressively accusing me of "spamming the logs" is what's pathetic, rather than civilly opening a talk page conversation over the interpretation of RevDel criteria. I choose not to be bullied, thanks.  — Scott • talk 22:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The only person who was aggressive in that conversation was you. And you think that this is bullying? Wow. —Ingenuity (t • c) 22:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

What kind of topsy-turvy world is it where someone comes into your talk page yelling about at you that you're "spamming" and standing up for yourself in the face of that makes you aggressive?

Anyway, I guess you're choosing not to answer my question.  — Scott • talk 22:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Until you changed it earlier today, the revdel policy also stated that "material must be grossly offensive". Maybe RD3 should now be renamed to "purely and grossly disruptive material". —Ingenuity (t • c) 22:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The "misuse" section of the preamble, not the criteria themselves which define the use of revision deletion, said that for revision deletion to be used, the "material must be grossly offensive". As I have pointed out multiple times now, that invalidates every single criterion except RD2. Somehow nobody noticed that since 2009 the revision deletion policy has been contradicting itself.  — Scott • talk 22:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

From a review of his last 10 revdel's, Scott seems to understand RD2, but doesn't seem to understand RD3. We have never revdel'd run of the mill vandalism, and we certainly don't revdel 20 year old run of the mill vandalism. Contrary to Scott's claim, doing so is not long-established standard practice. I also agree with Ingenuity above that Scott's snarky attitude in response to a very reasonable request is unjustified. If he's just having a shitty day, then it's not a big deal; I've acted like a jerk when I'm having a bad day too. But it should stop, as should the RD3 revdels. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello Floq. If you're going to make a sweeping statement like "we have never... and we certainly don't..." then perhaps you could contribute some evidence towards that, perhaps in the form of a written policy which explicitly supports your interpretation, or a discussion which established consensus?

Regarding snark, if someone comes onto my user talk page with a shitty attitude then what do you expect? Come on now.  — Scott • talk 22:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Per above. RD3 is not for regular vandalism. These deletions should be reversed. – bradv 22:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Scott, I think you're the admin with the idiosyncratic view of what RevDel covers. Run-of-the-mill vandalism is reverted, not revdeleted. I don't believe the community has or ever would explicitly agree for it to be used this way, especially on lame throw away edits from years ago.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo. If you look at the RfC I linked to above, it was noted in the closing summary that "The overriding agreement appears that admin discretion still has strong support in these cases. But it was also generally agreed that most vandalism was out of scope for RevDel." [Emphasis in original.] Most vandalism certainly is out of scope, and I've used my discretion to hide a minority of purely disruptive rubbish that has no place on public view. This is in keeping with both the written policy and consensus as previously established.  — Scott • talk 22:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how the deletions highlighted by Sdrqaz cross the line between basic vandalism and "purely disruptive rubbish". It's just childish scrawling in comparison to the grossly inappropriate edits REVDEL is meant to cover. I think you have it wrong in this specific instance.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying that basic vandalism isn't purely disruptive? Then what is it? Genuine question.  — Scott • talk 22:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

If the community had as broad an interpretation as you as to what is purely disruptive, the policy would simply state that any vandalism is fair game for revision deletion. I repeat what I said above, the community would never approve such a liberal use of the tool. You appear to have dug in here; I'm not sure if there is any point in debating further. You are using an admin tool in a way that is not approved by the community and, based on your replies here, don't appear open to considering you may be incorrectly applying RD3. I really hope I'm wrong. You don't have to agree, but please consider that you might have it wrong.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm open to considering it - that's exactly why we have collective discussions to elaborate upon and refine policies. You say "the community would never approve" - to add to what I've just said below to Floquenbeam, policy is set by what the community did approve. This seems like the perfect opportunity for another RfC on the topic to get the current consensus formalized, and ideally reflected in a well-written and unambiguous criterion to be understood and followed by all.  — Scott • talk 23:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Discretion is for borderline cases, it is not limitless. Just because you're an admin does not mean that you can do whatever you want because you have "discretion". Every admin who comments here is going to say they don't routinely revdel this stuff. That needs to mean something to you. If people revdel'd only stuff 10 times as bad as that, our revdel logs would still increase by several orders of magnitude. There are easily 100 more vandal edits on that page just as bad, and that's only one page. Among other reasons, we limit the use of revdel because non-admins can't tell what's going on, and that's a bad thing. We should only do it when removing the material being revdel'd is a bigger benefit than the cost of hiding revisions. More importantly, "Scott vs. All You Insane People" is not an appropriate approach. Consider the possibility that you drastically mistook the tone of the original message. I can assure you, for what it's worth, that you are the one who appears unreasonably aggressive there, not Sdrqaz. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Try reading what I wrote again. Sdrqaz's message to me was absolutely fine. I was talking about Thryduulf.

Anyway, regarding your comments - you've just illustrated how our admin corps aren't doing enough to suppress vandalism. I doubt that you could quantify "the cost" as it's entirely nebulous. Your argument also doesn't hold up - regular admins can't see what the higher level ones with oversight have hidden, and that's not a "bad thing" even though it's far less accountable.  — Scott • talk 22:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake, I thought Sdrqaz started the thread on your talk page, his was just the last comment there. It is starting to make more sense why you assumed Thrydulf's initial comment was an attack, you had a recent run-in elsewhere. Anyway, you started out saying Thyrdulf was out of touch with long established procedures. Now the whole admin corps is out of touch with long established procedures? That's kind of impossible by definition. I will never understand why people can't just say "OK, my thoughts on this are apparently different than the consensus, so I'll suck it up and change what I do." Floquenbeam (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

What can I say here? There are apparently loads and loads of people who seem determined to interpret one of our policies in their own way rather than following it to the letter as written, and their response to that is to do everything except take to the policy venues to clarify what exactly an ambiguous policy really means and establish a firm consensus. You say "long established procedures" and "the consensus", but so far nobody has managed to produce a single written record of these that trumps WP:RD3, which itself would be different as a result of such a consensus, by definition. 🤷🏼‍♂️  — Scott • talk 23:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I think we're probably done here, we're just going around in circles. Ingenuity answered your question. There is more to RD3 than the initial wording; the followup clarification counts too. Ponyo answered your question. And you don't need policy to determine "long established procedure", instead you look at what all the other admins have been doing long term. By definition. A bunch of non-Thryduulf admins have told you that no one interprets this the way you do. I don't think anyone is asking for grovelling, but if you continue to misuse RD3, someone is probably going to take you to ArbCom for misuse of the tool. You don't have to agree, but you should be aware. Floquenbeam (talk) 23:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I am aware, and I'm waiting for the one single person who actually cares about procedure enough to fix this weak criterion by kicking off the process which establishes consensus to narrow the wording. Until then, everything is just "well I think it means".  — Scott • talk 23:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

If you decide to do this, please let me know. Floquenbeam (talk) 23:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I closed Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 June 28 recently and was struck by both Scott's tone (e.g., In summary, get stuffed.) and the fact that the deletion was unanimously overturned. I'm concerned that this is more than just a one-time issue. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, when Thryduulf chose to call me a liar in public with absolutely zero consequences. I guess having been on ArbCom gives you a free pass exempting you from WP:AGF right? I can think of a whole bunch of people here who'd have responded with something far more fruity than "get stuffed".  — Scott • talk 22:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps the fact that not a single other person has taken issue with my describing intentionally leaving incorrect deletion summaries as "lying" should cause you to reflect that it actually is? Thryduulf (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Now that I see it, I take issue with it. For what it's worth. But Let's stay on track here. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

