Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	0	5	5
TfD	0	0	0	11	11
MfD	0	0	0	3	3
FfD	0	0	0	3	3
RfD	0	0	0	24	24
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

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

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (29 out of 8874 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Battle of Hostomel 2024-11-24 14:11 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Battle of Brovary 2024-11-24 14:11 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato User talk:AlwaysPutsMeFirst 2024-11-24 01:25 2025-11-24 01:25 create DatGuy Yoav Gallant 2024-11-24 01:14 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Spore (2008 video game) 2024-11-23 18:48 2025-11-23 18:48 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Template:Like 2024-11-23 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2501 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Algeria 2024-11-23 17:07 2025-02-23 17:07 edit Persistent disruptive editing EdJohnston 2025 Indian Premier League 2024-11-23 07:51 2025-05-23 07:51 edit Persistent sockpuppetry: semi-protection expires tomorrow, and confirmed socks already found their way here Ymblanter Luca Allam 2024-11-23 07:41 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz User:CFA 2024-11-23 05:24 indefinite edit Page-move vandalism Reaper Eternal User talk:CFA 2024-11-23 05:16 2024-12-07 05:08 edit User talkpage under siege by LTA with any number of easily autoconfirmable sleepers Bishonen Human safari 2024-11-22 20:33 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case 2024 Kafr Kila clashes 2024-11-22 20:25 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Kushwaha 2024-11-22 20:14 indefinite edit Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Timeline of the Israel–Hamas war (17 October 2024 – present) 2024-11-22 20:03 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Karim Ahmad Khan 2024-11-22 19:47 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case ???-type Pokémon 2024-11-22 17:43 indefinite edit,move Blacklisted name, best to add some protection Anachronist Law & Order: Special Victims Unit season 6 2024-11-22 12:03 2024-12-22 12:03 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts UtherSRG Pam Bondi 2024-11-22 00:39 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Will log at AEL Ad Orientem State of Israel 2024-11-21 22:10 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter Hindko 2024-11-21 22:02 2025-05-21 22:02 edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生 Oreshnik (missile) 2024-11-21 21:54 indefinite edit Community sanctions enforcement: per WP:RUSUKR Swatjester RS-26 Rubezh 2024-11-21 21:02 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Karbi people 2024-11-21 20:49 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case 1995 Palestinian prisoners' hunger strike 2024-11-21 19:17 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato International Criminal Court arrest warrants for Israeli figures 2024-11-21 15:51 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Fathoms Below Cleveland School of Cannabis 2024-11-21 03:38 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Anachronist Sandeep Lamichhane 2024-11-20 21:52 2025-11-20 21:52 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:BLPCT ToBeFree Draft:Vansh Sayani 2024-11-20 19:42 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Isabelle Belato

Missing RM

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

---

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

A bulk RM at Talk:Actinium(III) chloride disappeared off the WP:RM page after it was relisted on June 3; see also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals#Requested_move_at_Talk:Actinium(III)_chloride#Requested_move_25_May_2021. I relisted this again in hopes of fixing this technical issue. Is there another open RM like this? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:15, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: Looks like this was a case of WP:BADNAC [1] by an involved user Keresluna (talk · contribs), which was then seemingly withdrawn by the same user [2] without re-adding the RM header. I've restored the template as thisclosure was clearly an act of gross misconduct. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I notified this user about the improper involved closure at User_talk:Keresluna#involved_closure. The user simply reverted the closure of the RM, but this did not relist it at requested moves. I arguably should have done so manually as LaundryPizza03 has now done, but did not want to perform an involved relist myself. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The move discussion has been reopened properly and now is on the talk page at Talk:Actinium(III) chloride. Nothing more to do here, since Keresluna states that they are no longer active. EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

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

User repeatedly adding copyright content to articles

User Jowinshaju96 (talk) has been repeatedly adding copyright content such as images and parts of Autocar news articles to many Mahindra vehicle articles as well as damaging formatting to articles. I and other users have reverted some of their edits but I believe this user should be blocked from editing since they have not responded to any messages on their talk page and keep re-adding the content after it has been reverted and persist with more copyrighted content additions. At this point it is becoming very disruptive. WaddlesJP13 (talk) 01:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I've tagged Mahindra TUV300 and Mahindra XUV500 for RD1 redaction, as they added copyvio text from pages on https://www.autocarindia.com. It also appears that they have uploaded 26 images from that same source to Commons, which are listed at commons:Special:Log/upload/Jowinshaju96; 6 have already been deleted. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I learnt of this AN discussion at WP:DISCORD. Looking through this users contribtuions, I removed a copyvio from this user at Mahindra Scorpio and requested RD1. They also had their edit removed at Mahindra Thar for copyvio as well. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Unban request from Pointer22

Pointer22 has requested (ticket:2020092510012529) that I place the following request so they can be unbanned, as per WP:UNBAN. A history of involved accounts is documented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ACM7/Archive, which ultimately resulted in a community ban under WP:3X. In my capacity as VRT agent, I can verify that the person making this appeal is Allen Meadors based on information in that ticket, and could mark any active account under his control as a {{verified account}} if needed. I make no comment for or against this appeal. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 02:24, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I would like to request that my Wikipedia standing be reinstated, the following is some history and my reasoning for my request.

• Four or five years ago, I was suspended from being able to add updates to my Wikipedia page because I and others had tried to correct some misleading information or delete it from the page. These attempts were removed and the original information returned. On several occasions, as my email address was denied access I used other address(accounts) to try to accomplish the above. I now understand that this is a violation of the Wikipedia policies and apologize for this error.
• The account ACM7 several people used it, don't even remember who now used it to add comments. No one has attempted to use it since my account was suspended.
• If reinstated, I will obey the guidelines as presented. If I have question, I will ask for clarification prior to making any attempted changes or additions.
• I will not use multiple addresses in my interaction with Wikipedia
• I have also asked any colleague that I know submitted changes back then to please not get involved. (as far as I know none have tried to intervene since then)
• I will request clarification and understanding of any future question regarding my participation with my personal Wikipedia page.

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

ACM

• I verify that I am Allen Meadors

• This account was CU-blocked and therefore, in addition to community consensus, needs permission from a CU to be unblocked. That should come from a current CheckUser.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• Mr Meadows is reminded to not edit about himself directly, by himself or via anyone acting on his behalf. To discuss content and sourcing on the talk page. To raise issues at WP:BLPN as needed. To contact the WMF at info-en-qwikimedia.org if issues cannot be resolved by the foregoing. I can support unbanning under these conditions that are expected of all users. Further, I would like to know what areas Mr Meadows would like to contribute in. If managing content about himself is his only purpose, I see no use in unblocking. Any concerns about content about him can be addressed via WMF as indicated above without unblocking. Single account restriction/no shared accounts and CU approval go without saying, but there they are. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Deepfriedokra: VRT response from Mr. Meadors (note spelling, not Meadows please):

  I would use my access to acknowledge colleagues positive accomplishments and support the integrity of the Wikipedia page of those individuals.