If it isn't lying, what is it? Thryduulf (talk) 23:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh stop it. "Lying" has connotations that do not apply to every instance of "intentionally leaving incorrect deletion summaries" (note that I have no idea if even that is true, but assuming it is for the sake of argument), and you know it. You've been around long enough to know that calling someone a liar basically shuts down future legit discussion. Case in point: if anyone else had left an identically worded initial message on Scott's page, Scott possibly would have interpreted it differently, and maybe we wouldn't even be here. Floquenbeam (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you.  — Scott • talk 23:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

That's your response? Just doubling down? Absolutely incredible. Well, at least everyone can see your true colours.  — Scott • talk 22:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• I do hope that we're not going to spend volunteer time on undeleting blatant vandalism for procedural reasons.—S Marshall T/C 22:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, that would be silly. I'd be satisfied if the unnecessary RD3 revdel's just stop. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I certainly wouldn't want to mandate that (or even recommend that), but if someone chooses to spend their time reversing out-of-process deletions I'm not going to spend my time complaining about it. Thryduulf (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• I'm glad it's not just me who feels that these RD3 deletions were incorrect, in isolation not badly enough to merit more than a note that they have misinterpreted the deletion policy. However the tone of their responses here, on their talk page and in the recent DRV are grossly inappropriate. If they don't start listening then we'll have no choice but to go to arbcom and that would be a real shame as most of their admin work is correct and good, but the communication is that big a deal. Thryduulf (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• This sort of revdel, if it were to become commonplace, would be highly disruptive to those of us who create edit filters, and for that matter, to the thousands and thousands of people who patrol recent changes. We need to see the big picture. We need to see patterns of vandalism. What's common enough to warrant a filter? What are the "tells" of that sneaky LTA? If everything disappears behind a struck-out diff, then we're just left reacting to what's in front of our nose. Now revdel is, sometimes, a necessary evil. The libeled BLP subject doesn't care about any of this, nor should they. But if you can't answer the question "what harm will come if J Random User views this diff?" the diff probably should remain visible. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for making a contribution to this debate based upon actual, quantifiable reasons. Although the instances of RD3 under discussion here were in application to 20-year-old vandalism, I'll commit to cease using it in such a fashion specifically on the basis of your demonstrated need, rather than that of the kind of unprovable assertions about the "true meaning" of a policy we've been seeing until now.

  As a side note, your comment completely demonstrates that the permissions you have are insufficient for the job. Filter managers should be able to see deleted revisions. Yes, I know the WMF's position on who gets that permission and I don't agree with it.  — Scott • talk 23:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Suffusion of Yellow and Scott: On just the strict idea of what the WMF requires for access to deleted revisions, filter managers already arguably go through an election process (2 in fact, usually, since most filter managers have gone through an EFH consensus process as well). Now, I expect the idea of adding viewdeleted to EFM would likely end up mired in debate since it isn't necessarily RfA-level given there's usually only 10 people who actually follow the notice links that get posted to noticeboards whenever someone puts a candidacy up as a non-admin, but as a theoretical I somewhat wonder about the practicality of whether an RfC to add the rights would succeed. I guess that's a bit off-topic for this AN thread, though it would certainly help given that RevDelling revisions essentially roadblock any non-admin from building a filter regarding it. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  For a long time there was a bug where even admins couldn't see filter logs corresponding to revdelled edits! Not sure if that's been fixed. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yikes. Well... I have minor feature requests for our admin tools on Phabricator which are old enough to go to secondary school now, so the pace of development in that area really isn't helping.  — Scott • talk 00:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  Hmmm, seems fixed now at least on testwiki. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Do not endorse. 61 edit summaries in a row of all caps FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU.... maxing out the edit summary length is purely disruptive. Changing a redirect to HAGGER???? is normal vandalism. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• What I'm seeing here is an administrator who's not interested in using the tools on behalf of the community, but instead based on their own whims, and responds by attacking anyone who challenges their actions. Seems like a case of "would not be trusted with the tools if their RfA were today", but that's the nature of lifetime appointments. Even in the 2007 RfA, the support/oppose ratio dropped significantly based on temperament concerns. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  Cool attacks on my character! 👍🏻  — Scott • talk 00:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• Quite apart from any questions about (mis)interpretations of RD3, I'm just perplexed why anyone would be concerned about vandalism from 20 years ago. Editors can focus on what they want--it's their time, after all--but why was this considered a priority over vandalism from, say, 20 minutes ago? That's by far the oddest part of all of this to me. Is it deliberately to make a point about the RD3 wording? I'm genuinely mystified. Grandpallama (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  "Why was this considered a priority over vandalism from, say, 20 minutes ago?" It wasn't. You do know that not everyone is patrolling things, right? I use tools exclusively in the areas that I'm working in.  — Scott • talk 00:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC) P.S. I'll choose to ignore that intimation of bad faith on my part.  — Scott • talk 00:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  There was no intimation of bad faith; there was genuine puzzlement about why you would be concerned about something that is, by internet standards, ancient. What was the purpose? You didn't actually answer that question, you just responded with more snark. Whatever, I guess. Grandpallama (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  That wasn't snark. And regarding bad faith, you literally suggested the possibility that I was purposefully making a point violation. So yeah, whatever.  — Scott • talk 10:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  You do know that not everyone is patrolling things, right? is unambiguous snark. --JBL (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  No, it isn't. Maybe spend less time on the angry noticeboards so they don't color your reading ability so much.  — Scott • talk 18:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  With all due respect, I think you may be dealing with a different definition of 'snark' than some of us. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  Astonishing. --JBL (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I noticed one of the revdels on a page I worked on and it was a completely disproportionate reaction to juvenile harmless vandalism that took .2 seconds to revert. I don't get why, that's very clearly not what RD3 is written to mean (or else why would it except "most vandalism??"), so I have no idea what the motive even is here. What is the point of this except needlessly cutting parts out of the page history?

Of course if it's harassment-based vandalism that's a different thing, but I really don't think this is what RD3 is used for or meant to be used for. I prefer when page history is intact unless there is a dire need for revdel. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Kindly read my response to Suffusion of Yellow. Thanks.  — Scott • talk 00:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree with Mackensen here, I think we just need a small change of perspective and maybe a little more time to do some calm learning. The defensiveness is a bit too far, but I'll hope that Scott is a little less aggressive in the case that a similar case occurs in the future. We all could take to heart a commitment to take things slower and more-open mindedly, myself included. The Night Watch (talk) 17:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Short answer: vibes. Longer answer: gut feeling on on a combination of the questions "is there more than a fractional chance that this vandal would be motivated to return later to see the mess they made?" and "how annoying was the vandalism?" and "how jarring to the experience of someone looking through page history would it it to see the vandalism?"

Anyway, per my response to Suffusion of Yellow, this is now moot.  — Scott • talk 00:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response. I agree that Suffusion of Yellow made an important contribution to this discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

No worries. It's 2am here (which to be fair is when I sleep a lot of the time anyway), so I hope that by the time when I check back in tomorrow there won't be lots more people who piled on without having read that.  — Scott • talk 01:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

I suggest we close this. As noted above, Scott has said he'll stop doing this. Editing WP:REVDEL to support his position was probably a troutable offense, but let's all just take a deep breath and move on to something productive. If Scott is true to his word, then no more need be said. If not, then we can take things from there. I would close this myself but the close script I use was thursday'ed a while back and I've long since forgotten how to close these things the manual way. If people want to get hot and bothered, breaking essential scripts might be a place to start. RoySmith (talk) 01:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

That's what I would have said a week ago at DRV, when there was the same level of aggressiveness/incivility in defending an action everyone agreed was well out of bounds. But now the same thing has happened again, just with a different policy. I guess it's good that Scott is going to defer to Suffusion of Yellow's demonstrated need, but I'm far from convinced that we're not just going to end up back here soon with a different form of the same problem. Hopefully I'm wrong. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I just came upon this thread during my daily skim-reading of these boards. I have a fairly unusual perspective here. Scott and I have talked about wiki-archaeology many times over the years and I actually had a discussion with him about this very issue back in 2022 (search for "That's actually led me to something else"). We were talking about the page Wikipedia:Deletion log/28 February – 19 July 2002 (then at the title Wikipedia:Old deletion log); here's the relevant diff and the log of revision deletion/undeletion. I'm relatively extreme about trying to preserve edits where possible and 100% agree with Suffusion of Yellow here, for slightly different reasons, and am glad that Scott has agreed to change his practices here. Graham87 (talk) 04:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. I mean setting aside the discussion about the letter and spirit of the law, you can boil down the whole issue to one of our software not being good enough. I think that vandalism should be hidden away (not "deleted" - the fact of the system being called "revision deletion" is just one of many issues with it) for two reasons: to deny recognition to vandals, and to minimize disruption to people reading page history. RevDel as it exists today is a crude and blunt tool with almost no nuance whatsoever. You have two options for a given unit of data (actor, revision text, edit summary) - leave it on public view, or punt it into the Phantom Zone where only admins can read it. There's no gradation that can be applied when hiding revisions.

By contrast, consider a system where applying, for example, RD2 would make an item inaccessible to anyone without elevated privileges, but RD3 would hide it behind an additional interface element until a button is clicked. Minimal visibility for disruptive material without presenting any barrier to edit filter managers, recent changes patrollers, etc. This isn't a new idea at all: various social media apps have had it for a long time in the form of "hidden replies". Even in the current system, we could unbundle the right to see hidden revisions and give it to reasonable interested users so that staying tidy doesn't impede research. I believe this actually was the case with the "researcher" user group until the WMF nixed it for some reason? I didn't hear about it until afterwards.

Similarly, other objections raised above included noise in the logs... once again utterly trivial to resolve technically. But the WMF has chosen to spend its giant budget on "increasing engagement" features, and leave our tools languishing pretty much exactly where they were fifteen years ago. The sheer amount of precious human time wasted by having to both use our incredibly out of date tools and debate extensively about the way to use them because of how crude they are is heartbreaking.

By the way, it's "them" now rather than "him". 😊  — Scott • talk 10:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about the misgendering. Revision deletion is a great improvement on what was previously the only option, selective deletion. You were editing Wikipedia (but not yet an admin) when even that wasn't an option. This is the wrong place to debate the merits of hypothetical revision hiding options, but I don't really see the use of such gradation; I'd maintain that most people don't even look at page history and many readers understand that minor vandalism is often part of the life-cycle of Wikipedia pages (we even have a main namespace article on the topic). Graham87 (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

No need at all to apologize. Yeah, I'm sure there's a better venue to talk about it than here. But you're quite right in that selective deletion was a massive pain in the neck and RD's arrival in 2009 really helped. Just now that we're 15 years down the line, I personally reckon it's overdue for a rethink based on lessons learned.  — Scott • talk 18:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

IMO there was a problem of too broad of use of the tool and Scott has agreed to change accordingly. I think we're done here. North8000 (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

my discussion was deleted

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@Antandrus closed my discussion because someone accused im a banned user. im not. please revert the closure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September_11_attacks Gsgdd (talk) 06:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

i have made valid arguments which merits discussion. it shouldn't be closed because of pure accusations. is there any proof im banned? can two people not have same idea? Gsgdd (talk) 06:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion was closed, for reasons, none of which was anything to do with the allegation that you are a sock account. You made a proposal and virtually all the respondents disagreed with you. Therefore the closure was simply that your proposal did not gain a consensus.

Please don't try and relitigate the same argument here, it won't get any traction. Nthep (talk) 06:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

There is one editor who didn't disagreed. I'm trying to build consensus. why are you trying to block it? Gsgdd (talk) 06:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

and one editor opposed. what are you talking about ? Gsgdd (talk) 06:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

also there is no Consensus to delete it. i accidentally put rfc tag - which i removed and it shoudnt be the cause of deletion. then another user accused of being a blocked account Gsgdd (talk) 06:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this, but unfortunately this isn't the place to resolve your concern. The issue is a content dispute and the close was not an action requiring admin tools. It's not within the scope of this noticeboard to overturn content decisions. If you disagree with the consensus outcome please do feel free to seek a new consensus at the article talkpage in due course (ie not today or tomorrow or next month but eventually). Please note you will probably need to have new reliable sources that back your view, or an alternative set of words to propose which might gain more support than that available in this current RfC. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

see this is a controversial topic. obviously people who follow this page will be quick to disagree. i need more time. i made some mistakes in the arguments, but its a learning process. i need to know people objections so i can research how to refute them. where can i seek arbitration ? Gsgdd (talk) 07:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

also an admin blocked closed it. Gsgdd (talk) 07:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

You don't need to be an admin to close an RFC, so this close is really just by Antandrus in their capacity as an experienced regular editor. I get what you're saying re more time to prepare arguments, but ideally the argument is fully prepared before opening the RfC rather than during it. There really didn't seem to be much support for your proposal, but if you do have some additional arguments or sources to present than maybe put them together over time (say, a few months?)and feel free to re-test consensus for the word "Islamist" in a future talkpage discussion or RfC. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

why do i have to wait few months. i already have reliable sources https://www.brookings.edu/articles/rethinking-language-islamism-as-a-dirty-word/ and others to support my arguments... this is crazy - why my voices are being shut down and prevented from being heard Gsgdd (talk) 07:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Per this policy section, consensus can change but repeated or rapid attempts to relitigate the same issue can be a bit disruptive. As above I get that you hadn't fully assembled your arguments before posting the rfc. That's unfortunate as maybe it would have led to a different outcome. Or maybe not. Either way it's probably better to take some time putting those arguments together and then starting a new discussion in due course, versus starting a new RfC or discussion on the same topic immediately after the previous one has closed. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I took part in the thread the OP is complaining about. They wanted the 9/11 hijackers to not be described as "Islamist". Around 6 or 7 editors were against the OP. One editor made a compromise suggestion which involved retaining the word but the OP rejected that. No one supported their proposal. They say above "one editor opposed". That is the same WP:IDHT we saw on display from them in that thread. I think they are best advised to follow WP:STICK rather than keep pursuing. DeCausa (talk) 08:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The strength of arguments is crucial in the consensus process. no one other than you has made a strong case. so please stop that 6 or 7 editors against me argument Gsgdd (talk) 08:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Many people commented for sure, probably disapproved. but no valid reasoning imo Gsgdd (talk) 08:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

anayway... ill be back after sometime Gsgdd (talk) 08:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