  Also, I'll note that our email conversation includes an ongoing discussion about COI policy on Wikipedia, including my providing him with links to WP:COI, WP:PSCOI, and WP:AUTO. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:08, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  Well, indeed. Personal knowledge. Please refer Mr. Meadors to WP:42. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not part of Mr Meadors employee recognition program. In other words, he seems to want to use the article as a branch of his PR department or an extension of his website. This is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and in fact he argues against any unblock. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• @ElHef: I seem to be hogging the discussion. I would like to encourage participation from other members of the Community. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• @Pointer22 and ElHef: Pointer22 has talk page access, no? Would it not be more efficacious for him to reply on his talk page and have these replies carried over instead of replying through an interlocutor/VRT? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  Hm, fair point. I had spotted the revoked TPA on ACM7 earlier in our conversation and didn't think to check further. I'll encourage that course. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Appealing topic ban for Raymond3023

I was topic banned indefinitely per this ARE discussion. The topic ban concerned all edits and pages related to the conflict between India and Pakistan. I am appealing the topic ban since 3 years and 2 months have elapsed and I am completely confident that I can contribute constructively here.

Since the topic ban, I have made hundreds of edits in these years, including the creation of Space industry of India which was promoted to DYK.[3] Furthermore, I haven't engaged in any behavior for which I had been sanctioned, namely battleground mentality.

In order to avoid repeating the issue from happening again, I have learned to assume good faith as much as possible and only raise the issue when it is necessary and ensure not to violate any policies. This is mainly because enough time has passed and I am evidently more aware of the policies and expectations here.

I am also noting that I never violated the topic ban or had any other sanction since. If the topic ban has been removed, I will still continue to contribute in such a productive manner. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• Wikipedia has over 6.3 million articles, of which I would hazard more than 99% have nothing to do with the conflict between India and Pakistan. Why is that an area in which you feel the need to edit? BD2412 T 05:01, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • It is one of my most favorite topic areas and I find a number of articles to be missing information. I would like to start working on geographic articles related to the area for starters. For a name, Wagah lacks details about 2014 Wagah border suicide attack and in turn, the suicide attack article has not been updated for years given it lacks any details about the convictions happened last year. One by one, I will be updating some of these and others. Raymond3023 (talk) 05:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
• That AE is really long and involves a lot of participants, so I'm not going to sift through it. The enforcing admin (GoldenRing) seems to be retired now, as well as some others in the discussion (like NeilN). @Bishonen and Vanamonde93: seem to be some active admins who might be familiar with those events. I found this declined (individual) AE appeal, and this declined (mass) ARCA. Otherwise, the appeal above reads reasonably, and it has been 3 years. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support lifting tban. 3 years is a long time and I don't see any evidence they've been disruptive during that time (they haven't edited much at all). They sound sincere. The worst that could happen is they go back to the behavior which got them tbanned in the first place but we'll figure that out pretty quick and can deal with it then. The best that could happen is we gain a productive editor in a topic area known for conflict. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Pretty much for the same reasons mentioned by RoySmith. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support - There hasn't been any complaint against this editor in 3 years other than an AE report filed months ago by a later indefinitely blocked user and it was declined as frivolous by El C.[4] Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 07:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support A long time since the ban was put in place and I have not seen anyone present evidence of disruption since it has been in place. They have worked on the topic of India specifically and no trouble. I say we try and see what happens. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 07:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support A long time has passed and the editor has been productive since. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support. I find their response to my query satisfactory, and the arguments of other supporting editors/admins persuasive. BD2412 T 23:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support per above. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support. I'm a bit wary but will support this. Wary, because though three years have gone by, the editor hasn't edited a whole lot in those three years [5] and much of that, abbreviated, editing appears to be cosmetic. The odds are that content relating to the interaction between India and Pakistan is their sole motivation for being on Wikipedia. But, I'll support this because a one area focus is not necessarily a bad thing and everyone deserves a second shot.--RegentsPark (comment) 21:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• My view as an uninvolved editor is already summed up by RegentsPark above. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • As there is a clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved editors (and administrators) here to overturn this sanction, could an uninvolved administrator close this discussion, formally notify Raymond3023 of this outcome and update the enforcement log here please? Thanks in advance, Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Need help with DS

Sigh. As I've noted more than once before, I find the WP:ACDS process so confusing, I've never used it. At this point I feel the need to impose a WP:1RR sanction on COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis per WP:COVIDDS. I've once again dug into the documentation for how DS works, and I've once again come away unsure I understand it well enough to use it. So, could somebody who actually understands how DS works please impose that? Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

To impose 1RR I believe you need to do three things:

1. Add |restriction=1RR to the Ds talk page template
2. Create Template:Editnotices/Page/COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis with the content {{ds/editnotice|1RR|topic=covid}}
3. Log it at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log#COVID-19. Usually with a new bulleted list entry with the name of the page, type and duration of restriction.

ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd separately add that a) I think no admin action is necessary at this exact moment and b) I think 1RR is the wrong tool for the problems on that page in any case, and will simply frustrate legitimate editing as it does on Israel-Palestine or some American politics articles. It would apply to all editing, rather than simply the redirecting/stubbifying. I also think it would raise a serious concern with fairness in applying the COVID DS sanctions, where some groups of editors are sanctioned individually and others are too sensitive to deal with so "page restrictions" and "topic-wide DS authorisations" are used instead. I think the avoidance of consensus processes here (and in another similar case at ANI) is no different to that by Normchou which rightly resulted in an indefinite topic ban. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Roy, here's a handy link to remember: T:DSA (mostly for the bottom part, which transcludes Template:Ds/topics/single notice). HTH! El_C 16:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

RoySmith, imposing 1RR in a topic like that may be counter-productive because there are many more enthusiasts who learned their trade from facebook/youtube than there are good editors trying to stick to reliable sources. 1RR makes it easy for off-wiki campaigners to overwhelm the normal editing process. There is no good way to impose order but requiring people to focus on content/sources and topic banning miscreants is probably the only option. Along with WP:ECP. Johnuniq (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq I appreciate the input. At this point, things seem to be under control, so I'm not doing anything at the moment but keeping an eye on things. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Appeal of BLP ban for Jabbi

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

---

• Jabbi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Almost 6 months ago I was banned for a year for violating BLP. See this notice. I have learnt from that experience and am now more sensitive to BLP policy. Since then I have not touched a BLP article. I have made several substantial edits on notable articles which have, in my opinion improved them considerably. I would like to be allowed to edit BLPs again because before my ban I had started a review of Alexander Lukashenko, and had reached his first term in office, which I would like to continue with. My violation was with an article I created myself, which has since been deleted for lack of notability. Thanks for reading. --Jabbi (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

You were not banned six months ago, but 4.5 months ago. Your first reaction was to protest the ban at WP:ANI, but you gave up on that when you got pushback from other editors and administrators. I think it's way too early for you to be appealing a one-year ban. You appear to believe that the fact that you apparently have not violated the ban deserves some special award. No violations might be considered in an appeal if you were to wait longer. In any event, I oppose lifting the ban. I also think you should notify Nick of this appeal.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Bbb23. The ban was about two different aspects. I did not go into that in my appeal because I thought that wasn't really relevant anymore. I contested one of the two aspects and desisted when I inadvertently repeated sensitive information in my argument. What I learnt from that was to exercise more caution when it comes to BLP. If you consider lifting a ban a special award, then yes. Otherwise we would not be discussing this no? I have almost served half of the ban and I remain a valuable editor. The guidelines on appealing do not suggest a point in time relative to the appeal or any other characteristics that would be taken into account. I'm happy to notify Nick and El C who were most active. --Jabbi (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