You, as proposer, are not arbiter of what reasoning is valid or not. Acroterion (talk) 13:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

As Astropulse, to be clear. Doug Weller talk 15:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Both those are ironic statements given that your argument in the thread was that we shouldn't be following the RS: "Just because RS promote hatred,racism etc.. does it mean wiki should do it as well?" DeCausa (talk) 10:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

What makes you think the discussion was closed because someone accused you of being a banned user? There is nothing about that in the close. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

One person wanted the word "Islamist" removed, no one agreed with them, but instead of letting it go it went on and on and on, and on, and I closed it. All in a day's work. And no, this had absolutely nothing to do with a suggestion this was a banned user (I personally don't think it is, but did not look into it). Also (as above) this was not an administrative action. Antandrus (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Error on page - Cannot add topic

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

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

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

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

I attempted to add a topic on the Talk page as recommended, however there is no topic button on the Talk page and it seems as if the Talk section is prohibited for some reason. 71.251.236.155 (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry you were unable to start a conversation on the talk page, no idea what's up with that. The cited ref actually does support the content (open ref #30 and do a find for "orange") but it's badly worded in the article so I'm going to update that. Schazjmd (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. I'm sorry you couldn't add a topic to the talk page. There's nothing the matter with the talk page. The problem is that our mobile interface doesn't work properly. Reference #30 (which is this article) does say the driver gave no more information and the car was destroyed. Both pieces of information are in the third paragraph from the bottom.—S Marshall T/C 23:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Problematic rollover text

On this page I can't breathe The first hyperlinked instance of "George Floyd" in the section George Floyd shows text "George Floyd" when logged in, but an entirely different and problematic rollover preview when not logged in. I'm unable to figure out how to erase it myself. Eunoia666 (talk) 22:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you still getting this? (It was caused by vandalism to George Floyd, now reverted and revdeleted.) I'm properly seeing the preview of the unvandalized article both logged-in and -out. —Cryptic 23:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Misuse of Revdel

Recently, several revisions were deleted using Revision Deletion (Revdel) by AirshipJungleman29 in Draft:Gupta–Hunnic Wars, which I humbly believe they were not justified properly as they only found close paraphrasing in "The Huna Volkerwanderung" section and "Rise of Kidara Kushans" sub-section [75]. I'd rewrite the whole contents in these section/subsection but kindly please restore the appropriate contents so that I do not need to spend a lot of time to re-write it for months all over again. Also the user has only found few scanty grammatical mistakes in such a massive article but it was still drafted by them which was quite harsh in my humble opinion. I would like to request any admin to help me in restoring this article, because I have earnestly worked a lot before and spent months for the article already. Thank you. Jonharojjashi (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29 is not an administrator and can not delete revisions. I have notified them of this report. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The revdeletions were performed by Robertsky. —Cryptic 14:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@Jonharojjashi:(Non-administrator comment) That will not happen. That—substantial—chunk of text was a verbatim copyright violation which is an absolute on Wikipedia. See Wp:COPYRIGHT, which is a policy policy with legal considerations. For why it will not be restored, see WP:UNDELETE: Copyright violations and attack pages will not be provided. In any case, since the source and text were effectively the same, you only need access to the original to rewrite in your own words. But it cannot be hosted anywhere on Wikipedia—talk pages, draft, email—as the deleting admin—Robertsky—would have told you had you asked.

In fact, instead of relitigating it now, at a noticeboard, it would be more productive to simply take AirshipJungleman29's original advice and "take this issue seriously in the future". ——Serial Number 54129 14:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129 Yes I know that the section "The Huna Volkerwanderung" and sub-section "Rise of Kidara Kushans" are highly identical and I'd rewrite it in my own words, but what about the rest of the article? Even the attributed contents from parent articles were not spared. The article was massive and it's possible that there would be some grammatical mistakes and copyright violation but instead of removing the particular concern they have deleted more than 120k bytes of contents. I am not asking for restoration of those closely paraphrased section/sub-section but the restoration of the fair contents, please look into this. Kind regards. Jonharojjashi (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

That's not possible. Specific sections of a page can't be revision-deleted, only entire revisions. —Cryptic 14:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

So I guess I have to manually restore non plagiarised contents? Jonharojjashi (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I have nothing further to add to Serial Number 54129's comment above. They have stated in a succinct manner what I would have conveyed. – robertsky (talk) 01:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• The examples listed by AirshipJungleman29 at the talkpage are egregiously bad; essentially close-paraphrasing by (nonsensical) word-substitution. Given Jonharojjashi's poor record of content-creation in the IPA-history topic-area (see their talkpage, including several copyvio-related notices) and the amount of effort required to save their work on a notable topic from deletion (see this AFD), I believe a topic-ban or block from mainspace should be considered. Abecedare (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  I agree, Abecedare. Unfortunately, a topic ban the simple way (=placed by one uninvolved admin) seems to be off the table, since Jonharojjashi has not been alerted to the contentious topics restrictions, or even to discretionary sanctions. A pity. A topic ban by the community (=placed by consensus at this board) would be an unreasonable hassle and waste of time, IMO — there has been enough waste of the community's time by this user, surely. Therefore, I recommend an indefinite block from article space, which can be appealed in the usual way on their page, or, no sooner than in six months, to the community at this board. Bishonen | tålk 18:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC).

  Agree w/ Bishonen. Enough time has passed, and enough energy has been wasted. You can PB at will can't you? Carry on, captain. ——Serial Number 54129 18:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Bishonen: Jonharojjashi was alerted of IPA DS in Aug 2023, so a (non-community imposed) topic ban remains an option. Abecedare (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, I missed that. I've never seen such an alert not appear in the edit summary before - I thought that happened automatically. Well, in that case... do you think a t-ban or a mainspace block would be best and most relevant to the disruption, Abecedare and Serial Number 54129? Bishonen | tålk 19:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC).

  @Bishonen: IMO a topic-ban would be preferable in order to not simply shift the burden of spotting copyright, paraphrasing, POVforking, source quality and source misrepresentation issues onto AFC reviewers. See this, this, this and the many abandoned drafts to get an idea of the concerns that have been previously raised. Abecedare (talk) 20:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  I hear you, Abe. On the other side, blocks are conveniently self-enforcing, while the user has ample opportunity to violate a topic ban through (perhaps innocently) misunderstanding how it works. I'm going by the difficulties they have demonstrated in understanding our copyright and sourcing policies. But you're right, a mainspace block wouldn't be fair on AFC reviewers. I have topic banned Jonharojjashi from India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Bishonen | tålk 21:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC).

Global account with similar name

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 0xDeadBeef (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This username resembles 0xDeadbeef. I am not sure if there are others.102.158.175.24 (talk) 11:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Well spotted, anon, although A user with 0 edits. Account created on 30 January 2013.  :) ——Serial Number 54129 11:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

They made a viable edit to frwiki at that time. But meh...this was all 11+ years ago. DMacks (talk) 11:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

It's an ancient computing term; it is not unusual that two people would have thought of it for a username. And given the old account hasn't made an edit to any wiki for over ten years, I think we can ignore it. Black Kite (talk) 11:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

And WHAAOE: 0xDEADBEEF. DMacks (talk) 13:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resignation of Barkeep49 from ArbCom

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

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Resignation of Barkeep49 from ArbCom

Explanations about a block?

Hello,

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

@Litlok It's User talk:Pelage de lézard, to edits to their talk page, both deleted so you can't see them. Doug Weller talk 14:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I think we are expected to give an explanation to Pelage about the reasons for the block; also his 2 edits haven't been deleted afaics, they're still on his talk-page, asking about the reason for the block (in French). Lectonar (talk) 14:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

From the CU log, Pelage de lézard was confirmed to Flo ! Allez, who was blocked for petty vandalism. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: OK, thank you! Litlok (talk) 07:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

More haste; less speed.

• Trump raised fist photographs (AfD discussion)

We all know how this goes, do we not? Let's let all timezones have a say before any administrator leaps in to close this. We're not in some desperate hurry. So for goodness' sake, please learn the lesson of not speedily closing these things after not even a full rotation of the planet. Thomas Matthew Crooks (AfD discussion) (and again) (and again) has been through three AFD discussions in a 15 hour period and through Deletion Review. Please learn from that at least, event if not from the umpteen other times that this has happened at AFD over the decades. Uncle G (talk) 09:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

How yet do we not have at least a 48 hour moratorium on current events? We say we're NOTNEWS, and then we act like we are. Bewilders. Rotary Engine ^talk 10:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

And closed within a day, because, of course it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotary Engine (talk • contribs) 13:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)^<diff>

Well, Uncle G made the point that much of the commentary was just noise and of no use to a closing administrator, because they do not show at all how Wikipedia deletion policy applies, one way or the other, to the question at hand. Some people have addressed sourcing and notability, though, which is exactly what a closing administrator needs, and I'm sure the closing admin took that fully into account, Rotary Engine  :) ——Serial Number 54129 13:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh, Aye. Fully. :) But whatever the quality of argument, given that the article would be extant during the discussion, it's not a thing that needed closing early. sotto voce: and the closing "adm-what now?" Rotary Engine ^talk 15:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Seems to me it would be particularly difficult to maintain less speed in a climate of more haste. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh FFS. This is exactly the reason I wrote WP:EVENT years ago. And why it has both "Don't rush to create articles" and "Don't rush to delete articles". The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Do you really expect deletion despite heavy ongoing media coverage and the resulting new editors? Perhaps it would be reasonable to renominate only after a week.

Yes, I agree about Please learn from that at least. But it's not the closers that need to learn. The 2nd and 3rd nom for AfD, and the sock in the case of DRV, should all read WP:OTHERPARENT. The 1st nom might be OK, but the others should WP:DROPTHESTICK as discussed. 174.92.25.207 (talk) 08:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I have no objections to it being reopened, but does anyone honestly think it's going to turn out any different with more time? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

NAC at FFD File:Shooting of Donald Trump.webp

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

(Non-administrator comment)I don't think Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 July 14#File:Shooting of Donald Trump.webp was a good close, and it would've been better to have left it to an administrator who has experience in closing FFD discussions. This was a highly contentious discussion with many particpants. Non-free content use discussions can be quite nuanced and such closes often require and are expected to to be something that's simply more than a "Closed as keep" type of statement. I think this discussion probably falls under WP:BADNAC (no matter how well-meaning the close was), and should have at least been allowed to run the seven days typically allowed for FFD discussions and then perhaps be closed by someone more familiar with WP:FFDAI and more experience at closing file related discussions. This doesn't seem to be the right discussion for a non-administrator with what appears to be not a lot of experience in non-free content matters to decide to step in and close. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC); edited 08:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Marchjuly. Thank you for notifying me of this discussion. I do have experience in non-free content matters. I have been a near daily editor of Wikipedia English (and frequent editor of Commons) since 2011. I carefully read the criteria for non-administrative closures of XFDs. My decision to close the discussion was motivated by fair use criteria (small/low pixel image of content not widely available, that is of educational use and for public information) and:

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

If administrators feel that I improperly acted to close the XFD discussion, I apologize now, and will not attempt to do any such thing again in the future.--FeralOink (talk) 07:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Even beyond being a NAC, I am extremely concerned by the lack of any close rationale for a complicated discussion with nuanced copyright issues. A strong close rationale is expected in difficult closes. Curbon7 (talk) 07:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

The series of automated XFD close steps caught me by surprise before I had a chance to enter a short form version of what I stated above. You're correct. I also just read this, above, about more haste, less speed in the context of Trump raised fist photos. Okay, mea culpa, it was a bad close. Revert me, reopen the discussion, and issue my punishment. I'm ready. Please don't block me from editing Wikipedia permanently though?--FeralOink (talk) 07:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)First off, nobody's asking for you to be punished (at least not me), Moreover, it kind of takes a bit of moxy to try and close a discussion such as that. I certainly don't think I could do it and I've got a fair amount of experience in FFD discussions. However, just from what you posted above, it seems like you might not be expereinced enough to take on something like this, particulary since you don't seem to be very active at FFD. For reference, WP:NFCC and fair use aren't really the same whenit comes to Wikipedia; they're being used interchangeably alot in that discussion, but Wikipedia's policy has been set up to be more restrictive that fair use. There are ten non-free content use criteria that each use of non-free content needs to satisfy and failing to satisfy even one of these means the particluar use is not policy compliant. In addition, FFD discussion typically run seven days before being closed as per WP:FFD and WP:FFDAI, except perhaps when it's quite clear an eariler close is going to be non-contentious or otherwise obvious. This discussion was only open for only two days and yet had a huge numnber of particpants discussing multiple interpretations of different non-free content use criteria. It's likely going to continue to generate more comments because there are not only multiple articles where some may want the file to be used, but also multiple ways in which the file could be used. FWIW, being used for primary identification purposes in a stand-alone article may strengthen the justification for a particular non-free use, but it's doesn't automatically make said non-free NFCC compliant. I'm sure you meant well, but the number of participants in the discusison and the complexity of the what was being discussed probably pushed this discussion into realm of item 2 of WP:BADNAC, which means closing it is probably better left to an administrator whose more experienced in non-free content use policy and closing FFD discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I've undone the closure per your request. Certainly there's no need for any punishment or block—you understand the issue, so there's nothing more for us to do here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that one (and almost all XFDs) should run the full 7 days since there is no reason stated to close it early. I also think a detailed rationale is needed for a complex discussion like that. I see the closer gave permission to revert, which was done, so we should be all set here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, a nuanced close is needed here. For a significant time during the FFD, people were voting "Keep" despite the fact that the image was a clear F7b speedy delete candidate. The only reason it isn't one now is because an article was quickly knocked together to make it not one, which I'm not sure is in the spirit of a Free Encyclopedia (regardless of the issues with that article itself). Black Kite (talk) 07:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

The image was the subject of sourced commentary in Attempted assassination of Donald Trump#Aftermath continually since the time it was nominated, so I don't really think that's true. Endwise (talk) 08:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

A sourced statement of any sort about the image was not added until this edit more than an hour after the image was nominated at FFD, when it looked like this. I can say I certainly would have speedied the file myself if I had known it was an Associated Press image when the FFD looked like this. Anyway, FFD is an extraordinarily bad place for non-admins to close discussions in general; more than anywhere else, debates there are closed on strength of policy-based argument rather than raw vote count, and there's still, among other things, an overriding and unrebutted UUI6 argument to remove the image from one of the articles it's currently in. —Cryptic 09:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Ahh, my mistake on the timing there. The version I remembered was indeed from about an hour or so after the FFD was opened. Endwise (talk) 09:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I have replied in the FFD, arguing why FFD is not the proper venue for UUI6. 174.92.25.207 (talk) 10:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