When I said to notify Nick, I meant pursuant to the instructions at the top of this page, which, apparently, you did not bother to read. Instead you pinged him, which I had already done anyway. I struggle to understand how you became an administrator and bureaucrat at is.wiki.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

If you are referring to "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page." This is not a discussion about Nick, but about my appeal to his decision which I understood to be done in a sort of probation way. I thought the way this worked is show good behaviour and we'll give you another chance. Seems to have backfired. There's probably a lot you don't know about Iceland, it's a very small wiki, I am in fact high in the top contributor list there. Although I haven't been active for the past couple of years. --Jabbi (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose lifting ban. Reading through Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive330#User:Nick and arbitrary and unreasonable block of editing BLP shows a failure of understanding and acceptance of the circumstances of the ban. I don't think near enough time has passed since then, nor do I see these issues being addressed here and now. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your input HighInBC. Yes I did contest a part of the reasoning for the ban at the time. How exactly can these issues be addressed here and now beyond me saying that I have a fuller understanding and take greater care around BLP? --Jabbi (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you want me to tell you what words you need to say to demonstrate an understanding of these issues? That is not how demonstrating an understanding works, nor is simply saying that you understand. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I take your point. I have been an active editor in the Icelandic Wikipedia for longer than I care to remember and only recently become very active here. My violation was twofold, limited to the talk page of a person whose article I had created; 1) I cited the words from a recorded interview with an academic of a respectable university in which he alleges possible criminal activity and 2) I used a value laden term that alleges corruption to refer to this individual. When reflecting on this admins should be very conscious that there is not economic, or otherwise, freedom in Belarus, it is in some ways more akin to China than it's neighbour Lithuania. In other words, people do not rise to the top unless they have political favour with Lukashenko. I wrongly assumed that this was not contested and that the fact that someone achieves success in Belarusian business was acknowledged to imply collusion by default. Anyway. I understand that this is not acceptable. I read up on BLP and was particularly curious about a sensitive issue concerning an Australian minister and how BLP is handled on WP in that case. What I took from that was to exercise more caution. --Jabbi (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

If I understand this correctly, Jabbi was BLP banned because of serious BLP violating edits surrounding Lukashenko and people around him. Considering that last month, they created and defended Europe's last dictatorship (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Europe's last dictatorship) and Draft:Europe's last dictatorship, I think it would be better to strongly remind Jabbi of the topic ban and where it applies, instead of lifting the ban. Many of their other mainspace edits seem to be about Lukashenko as well, e.g. this unsourced bit from this month. Fram (talk) 08:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Fram, you might be interested to know that the article was generally considered not to be notable enough. It's not a POVFORK. At the end a redirect was re-created, the article existed before I put in well sourced content there. --Jabbi (talk) 11:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Good catch. These are not only direct violations of the BLP topic ban, but are in the precise area that resulted in the ban. In addition to not removing the ban I think the duration needs to be reset to the point of the most recent violation. I also think more attention needs to be paid to their edits. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Fram, that's not correct. The violation was only around one person related to Viktor Lukashenko. You can seek confirmation from Nick or El C. I was not topic banned, I was banned from editing BLPs see notice. It is difficult to edit Belarus related material without mentioning the president and his actions. It is an authoritarian country. --Jabbi (talk) 11:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting ban and restart 1 year at the conclusion of this thread @Fram: Well done, I say! @Jabbi: You attempted some sort of detour around your TBAN. You created a sneakily article titled about the very subject that merited your TBAN. Your doing so shows a supreme cynicism toward the Community and/or a supreme obsession with Viktor Lukashenko. Clearly, your TBAN must be maintained to prevent disruption. Clearly, you need to let go of this subject and find something else to edit about. Please understand that the TBAN applies to the subjects of Biographies of living people, regardless of how the article is titled. And that it includes writing about the subject anywhere in Wikipedia. (added post reply above) OK. No editing about any living person anywhere on Wikipedia. You violated the TBAN. It must not be lifted. The Wikilawyering is not a good sign. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  Noting and applauding Nick's comment below. If making the TBAN clearer is required, then let us do so. I think this thread tells us why the TBAN should be clarified and not lifted. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra Viktor Lukashenko is the son of Alexander which is the president. I have an obsession with neither thank you. There was nothing sneaky about me creating that article, it does not show cynicism. That article title is well documented to be a synonym for Belarus. I have not violated any guidelines. Your comment here is highly misguided. Please point to a violation and explain why it is a violation. The term Europe's last dictatorship refers to a country, not a person. You can seek the confirmation of Robert McClenon if you want. --Jabbi (talk) 11:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

In this edit I point out that there's a difference between Europe's last dictatorship and Europe's last dictator and that I support the decision to have the article changed again to a redirect. I have not violated anything. I hope you will reconsider your stance Deepfriedokra --Jabbi (talk) 12:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• If the community decides to reset the ban for another year, I recommend that the ban be clarified. Nick recorded the ban at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2021: "(Jabbi) has been banned from editing the biographies of living persons for a period of one year for repeated violations of the BLP policy." That can be read as being prohibited from editing BLPs, i.e., articles, not necessarily making any edit involving a BLP, which is far broader.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree the wording is ambiguous and can be interpreted to mean something far narrower than probably intended. I think the wording "all edits concerning recently deceased or living people broadly construed" makes the intention more clear. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I really shouldn't have said "community" as this is an AE-enforcement ban. The appeal should have been filed at WP:AE, and the result should be made by uninvolved administrators, not the community, although the community is of course welcome to comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I had the same thought when this was first posted. However I saw at WP:AE it says an editor may "request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN");". So I suppose this is an acceptable venue. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, thanks. In fact, the instructions go on to say that if it's filed at AE, it's the usual uninvolved admins, whereas if it's filed at AN, it's "uninvolved editors". That means the appealer can choose who decides, sort of like acceptable forum shopping.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Surely I can not be punished for violating an interpretation established 4.5 months later. --Jabbi (talk) 12:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Even under the narrowest of interpretations your draft is still a BLP because it discusses living people, even it is not the primary topic of the article. The policy is clear when it says "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia", that means any material about living people even if not in draft space, even if not the primary topic of the page. The suggested clarification of wording is because you don't seem to get this. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I think your interpretation is very narrow on the contrary. The article was about a dictatorship wherein a reference to the dictator is implicit. We've established that I was banned from editing BLP articles. I don't see a problem there, neither did Robert McClenon at the time. --Jabbi (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I know you don't see a problem, and this is the problem. Since you are trying to use the wording of your ban to justify this then let's quote it: Topic banned from editing the biographies of living persons (and recently deceased persons, as described in the biographies of living persons policy) for a period of one year.