According to WP:NFCC, Files for discussion is the central venue to discuss whether a particular image meets the non-free content criteria, regardless of whether the file should be deleted or not. For example, a discussion might be held about whether it is appropriate to use an image in ARTICLE1 even if it unquestionably meets the criteria for use in ARTICLE2. However, this discussion is such a trainwreck that a new seperate thread to determine whether inclusion in the article Attempted assassination of Donald Trump would be better. The image indutiably meets NFCC in the article about the photograph. Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Super ninja2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

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

Appealing user

Super ninja2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 15:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

"formally topic-banned from the Israel-Palestine conflict topic area indefinitely, appealable to AN in no less than 6 months"

Administrator imposing the sanction

Daniel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

[76]

Statement by Super ninja2

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

Statement by Daniel

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

Statement by The Kip

My bad. The Kip (contribs) 04:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No opinion on the appeal itself (yet), but shouldn't this be at WP:AE? The Kip (contribs) 16:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC) The editor may...request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"). This is an appropriate venue. Grandpallama (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Context: I was the one who initially reported Super Ninja2 at ANI back in November, during my one major dabble in the ARBPIA area before I opted to stay away. This report, and a concurrent 3/1RR violation, is what led to his indef by HJ Mitchell, later reduced to a ARBPIA TBAN from Daniel.

On one hand, their prior history of edit warring and the whole Al-Ahli saga were... not ideal, and this incident from late February + this reverted edit from April still gives me some pause regarding an overturn of the TBAN - I'm not entirely convinced the maturity is there yet.

I was about to say that on the other hand, that's simply my opinion and I couldn't really find any concrete reasons to oppose an overturn, buuuuut this edit from last month seems like a pretty clear-cut TBAN violation, given the quote they modified directly relates to the conflict's hostage crisis. As a result, I don't think an overturn is the right move at this moment. The Kip ^(contribs) 04:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Super ninja2

• This is a topic ban violation from only 5 days ago. – bradv 15:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  I thought the article does not belong to the Palestine-Israel topic area. But I see where you're coming from. ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 16:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  You legitimately did not believe that edit violated your topic ban? Grandpallama (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  Come on! If I wanted to violate my ban, I would have edited a more important article about the topic, right? Why would anyone want to get in trouble if they want to start an appeal right after, right? So you can have a good faith and confidently say that "No", I didn't mean it or believed it was in my ban. BUT, I do understand that this was/is a bad indicator, even I can see it (that's a more accurate and rational rephrasing). I was skeptical about editing it but gave it the benefit of doubt. But, yea, I know it's indicating that I'm a bit impulsive. I get it.

  And if you say:

  • "then why did you start an appeal knowing you are impulsive?"

  Only a little impulsive, trust me but more importantly I am making a progress!

  • "why would you expect us to accept the appeal?"

  Because acknowledging the flows in oneself is a good indicator for good behavior too? I mean you can't say you are perfect either (in editing Wikipedia context). I bet you have many flows but what matters is working and making a progress in being a constructive editor and it doesn't matter if I'm more flowed than you are in this field, it's making a progress into being a better editor what matters.

  Hope that wasn't extra! 😅

  ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 17:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  The topic ban was for the Israel-Palestine conflict topic area (emphasis mine). It was not for the Israel-Palestine topic area (note missing word). I note too that the topic ban did not say "broadly construed". Seeing the article, I don't see how Eli Harari has been involved in the Israel-Palestine conflict, only that they were born in the region. I concur with Super ninja2 and disagree with Bradv; I don't see this as a topic ban violation. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  You have provided the reasoning/rationale I was looking to see from SuperNinja2. I'm not sure they realize why it is or isn't a violation, though I tend toward the latter. Grandpallama (talk) 00:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  If you don't realize how changing "Israel" to "Palestine" in relation to Tel Aviv is related to this conflict, then you likely haven't been very active in this topic area. Also, by default all topic bans are "broadly construed", unless otherwise specified. – bradv 00:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  If it's broadly construed, it's broadly construed. If it's not, it's not. I've seen a lot of topic bans. If it was to be specified, it should have been. It's absence isn't Super ninja2's fault. I've also seen a considerable number of edits on various articles across the project that properly adjust what a birth place is based on the time of birth. It's a very common edit, and proper to do so. Again, Super ninja2 didn't do anything wrong. It's a good edit, and outside of the topic ban. If this is the only thing anyone can find that even remotely smacks of Super ninja2 doing anything wrong in the last six months, I dare say the case has been made that Super ninja2 has been acting very appropriately. Personally, I haven't investigated their edits over the last six months. But, this claim is making the case in favor of Super ninja2 all on its own. Please come up with something substantive. This one isn't. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'll openly admit I'm not the biggest fan of SuperNinja's past conduct (I was the one that reported him in the first place, leading to his TBAN) - with that said, I don't really think this is as severe as you believe it to be.

  It'd be one thing if he changed a post-1948-born Israeli individual's birth location to "Tel Aviv, Palestine" (as in the modern State of Palestine), which would obviously be a TBAN violation; however, the subject of that article was born in 1945, when Tel Aviv was still part of Mandatory Palestine (as in the British-controlled mandate/territory). It'd be similar to changing a 30s/40s-born Jordanian's birth country to "Transjordan," rather than simply Jordan. Besides debates on whether birth locations should be contemporary or modern, it seems like an appropriate edit to make. The Kip ^(contribs) 04:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• Have I missed something somewhere? Is it now normal for WP:AN to include discussions for arbitration appeals? No comment on this particular one's merits; I'm just not sure it's in the right place. Nyttend (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  Hi Nyttend, in my original notification I advised them that they can appeal at AE or AN, as per Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Standard provision: appeals and modifications. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  It's never made sense to me why the process allows for two separate locations for appeals as standard, but it does. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  As I posted above: The editor may...request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"). This is an appropriate venue. Grandpallama (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Creation of protected redirect (AFC/R)

During the course of handling this AfC/R request, I was blocked from creating the redirect due to seemingly blanket title blacklist. Could an administrator create the target page? Thank you. Garsh (talk) 02:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Garsh2, not an admin, but done. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 03:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah! I forgot page movers can do this too. Apologies and thanks. Garsh (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

EggRoll97 and Garsh2, the IP that requested the redirect creation was the same sockmaster that led to the blacklisting. Any objection to deletion? I'm not sure WP:G5 speedy deletion fits here, since the sock isn't the one that created the page, so I'd prefer something like WP:G7. I'm not sure which of you to consider the "author", and I'd love to hear from you both. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll invite any uninvolved editor to disagree, but I find this to be an independently valid redirect regardless of who the AfC/R requester may have been. It strikes me as an obvious subtopic redirect under WP:POFR, and a validating source was even provided in the request. What goes on with the sockpuppetry is not my area of interest, but I will object to deletion based on the merit of the redirect itself. Garsh (talk) 03:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