It does not say articles. It says "the biographies of living persons". I have already quoted the part of the BLP policy that makes it clear that BLPs are any material about living people anywhere on Wikipedia. Our BLP policy is not narrow, it is very broad and intentionally so. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

HighInBC, The notice does say biographies and I understood it to be limited to articles about living persons (I am being honest here, it would hardly make sense for me to come here with the appeal otherwise). It is now being discussed whether to expand the definition and lengthening my ban to clarify that. --Jabbi (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Jabbi, how do you reconcile your two statements,
  • "'Europe's last dictatorship or Europe's last dictator are commonly used in Western media to refer to Belarus and Alexander Lukashenko respectively."
  • "there's a difference between Europe's last dictatorship and Europe's last dictator" ? - Cabayi (talk) 12:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Cabayi the article I edited was about the term referring to the country, because that title refers to the perceived post of dictator the connection is implicit. It's obvious that I edited the article about the country, the dictatorship. How can that be done without referring to the dictator? A dictator is a person, a dictatorship is a form of governance. I don't really understand what you are trying to imply with the references to my edits. I say that Europe's last dictator is used to refer to Lukashenko, which is implicit by the first term. In the second quote I just remark that dictator is not the same as dictatorhsip. --Jabbi (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I must apologise for causing much of the uncertainty - I had not intended the restriction to be so narrow, nor did I think it would have been skirted around so comprehensively. Jabbi has a serious and significant problem in following our BLP policy, even when editing articles which are not primarily focused on a living or recently deceased person. I believe lifting the current restriction cannot possibly be considered, and instead my BLP sanction should be replaced with something that explicitly bans them from making any edit, anywhere on Wikipedia, which concerns a living or recently deceased person, very broadly construed. I also think the restriction should be more indefinite in nature. I'm going to note, for procedural purposes, that I approve my restriction to be lifted, modified or replaced with something equally or more restrictive, and that the term of that sanction be equal or longer lasting than the time remaining on the existing sanction. Nick (talk) 13:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Nick, Thanks for your input. I'm sorry to hear you feel that way. I am surprised that you think there are otherwise problems with my edits. I think the draft article, turned redirect was in a gray area, not violating the ban, because the article is about a term used in the media. I respect of course the consensus here which weighs heavily against me, obviously. Might I ask that what ever consensus is reached be supported with diffs explaining what is problematic. I will refrain from now on making comments or otherwise participating in this discussion as I think I have made my case. Thanks. --Jabbi (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to decline appeal and modify existing topic ban

I'll take a stab at this with the following language: Jabbi is banned from making any edits anywhere on Wikipedia that concerns a living person or recently deceased person for one year.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I would propose that Nick's restriction is replaced with something like: Jabbi is indefinitely banned from making (1) any edit in any article with biographical content relating to living or recently deceased people; and (2) any edit relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles on any page in Wikipedia. Jabbi may not appeal this modified topic ban imposed by the community for 9 months from when it is imposed. I think this will provide more clarity regarding the scope of the restriction and less room for wikilawyering or inadvertent errors on the boundaries. Separately pinging @HighInBC: @Deepfriedokra: @Fram: who have also already commented on the appeal for input on this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The only differences between this proposal and mine are the length (indefinite instead of one year) and the appeal provision. Otherwise, the language is unduly wordy, particularly (1), which does not provide greater clarity.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I read your restriction as permitting edits to Human rights in Belarus#International criticism of human rights in Belarus, so long as the edits do not concern a living person specifically. Mine, particularly (1), explicitly restricts any edits because the article itself contains biographical content. That said, whether that is too stringent is a separate issue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Read literally, (1) only prohibits edits concerning BLPs but notes articles containing BLP content unnecessarly. If your intention is to prohibit any edits to any article that contains biographical content, regardless of whether the edit itself concerns a BLP, then your restriction is so broad as to prohibit Jabbi from editing so many articles to be effectively a complete block on Jabbi's ability to edit. A quick example would be all movie articles that contain a cast section. Such a restriction would prevent Jabbi from disambiguating a wikilink.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Due to multiple meanings for "concerns", personally I prefer "is related to" or similar wording. isaacl (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support almost any reasonable restriction, in view of the continuing effort by Jabbi to game the system, including by twisting my words. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support."Jabbi is banned from making any edits anywhere on Wikipedia that concerns a living person or recently deceased person for one year." Starting today. Today's appeal is to be declined. Robert's comment above is noted. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support — Per statements by Fram, Deepfriedokra, Nick, Bbb23, Robert McClenon and HighInBC. I remain unimpressed as to the demeanor of the OP, it is one thing to genuinely appeal for a topic ban to be lifted and a whole other thing to be arrogant about it. You cannot genuinely seek for an appeal and in the same appeal, attempt to intentionally misrepresent the comments of others in order to Favour you, it is very much contradictory to say the least and very much indicative of your inability to comprehend why you were topic banned in the first instance and also goes to show why an inverse of your appeal to be evoked (in my opinion an indefinite ban from BLP's or any biographical articles) but I’m largely satisfied with this proposal. Celestina007 (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support as Jabbi has been skirting around the edges of this topic ban, and I support starting the one year timer from the date this thread is closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackattack1597 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support Bbb23's wording, duration 1 year starting when the ban is issued . HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support Bbb23's proposal. One year restart seems a viable alternative. Meters (talk) 00:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. I corrected the grammar of my proposed ban language ("concern" instead of "concerns").--Bbb23 (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support Bbb23's proposal, as clarified. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support I do not believe Jabbi understands our BLP policy. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Apparent Misrepresentation

I am not entirely sure what User:Jabbi is claiming that I said in their defense, but I don't think that I said it, and I wasn't intending to be defending them, at least not in the way that they claim. Jabbi writes: 'The term Europe's last dictatorship refers to a country, not a person. You can seek the confirmation of User:Robert McClenon if you want.' I think that they are quoting me in connection with a Delete, in which I said that the article did NOT establish notability for the term. Jabbi also writes: 'I don't see a problem there, neither did User:Robert McClenon at the time.' That isn't true. I did see a problem, which was that Jabbi was creating the same article in both article space and draft space in order to game the system. I didn't take part in the Arbitration Enforcement discussion that resulted in the topic-ban, and I agree that Jabbi wasn't referring to a dictator by name, but I was saying that Jabbi was conducting themselves in a problematic manner. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Ncmvocalist - I am changing nothing in the above statement. It doesn't depend on whether I had previously noted the topic-ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:, we now have two subsections you have created as a result of concerns caused by things you have said (or failed to say). While all of us are agreed that Jabbi should stay away from BLPs due to a number of issues, your use of words appear ill-considered. At 17:00, 19 July 2021, as a matter of fact, you said that you saw a problem that "Jabbi was creating the same article in both article space and draft space in order to game the system". At 17:03, 19 July 2021, you again said that Jabbi was continuing his effort to game the system; that is, you implied that he (1) made an effort to game the system previously; and (2) was continuing to do so. At 16:47, 20 July 2021, you said "I acknowledge that User:Jabbi was not trying to game the system." So, were your original accusations of bad faith correct or were those more "mistakes" on your part? At 23:09, 20 July 2021, you said what Jabbi did is "sometimes done to game the system" [emphasis added]. Or are you now saying that the original accusation of bad faith was veiled in the first place? Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon Just clarifying the above issue as I am directly addressed. The only thing I was trying to say is that you participated in the discussion about the draft article/redirect converted to article knowing I had the BLP ban and did not raise an issue in regards to that. I was not intending to misrepresent you or state anything beyond that. Of course you did state your suspicions about me gaming the system which I did not mention above as I thought it not relevant. I am used to just creating articles from the Icelandic wikipedia where things are less bureaucratic let's say. When I say "'I don't see a problem there,'" I am referring to my conduct in relation to the ban. I was not trying to game the system either, just contribute to the encyclopedia. I put forward objective sources and arguments for it. --Jabbi (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Jabbi writes: "The only thing I was trying to say is that you participated in the discussion about the draft article/redirect converted to article knowing I had the BLP ban and did not raise an issue in regards to that." I had not been aware of the BLP ban, and that is why I did not object to their conduct. If I had been aware at the time of the BLP ban, I would have objected, because it is difficult to discuss a dictatorship without discussing its dictator as an individual. I would have expressed concerns if I had known about the ban, and I will have BLP concerns. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

On May 31 you notify two admins of a dispute involving me and you explicitly state that I have a BLP ban (Here, Here). On June 9 you weigh in on the deletion proposal. I don't expect this to make any material difference to the outcome of my disciplinary proceedings and I don't see a need to discuss this further. Have a nice day. --Jabbi (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay. I made a mistake. I didn't notice that the same editor was involved both in the hockey dispute and in the AFD of the last dictatorship article. I made a mistake. I didn't notice that it was the same editor in both places. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

If User:Jabbi actually thought that my words meant that I didn't see a problem, then they have a strange idea of what is not seeing a problem, when I said that they were acting like a male bovid in a pottery boutique. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I acknowledge that User:Jabbi was not trying to game the system. They were trying to contribute to the encyclopedia. However, their judgment of what is a contribution to the encyclopedia cannot be relied on, and they are trying to wikilawyer to avoid listening to the guidance of other editors. The continuation of the topic ban is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: There is some irony in you creating this subsection about "apparent misrepresentation" by Jabbi during this appeal and then yourself apparently misrepresenting that Jabbi tried to game the system, as you now belatedly acknowledge Jabbi didn't run afoul of that Wikipedia guideline. As a matter of fairness, I think you should again return to the comments you made prior to realising that you had goofed up, reflect on if they are still accurate and strike through the words which are withdrawn, even if the remainder of your position has not changed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Reconsideration

In response to the request by User:Ncmvocalist that I review my post, since I did make a mistake, the effect is minimal, and I am not sure that anything needs to be stricken or changed. User:Jabbi still misrepresented my view when they said that I didn't think that they had done anything wrong. I said that they were behaving like a male bovid in a pottery boutique. I also said that they were creating two copies of an article, in draft space and in article space, which is never useful and is sometimes done to game the system. Saying that I said that they had done nothing wrong, only because I didn't specifically address the ban, is either a deliberate twisting of my words, or, to assume good faith, a reading of my words that is so biased that it illustrates a gross lack of awareness. I am willing to assume good faith, noting that good faith is necessary but not self-sufficient. The lack of awareness is such that any easing of any restrictions would be a mistake. I think that my conclusion about a dangerous lack of awareness may be essentially what User:Nick is also saying. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

This echoes my take on this. I am not sure what Ncmvocalist expects you to redact. An admin editor not remembering every ban by every user at all times is hardly anything to apologies for. None of what you claimed depended on you not knowing they were banned at the moment of the AfD. You have already clarified this. This seems more of a distraction than anything. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

User:HighInBC - I am not an administrator. Does that make any difference? ;- Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I am shocked, somehow I thought you were. I probably thought you were because you are one of the few names I recognize from when I started here 15-16 years ago. No it does not make a difference. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 03:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@HighinBC: I've spelled out the precise issue here. It isn't right. We have all agreed that a more stringent sanction is needed in some form and that there is an obvious lack of understanding how things work here, but there comes a point where we should be accurate too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:, thanks for you input. I want to start by apologising for involving you in this appeal as I also mistakenly assumed you were an admin, you have that air about you. Neither did I intend my appeal to grow arms and legs like it has, so I feel an apology is owed to everyone whose misfortune it is to read this. I do feel however that your statement is incorrect, as I explained above, I said I don't see a problem there, in reply to HighInBC where we are debating my conduct in relation to my BLP topic ban and interpretation of BLP policy. I even qualified it with " at the time" to give you leeway in case you had made a mistake which has turned out to be the case. I could have said something like "I don't see a problem there, and Robert McClenon only accused me of gaming the system." but you know, I could not foresee the chaotic jumble this is turning into. --Jabbi (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Conclusion

Is it safe to assume that the discussion has concluded and the ban taken an effect from henceforth? Until July 22 2022 ? Could you please quote me the ban here along with the reasoning for it Bbb23? Or do you want to wait to see if there are others that want to participate. I want to state for the record that I understand that BLP policy applies to all spaces, including drafts, and that it applies to all text that describes the lives or actions of living or recently deceased people. Furthermore I want to clarify that it was my mistaken understanding that Nick's ban was limited to biographical articles. I have not ever knowingly violated WP guidelines, and I have acted in good faith. My edit history has focused heavily on Belarus because I have become very interested in Belarus for the past year or so. I think that, because there are sensitive political issues surrounding Belarus, edits there are rightly viewed in skeptical light. I do not have a coi nor am I trying to push a non-neutral angle. Do I understand correctly that in order for the ban to be lifted I still need to appeal or is it automatically lifted on July 23 2022? Thanks --Jabbi (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Nothing has been concluded. At some point, an uninvolved administrator (not me, for example) will determine the consensus and close the discussion. At that point, if a ban is imposed, you will be notified.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I do think this has run its course, it has been several days since an opinion on the ban has been given. Requesting closure please. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

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

IP concerned about Editor

How do I report an editor who is being hostile but without that editor knowing that I reported him? I don't want to make things worse or antagonize him; can I report anonymously? I think he is unstable, and it seems that he has been stalking my location, he seems psycho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:9442:6D00:40D9:C028:A0E7:8185 (talk) 09:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

You don't. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

If you are in fear of your physical safety, or are being stalked in the real world, you should contact your local authorities. There really isn't any way to make a completely anonymous report, and even if you did, they would likely figure out it was you anyway. 331dot (talk) 09:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)(so not that kinda issue. Never mind 331dot (talk) 09:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC))

This editor has been editing as an IP for a few days now, including edit warring in article space. I suggest that this user log back in to avoid a block for inappropriate use of an alternate account. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm, and topic overlap with blocked User talk:Richardcheese2. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