That's reasonable. If you find this edit to be good, you may want to restore it and assume responsibility for its content. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I find myself in a situation where this edit is not one I would have otherwise made, but I do not see anything that makes it immediately revertible (other than the obvious sock). I'll look further into it shortly. Thanks for your help on this, there turned out to be more here than I originally thought. Garsh (talk) 04:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Just FYI, Garsh, but this request was by a sockpuppet. If you looked at the history of the redirect page, you'd see that it was created by several socks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that this appears to be a frequent sock target and I was informed about the nature of the request in the above comments. Thanks. Garsh (talk) 04:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers and Liz: I agree with what Garsh2 commented above. I saw the deletion log, but the redirect led to, at the time (prior to the removal of the section) a section that contained a source indicating at least some level of notability, so I didn't see any reason not to create the redirect. It still remains mentioned on the target article for Kashf Foundation at Kashf Foundation#Media and social platforms, so per WP:PROXYING I will take responsibility for the content. No opinion personally on the edit that was reverted to the page itself, I'm not sure it really needs its own section. I've retargeted the redirect to the Media and social platforms section. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 05:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

ARBPIA gaming?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The user Amayorov, despite having an eight-year-old account, made their first edit on 3 July 2024 before proceeding to pass 500 edits and receive extended confirmed permissions on 6 July 2024. All of the edits made, 100s a day, were on European politics and history. Shortly after achieving EC permissions, suddenly it's all 1948 Palestine war, specifically inserting Benny Morris as a source all over the place and doing some work on the Benny Morris biography. Apparently European content has lost its appeal. Make of this what you will. I also have to wonder if, despite having an extant account for 8 years, achieving 500 edits in three days (rather than the 30 days as envisaged in the ECR rule set) is somewhat of a violation of the spirit of the restrictions, even if not the technical function. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Were there any issues with the edits?

Discussions recently have come to the conclusion that absent obvious abuse - unproductive or disruptive edits, or repeatedly making a dozen edits to do what could be done in one or two - it’s acceptable for editors to work towards ECP.

To an extent, this makes sense - if we tell people "this is what you need to edit this topic area" we can’t reasonably expect editors interested in the topic area to not work towards it. BilledMammal (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

see my reply Amayorov (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Issues other than that pushing Benny Morris here there any everywhere with little regard for any other sources is a terrible form of disregard for NPOV? That alone, in a contentious topic area, is pretty disruptive. The 500/30 rule is aimed at ensuring a minimum level of understanding and competency. Yes, some are encouraged to rush the requirements, but we shouldn't encourage editors to rush the requirements. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I did not "push Benny Morris" but rather expanded on the already existing citations to his work. Recall that Benny Morris' 2008 book had already been the most quoted reference on that page. When necessary, I've added phrases such as "some scholars allege that" etc.

When you and other users disagreed with my edits, I didn't proceed, but rather created sections on the Talk page. Unlike other users, you didn't engage.

I think the extensive sourcing I use in any of my edits illustrate that I at least possess "a minimum level of competency". Amayorov (talk) 19:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I have engaged. As of the time of me writing this, there are at least two comments from me to you that you have not responded to. Again, this can be checked. I suggest you desist from misrepresenting very verifiable information in this forum. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

You wrote those comments less than an hour before reporting me on the Admin board. Yes –– all of this can be checked.

I suggest you desist from misrepresenting very verifiable information in this forum. Amayorov (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I meant in regardless to the substance of this complaint - with the edits to reach 500.

If we don’t tell editors that they can’t work towards 500/30, then how should they know we don’t want them to work towards them? If the goal is to ensure a minimum level of understanding and competency, and 500 edits isn’t sufficient for that, then let’s modify the requirements - for example, require edits to be a minimum byte size to count, as I have proposed in the past. BilledMammal (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea. However, I have clearly written plenty of bytes in my 500 edits, in some cases going as far as copy-editing entire pages that had been poorly translated or unsourced. You can see all that in my edit history. Amayorov (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

This is patently false. I have made extensive edits to various topics, including military history and Central Asian history, paganism, and engineering. All my corrections were extensively referenced. I have also rewritten several large articles, requiring copy-edit and verification.

It is true that I have re-activated my account in the week. This is simply a reflection of the fact that I have free time, and have grown fond of Wikipedia.

Benny Morris' 1948 book has always been the most referenced book on the topic. I have used not only that book but also others by different authors, as well as sourcing UN archives.

I have added corrections and more references on the subject, including 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight and Palestinian nationalism. None of the other users had an issue with my work.

By contrast, @Iskandar323 has reverted my edits without giving a justification. They also ignored my attempts at a discussion in the Talk pages. Amayorov (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I had a justification, and I have responded on talk. I suggest that you avoid misrepresenting things that can be checked up on (on an administrative noticeboard). And yes, other users have taken up issue with your edits. I'm not sure why you would misrepresent this. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Your justification was RV gf edits - unfortunately, adding random titbits of background information from Morris, removing dates and badly rephrasing other parts is not an improvement.

This is not specific or constructive. In order to clarify your objections, I created discussion topics on the Talk page – which you have ignored. Amayorov (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I have responded to some, not all of your posts. However, I would prefer to see what administrators think of this situation before potentially unduly spending more time on explaining why expanding claims from a single source that is, in your own words, already the most [(over-)]quoted reference on the page, is not particularly in the service of NPOV. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

You have responded to them half an hour ago, almost immediately posting on the Admin board.

Yes, Benny Morris is the most quoted historian on the 1948 war. I barely added new references to him, usually simply extending the existing ones. Amayorov (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I suppose I should be grateful that you've helped illustrate quite how over-represented Benny Morris is (more than 50 citations and mentions), but again, that begs the question of why you think this clear imbalance problem should be worsened. If you can't see that there might be an imbalance problem there, that somewhat illustrates why the 500/30 rule exists and why a month of actual editing is, in spirit, what is expected of it. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Because Morris has written multiple, highly regarded books on the 1948 war. He's cited by plenty of other authors, such as Shlaim, Khalidi, Ben-Ami, and others.

Besides, and as I've previously explained, I didn't add much new material. I've clarified previous references and added qualifications to partisan statements. Amayorov (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

This seems like a content dispute, Iskandar323, moreso than any actual gaming. It seems like it might be better to have discussed this with the editor on a talk page, not hauled them to AN. The editor's contributions appear to be in good faith, and while I haven't gone into a full deep-dive or anything of the sort, they don't seem to be unconstructive at first glance. Favoring a specific historian isn't necessarily a behavioral issue, so long as they are willing to discuss inclusion and abide by the results of consensus. Building a culture of continually questioning those who take the time to build a constructive editing history in order to prove they can be trusted with access to contentious topics is a terrifying idea. If I was to accuse someone of gaming for rollback, for example, because they spent a lot of time reverting vandals, it would likely be considered at the very least rude, and at worst a personal attack. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 21:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

There is a content dispute for sure, which I will continue in good faith. At the same time, there is only one type of account that I have ever seen that goes from 0 to 100 edits a day on some random topic before switching (after 3 frenetic days) to almost pure ARBPIA edits, and it isn't the constructive variety. There are plenty of dubious accounts that have just passed this threshold currently operating in the contentious topic area. This account, however, caught my eye due to the rapid edit aggregation and glaring topic switch. I have raised the issue of quite a few gaming accounts on this noticeboard, and to date, most of them have raised eyebrows for admins too. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, from my perspective there appears to be some unnecessary edit farming in this user's background. For instance, Sukhoi Shkval did not require 40 edits in a row to achieve this relatively minimal difference, while not managing to add a single in-line citation or new source. On 9К512 Uragan-1M we got some extremely minor, non-substantive copyediting that frankly didn't change the readability of the article much. An improvement? Perhaps trivially, but reasonable editors could disagree there. Worth sanctioning over? IMO probably not, but I don't think Iskandar323's concerns are without merit. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Regarding 9K512 Uragan-1M, the article had been marked as “roughly translated.” I did my best to correct residual grammatical errors, before marking the issue as resolved.