It seems I am not the only one who has noticed: [6]. @Yappy2bhere: seems to have come to the same conclusion. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)2603:8001:9442:6D00:40D9:C028:A0E7:8185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) COI editors sometimes perceive concerns about their COIness as hostility. I think OP might need a Partial Block, but I will leave that for others to determine. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, I'm looking into this now, following a request from the IP on my talk. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP's /64 range from the Richard Cheese article; if they persist with making entirely inappropriate comments about other editors being 'psycho', or requesting editors to contact them off-wiki to discuss article content, they should be blocked entirely. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, y'all. My keyboard had rung down the curtain and joined the choir invisible. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not saying it's needed in this situation, but just to make sure people are aware, WP:EMERGENCY provides useful advice. Email to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org might be appropriate in some situations. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Update It seems User:Richardcheese2 has asked users on twitter to edit the article that the are blocked from editing. I have upgraded their partial block to a site block for engaging in evasion and proxy editing. They don't seem to have any edits here other than writing about themselves, and none since their partial block from the article about themselves. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

LTA, no doubt

I just blocked User:TOKYO-BAKA, and soon thereafter User:TOKYO-AHO. CU is little help to me here. Perhaps some of you know who this is, and I hope all of you will keep an eye on Recent changes. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: Hey! |w:ja:LTA:SLIME. Both need global lock --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the Japanese LTA page says that the vandal engages in copy-paste vandalism and trolling, which sounds like either that's our guy or there's an imposter. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

They (or imposter) have been active on enwiki with at least two users in past days, the other users created Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Slime. Yesterday it was User:I pranked the wiki article.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 16:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

You see if it you check global accounts. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

TOKYO-BAKA and TOKYO-AHO --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

requested global locks. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks... Drmies (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Lifting topic ban of Junior Jumper

Hello everyone, I was topic banned from editing Indian poltics about 6½ months ago by Bishonen. Now, as I have completed my 6 months of the ban, as per community rules I want to appeal for the revocation of the ban. I have tried my best to abide by the rules of the ban in the last 6½ months. Thank you.--Junior Jumper (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Junior Jumper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) What is the nature of your topic ban? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Here it is-- Conditional to unblock, Junior Jumper has agreed to a topic ban from Indian politics. They may however add parliamentary diagrams to articles. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Do you understand that you violated your topic ban just 5 days ago i.e. your one edit before this appeal? Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• The proximate cause of the topic ban seems to have been some light edit warring at Sangh Parivar, where Junior Jumper twice changed "militant group" to "youth group" in the description of an organization: [7], and 10 hours later, [8]. JJ's user talk page response to Doug Weller's original revert was definitely far from ideal. The literal "how dare you?" on his talk page, aimed at the ignorant "foreigner" clearly showed that JJ didn't really get how our neutrality policies worked in that context. I am also fully aware that this topic area has long been a contentious one.
  That said, was there more history here that's not immediately obvious? An indefinite block that rolled into a six-month-minimum topic ban feels...abrupt, for a couple of iffy article edits and an ill-considered reaction in one day. Unless there's something else, I'd support lifting the topic ban; it looks like JJ has been at least as productive since the ban was imposed as he was before. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• Whilst JJ did add an image, I didn't see that there was edit warring, incivility, white washing, tendentiousness, or POV pushing. Is there any indication of any of those things, perchance? in my Tom Ellis (actor) voice --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Bans apply to all editing, good or bad. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 05:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting. The issue of agenda-driven POV-pushing editing is significant in this topic area; if it isn't nipped in the bud early, just as Bishonen and Dougweller have done here, the issues pile up over a prolonged period. I would prefer for the restrictions to remain until Junior Jumper can at least clearly demonstrate that he makes substantial edits, consistent with NPOV, in areas he is not banned from. If he cannot stay committed to the topic ban, let alone his agreement not to edit the article again about a group he admits he is a member of, I do not have faith we can rely on his assertions that he will edit in this area appropriately. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Bishonen: @Dougweller: Not sure if either of you were notified, but what are your views? Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• OMG, a TenOfAllTrades sighting! El_C 20:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  This is not the editor you're looking for... * waves hand * (But seriously, aside from the one article revert and subsequent ugly back-and-forth on his user talk on 29/30 December, have there been any issues with JJ's conduct?) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  KOMPAKTOR DEFEATED. El_C 16:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• I quickly skimmed Junior Jumper's contributions since the topic ban (1 January 2021). The point of a topic ban is to provide an opportunity for an editor to show that they can make content edits that follow standard procedures, however all I can see are adjustments to images. Most of that activity appears to be within the topic of Indian politics, as agreed. Without better reason, I do not support lifting a topic ban in such a contentious area which already has enough enthusiasts. Johnuniq (talk) 05:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• @Abhishek0831996: I have edited the page Banwari Lal Joshi but it is not the page of Indian politician. It is the page of former IPS BL Joshi. I think you have no knowledge about the difference between politicians and IPS officers.--Junior Jumper (talk) 05:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • The lead sentence of Banwari Lal Joshi says: "Banwari Lal Joshi (27 March 1936 – 22 December 2017)[1] was an Indian political figure..." and right here you had to stop instead of thinking to falsify his career after violating the topic ban. He is mainly known for being a governor, and a governor in India is a political post. With this edit you have already violated your topic ban from Indian politics. What you are doing is called WP:GAMING. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 05:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • ” I think you have no knowledge about the difference between politicians and IPS officers.” I think this is an absurd claim about the article that inspires very little confidence for me that this editor either understands the issue with their problematic past - and now seemingly ongoing behaviour, or shows they’re intentionally willing to bend their understanding of the rules using implausible reasons to justify their POV pushing. It’s a no from me. Mkdw ^talk 11:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Just noting that I changed the lead sentence of Banwari Lal Joshi just now, from "political figure" to "civil servant and government official," which I think is more accurate. I wouldn't have phrased this response the way JJ phrased it, but I don't think it's an absurd claim that BLJ was not a politician. Levivich 14:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
    • The absurd claim is the apparent claim that the topic ban does not cover the position of a governor. Whether BLJ was a politician or not is being only debated by the OP instead of accepting the topic ban violation. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
      • To use an analogy: Louis Susman was US ambassador to the UK but he's not a politician. Would someone who is TBANed from America Politics be prohibited from adding or changing the picture in Louis Susman's article? I don't think so, or if that's a TBAN violation, it's a pretty peripheral and minor one. Just because a person received a political appointment at the end of their career doesn't mean every part of their biography is related to politics (nor does it make them a politician). Levivich 15:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• I blocked Junior Jumper for persistent tendentious editing, a block that was after discussion converted to a topic ban. They had changed the well-sourced description of Bajrang Dal as a "religious militant group" to "religious youth group" — which was hardly heinous in itself — but the edit summary was "How dare they said Bajrang Dal 'militant'. Bajrang Dal is not a terrorist group. They had sacrificed a lot for country's welfare".[9] Doug Weller reverted stating "It's described this way in its own article, this should match", and JJ reverted back without comment, the way we revert vandalism. This discussion followed on JJ's talk, and I blocked indefinitely. I see TenOfAllTrades considers my action "abrupt, for a couple of iffy article edits and an ill-considered reaction in one day"; I can only say I don't agree. Indeed it happened in one day, but IMO the edits are beyond iffy and the talkpage comments not merely ill-considered but militantly nationalist and indicative of a deep problem: "don't give me the link of BBC news. They have no credibility in our India. They are treated like bastards in our country", "How dare you to call Bajrang Dal a militant organisation? Are you Indian to decide so?", etc. I'm not going to argue about this; I encourage others to make up their own minds. I agree with Abhishek0831996 above that JJ's argument about editing Banwari Lal Joshi (Governor of Uttar Pradesh) is gaming their ban; on the other hand, the edit was nothing much, merely adding an image. A bigger problem is that JJ has edited very little during their ban; basically merely adding parliamentary diagrams and changing/adjusting images. These diagrams are useful, for sure, and are an explicit exemption from their ban. But there are no content edits that I can see. As Johnuniq says, "The point of a topic ban is to provide an opportunity for an editor to show that they can make content edits that follow standard procedures". I did not leave JJ to figure this out; I explicitly advised them to edit other areas and/or other projects, as "it's important to be able to show in an appeal that you have been editing constructively".[10] JJ's appeal above is very bald, with no attempt to show the things they were told they need to show. As the banning admin, I won't put an "oppose" on this, but I'm a bit dubious. Bishonen | tålk 08:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC).

• In response to the comments asserting that JJ has edited 'very little' since his ban, JJ's editing prior to his topic ban was also predominantly uncontroversial housekeeping work of exactly the same sort as he's been doing since his topic ban. His editing has, if anything, been at a faster clip than before his ban--he's made about as many edits in the first six months of 2021 as he did in all of 2020. Admins reviewing his contributions should also note that he has a substantial number of deleted contributions related to image maintenance work; indeed, those contributions outnumber his undeleted edits this year.
  To be clear, I absolutely agree that JJ's attitude required adjustment—but I also see enough 'sweat equity' and consistent beneficial behaviour to warrant access to some WP:ROPE. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• TOAT's argument that JJ has been editing productively is reasonable. I also understand why JJ might have though Joshi was (just barely) outside their ban, but I'm not impressed with I think you have no knowledge about the difference between politicians and IPS officers.. On balance, I'm for giving them enough ROPE, but JJ, adjusting your attitude includes knowing when to edit yourself. You could have just left that sentence out of your reply. You could have written instead "PS officers are not politicians." Instead, in your own ban appeal at AN, you impugned the competence of someone opposing the appeal. Do you see how that's counterproductive? —valereee (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Valereee: I am not impinging him. I am only clearing his facts with regards. The fact is that the "police officers are not politicians even if they are appointed as governors". They should be considered as politicians if they join any political party. We can take the example of K Annamalai for it. He joined BJP in August 2020 thats why he is a politician. But BL Joshi never joined any political party so he was a police officer only in his entire life. This prove that I haven't violated the conditions of topic ban. And I apologize for rude words in the previous comment. I will try to balance my language from next time.--Junior Jumper (talk) 14:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Who said that Banwari Lal Joshi was a politician? They only said that you violated your topic ban by editing the subject's page. There are many subjects strongly associated with Indian politics such as Umar Khalid, Ravish Kumar, Arnab Goswami, Mohan Bhagwat but these individuals haven't joined a political party. Your claim that a subject has nothing to do with Indian politics if they never "joined any political party" won't convince anybody because it is simply wrong. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• @Raymond3023: They have clearly said that I have violated the policy by editing the page. It clearly implies that they are saying that I have edited a politician's page because this is the only thing that I can do to break my unblock policy. It is clear from his view that they are confused regarding the difference difference between an IPS officer and a politician. So, please critically think about their comments and my replies. --Junior Jumper (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• Don't put words in the mouth of others. Your continued failure to understand that you were topic banned from "Indian politics" not "Indian politicians" shows that you are not getting it. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I'd support per WP:ROPE. I don't think Bish's block+unblock-with-TBAN was abrupt. The comments on the "one bad day" were really bad; a block was justified, and unblocking with a TBAN condition was, IMO, the right way to move forward. That said, it was just one bad day. Their editing during the TBAN has been productive from what I can tell, and it was the same type of editing as before the TBAN (images). I don't agree with requiring an editor who edits images to do some other kind of editing (like writing prose) in order to have a TBAN lifted. We don't want editors editing outside of their areas of comfort/expertise/interest just to get a TBAN lifted, nor is it a fair requirement; after all, it's not about jumping through hoops, it's about the community being reasonably assured that an editor can edit without needing a sanction to prevent disruption. If an editor mostly adjusts images before the TBAN, then it's fine if that's what they do during their TBAN. In fact, if an editor normally makes image edits, non-image-edits don't really help us determine how they would behave during their normal editing. (The reverse is true, too: if an editor mostly edits prose, having them upload images during a TBAN doesn't tell us how they'll behave when returning to "normal" editing.) The BLJ image is arguably a TBAN violation ("broadly construed" after all) but a pretty minor/peripheral/harmless one. Six months of productive editing is long enough; let's give them a second chance (bearing in mind that a third chance may not happen if there is a second bad day like the "one bad day" sixmonths ago). Levivich 15:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• Hey, everybody see which type of language Abhishek0831996 is using. Don't put words in the mouth of others., is this the way to talk somebody? Many of you are saying that I have used rude language. Now what would you say to Abhishek0831996? Can't he speak politely to me?--Junior Jumper (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• Junior Jumper, maybe it's because I read that in isolation, but I don't understand. What's impolite about it? I mean, criticism is allowed. El_C 18:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

JJ, I agree with EI C. Opposition is an expected part of a ban appeal. There's nothing uncivil about telling someone not to misstate something someone else has said, if you think that's what they've done. I understand this is a stressful process for you, but your best bet is to simply not engage with opposers except to correct actual factual errors or describe how you've tried to address their concerns. Criticizing their input won't help you. —valereee (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Valereee:, @El C: Okay 😓--Junior Jumper (talk) 05:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• The tone and content of JJ’s replies here leaving me wondering if they are a person we want to let loose in an already combative topic area. The whatsboutism is a bad sign. — AdamF in MO (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting. I started out in favor and was willing to overlook the picture "slip". I'm afraid JJ has persuaded me to not lift the ban. Just not ready yet. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Help please!

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

---

I closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk subpages of Mauriziok as withdrawn. There is 250-odd pages tagged with the mfd template, which need to be removed. I've done about 5% of them and already have sore appendages and an acute sense of boredom.

Could someone potentially magic them away with some kind of tool, or alternatively can people chip in to assist with removing 15-30-50ish each? Thanks in advance.