Regarding Sukhoi-Shkval, I agree that 40 edits were excessive. One reason for this was that I was still learning about the editing tools, discovering new templates and features. Another justification is that I had to decipher some unclear text, such as “Each wing has a rudder that functions as a rudder and aileron.” Here, the first “rudder” is in fact not a rudder at all, but a flap. I had only figured that out once I read through the sources. Amayorov (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

It wouldn't require 40 edits from an experienced editor who knew everything about how wikitext worked, but for somebody figuring it out for the first time I am inclined to assume good faith. jp×g🗯️ 20:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

There may be something going on with ARBPIA, perhaps unrelated to this, but worth thinking about. We had a recently compromised account jump into ARBPIA in the past week, threatening to report other editors if reverted, then reporting a prominent ‘opponent’ to WP:AE, volunteering to be topic banned if the ‘opponent’ is also topic banned, before being Checkuser blocked by an Arb. starship.paint (RUN) 23:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

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

I don't know whether these plots can provide any illumination. The dramatic change in slope and shape of the bytes added and page byte size change curves after extendedconfirmed has been granted at 500 edits is consistent with the notion of gaming to obtain the privilege in order to enter the contentious PIA topic area. These kind of signal shapes for users that enter the PIA topic area can often be seen for sockpuppets of AndresHerutJaim/יניב הורון, not that that suggests this is an AHJ sock. Wikipedia provides tools to help new users rapidly gain EC. Sometimes this kind of impressive efficiency is thanks to the Wikimedia Foundation Growth team's "Newcomer tasks" project. Also, their first edit being an WP:ARBECR violation is not great. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

When I was doing my edits, I was using almost exclusively Wiki’s backlog. I chose the issues that I could conceivably help with, such as Rough Translation from Russian and French (the languages I speak), and lead rewrite requests. I intend to continue on with this work in the future.

And, yes, I’m interested in the IP history, about which I’ve read a lot. Since gaining extended privileges, I’ve made improvements to those articles. Those edits have arguably been better-sources than any of my other work, due to my having more knowledge to my having more knowledge on the topic. I do not deny that I wanted to contribute to these topics from the start. Amayorov (talk) 10:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Amayorov but you don't need to defend yourself to me. I'm nobody. I'm just providing information. Either way, the notion of gaming in Wikipedia and its relationship to the WP:ARBECR barrier is currently rather vague. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Where did you learn to add a colon prefix to the category name in your busy schedule by the way e.g. :Category:Wikipedia backlog|Wiki’s backlog? Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The visual editor adds it automatically, when I link to the url https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_backlog Amayorov (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Either way, regardless of the specifics of this editor, it's important for the community to acknowledge that a) WP:ARBECR was introduced as an entry barrier for good reasons and b) highly motivated people have already discovered ways to essentially tunnel through that barrier. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Not being a tech wizard, I can only judge by what I see over time. I am in the habit of adding awareness notices if I notice new editors (non EC or EC) making edits in the topic area and off the top of my head, I would say that occurs 3 or 4 times a month at least, there appears to be an increase in the number of such editors in recent times, as to what proportion of them are WP:NOTHERE I couldn't say but experience tells me that some at least are in that category. Selfstudier (talk) 10:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you are underestimating your contribution. This year I think you have provided the awareness notices to 202 users, or thereabouts. That is based on your revisions to user talk pages where the byte size change is in a range consistent with the awareness template size. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The top of my head is very unreliable then, lol. Selfstudier (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland: There is an easier way to check; see this log search. Selfstudier has posted 210 this year. BilledMammal (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah, that's useful to know. Thanks. I've not really spent any time looking at the filters, despite them being a likely information goldmine. On the other hand, the pointlessly harder path is often more fun. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

No comment about the gaming accusation, but the ARBPIA edits themselves seem fine. Morris is arguably the most prominent historian in this area, and one of the more neutral ones, with critics from both sides. It's debatable whether some of the added content is important enough to include, but it's reasonable enough, and Amayorov seems open to feedback and compromise. POV pushing involves aggression, which I don't see here. If we were to expect some kind of strict symmetry in editing behavior, the vast majority of us ARBPIA editors would fail that standard. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it's quite natural that hot topics attract new editors trying to fix (perceived) gaps or biases. I myself got to 500 edits within two months after getting involved in another contentious area. At the end of the day the question should be whether an editor understands and follows the rules. Alaexis_¿question? 21:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I would say, at the start of the day the test should be - is an editor violating the rules merely by being here evading a block or ban. Unfortunately, it's not possible to tell whether an editor understands and follows the rules, all of the rules, not just a subset, by looking at the content they generate and the image they present. If an editor violates the rule against sockpuppetry by employing deception, a very common occurrence in the PIA topic area, it's reasonable to assume they will likely violate other rules while generating content or interacting with editors at some point. Sean.hoyland (talk) 02:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• Amayorov can you explain why your account was created on July 8, 2016, but your very first edit[77] is on July 3, 2024? To me that's a red flag. A proposed remedy is that Amayorov's 30 days start from July 3, 2024.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  I explained it here. In 2016, I created an account for a university practical that required me to create a web page about a chemical compound on Wikidata. In my case, it was a terpenoid, Q44009079‬. I don't know why the page doesn't exist anymore, but I found emails from 2018, notifying that other pages have been linked to it (see screenshots).

  A couple weeks ago, I started to be interested in trying out Wikipedia editing. I'm currently waiting to start a new job, and have plenty of time. Amayorov (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  Actually, I've been able to retrace this a bit more, and what I said wasn't entirely accurate. In 2017, I created a new account, @Alexmayorov, specifically for that practical. I used it to create Q44009079. Both Amayorov and Alexmayorov are registered on the same email address. Regarding @Amayorov, created in 2016, I can't recall why I made it.

  In April 2023, I decided to restore access to my account. I couldn't recall my username, and requested a password reset using my email. That reset came back with Amayorov as the user. Amayorov (talk) 20:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  Hello, this is my second account, which I've only just realised I had! Alexmayorov (talk) 20:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Alexmayorov, @Amayorov if you're going to have two accounts, you should disclose on your userspace of each what the alternative account is. Just to cover yourself from accusations of socking in the future. TarnishedPath^talk 10:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  Have just added the relevant userbox, thanks! I only intend to be using one though Amayorov (talk) 10:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm confused. It says "20:42, July 12, 2024 User account Alexmayorov talk contribs was created automatically", as opposed to 2017.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Alexmayorov IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  Because it was a wikidata only account. So the en.wiki one poofed into existence when they logged in here. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Vice regent Amayorov (talk) 11:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  Got it, thanks! VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Vice regent Ping as requested Amayorov (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• I don't see this as "gaming" anything, but more of a content dispute (which should be resolved amicably at the talk page). Buffs (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.