Cheers, Daniel (talk) 05:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Daniel:: WP:AWBREQ can help you do that. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanking you! Daniel (talk) 05:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I tried using the standard XfD tool on this but it seemed to fail to load the content. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 05:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, same here, I think it's cos they're talk pages? But that's just a guess. Daniel (talk) 05:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Changes at Requests for page protection

PSA. No one seems to have told anyone that Wikipedia:RFPP has been restructured for the past few days. It has. For those who are old school and use the watchlist for most things, you no longer need to watch RFPP as that will be useless. Instead you need to watchlist three sub-pages:

• Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Decrease (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (which appears to have turned into a dog's breakfast)

There's only a handful of users currently watching these pages, and I suspect most are not even admins. Admins (and others) do us a favour and watchlist these pages. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Just some background, it looks like these changes have been in the works for at least 2 years, see Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection#Technical roadmap. -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Some warning would have been useful, and Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit is a real nightmare which will be frustrating to people requesting edits and avoided by most editors and Admins. And I'm not sure how separating increases and decreases makes it easier for Admins. Doug Weller talk 14:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Legend has it... ☻ El_C 14:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Doug, as I understand it, the new set up is mostly geared toward having a normal (non-rolling) archive (Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive). A very good idea, even if some kinks need to be ironed out. El_C 14:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: suggest that Template:RFPP/codes or the like get put in to the editnotices of the new subpages. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• BTW, cyberpower678, I noticed that your stress level is high. If it has anything to do with you adjusting Cyberbot I to the new set up (and any related hiccups), please know that your efforts are very much appreciated. I know I speak for many when I say that. Added: Oh, and ToBeFree, needless to say, you a legend, too! El_C 14:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• @El C: a rolling archive is a great improvement, thanks for explaining that. Doug Weller talk 15:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• Non-rolling, but indeed, a great improvement. And, as whiner-in-chief about this change (until I finally got it), I, personally, got some atonement to make to even the Karmic scale... El_C 15:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• I see that the edit-requests page has been semi-protected for the next two weeks, which is why we're getting a lot of junk requests at WT:RFPP (which itself is now listed at RFPP) and probably elsewhere. I'm not sure where this influx of requests is coming from, but it's not a great situation and doesn't seem sustainable. It seems we have a choice between getting junk requests at the edit request page, or frustrating users and still getting these requests at the talk page. Given the choice I'm inclined to unprotect the main page, if this doesn't interfere much with whatever cyberpower678 has in progress. Ideally though, stemming the source would be a good fix. Anyone know why this is happening? WP:RFED never used to be so popular. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

  Zzuuzz, I don't where this influx is coming from either. It seems awfully suspect which is why I haven't hesitated to delete most of them, but we need to figure out where this is coming from and end it. —CYBERPOWER (Around) 18:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

It seems to be Sushant Singh Rajput cause of death -related. I've sprotected for 3 days. El_C 20:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

But that's not all of it. For example Special:PermaLink/1034694364. It must now be linked from an interface page or template somewhere. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, mostly. Anyway, the protection notice has a link to WP:SEMI, which in turn links to the page in question... El_C 20:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Is there a discussion somewhere about that /Edit page? It seems like an odd choice to me to centralize that rather than use edit requests on article talk pages, but I'm not sure where best to learn more. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

GW, Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput is semi'd right now... El_C 20:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Oh, is the idea that this subpage would only be used to request changes to articles where the talk page is protected? The wording to me reads like it is intended to be used to request changes to any protected page, regardless of whether protection has been applied to the talk page. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it's the latter former, but the reason why it's being bombarded is because SSR's sister has demanded we violate our own biographical policies and the article has, since his death, been under some form of protection almost constantly due to conspiracy theories surrounding SSR's death, most of which posit that Rhea Chakraborty is involved (hence why that article is also protted). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 23:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, I am unfortunately all too familiar with the SSR campaign. My question was more on the general intended usage of this page, though—I'm not sure I fully understand why these ought to be centralized into one /Edit page rather than the previous system of edit requests being made on the talk page of the article. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

It's intended for circumstances where the user can't edit that talk page for whatever reason. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 23:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I see, that makes more sense to me. Though I suspect this incident with the SSR page will not be the only instance where brigading results in a specific talk page being protected, and so that brigading just moves to RfPP/edit. The same thing might happen on a smaller scale with partially-blocked users. Regardless, it might be worth changing the wording of the page to clarify the intended usage. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

We've seen similar disruption from the WP:CALIPH brigade. This is effectively filtered by 1106 (hist · log), which is something we may have to do more often. My main concern here is that the RFPP page never used to have these issues. In this revision, which is a right mess, there's no mention of Sushant Singh Rajput. I've looked through some of the templates and haven't found any relevant changes. This leads me to think there may have been some other change in signposting. I'll ping ToBeFree and Pppery in case they have any ideas. As it stands, having the article talk page, and RFED, and WT:RFPP all protected is a lousy situation. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 05:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

My apologies for the tangent, but I am hoping a higher level of attention might accelerate a solution to this issue: Cyberbot I is deleting some requests from the RFPP main page and never adding them to subpages. I believe Cyberpower678 is aware of the issue, though I'm unsure where on the queue of priorities this issue fits. In the meantime, are there admins willing to keep an eye on the page to find and respond to dropped requests?

I am sure there are myriad intelligent ways to monitor dropped requests. My inefficient way is to monitor Cyberbot's Wikipedia namespace contributions, using my browser's find function to highlight "Clerking main", and scanning through to find page size reductions that aren't immediately proceeded by equal increases.

The most recent dropped request found using this method is a requested protection increase to Eric André made by Cerebral726 and deleted by Cyberbot in this edit. A similar edit soon after was handled appropriately, and I can't determine what caused the requests to be handled differently by the bot. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Similar discussions happening at Talk RFPP, Cyberpower678's user talk, and Twinkle talk. @HaeB, LaundryPizza03, ToBeFree, Meters, and SD0001: pinging involved editors. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

If there are ongoing issues, my comments above are not a good explanation. Apologies again! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit is only meant for proposing changes to pages with protected talk pages. For example, Special:Permalink/1034614683 only contains such requests; all of the pages there had protected talk pages at the time of the revision.

Paper chase: Hebrew calendar is semi-protected with a semi-protected talk page. Try editing this page in a private window or while logged out; you'll see a blue button labeled "Submit an edit request". One can now append "&uselang=qqx" to the URL to see the name of the involved system message: MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext. This system message transcludes Template:Protected page text/semi, which transcludes Template:Protected page text, which transcludes Template:Submit an edit request, the blue button. This button uses Module:Submit an edit request, which forwards requests to "protected-talk-page-request-page" as defined in Module:Submit an edit request/config. The value was recently changed in Special:Diff/1033960356. The main change, however, was Special:Diff/1033960240, which replaces a simple link to the relevant RFPP section by a "create new section" link (Line 83 here, later changed in Special:Diff/1034038441 to create a level-3 heading instead of a level-2 heading).

So what has happened here: It has become much easier to submit requests at WP:RFPP, for all types of requests (protection, unprotection and editing). We're now seeing all the people who would previously have looked at the old instructions and failed to create a request using them. There is now an easy-to-use button for creating a request. For every protected article with a protected talk page, there is now a relatively easy process (click "View source", click "Submit an edit request", fill the form, submit) to circumvent the talk page protection by making a central request. This wasn't my main intention when proposing the changes; my main intention was to make protection requests easier for those without Twinkle.

A possible "solution" would be hiding the "Submit an edit request" button on articles that have a protected talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:49, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

(this would probably be easy to implement without any Module coding, using MediaWiki's {{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit|{{TALKPAGENAME}}}} in an "#if" statement, directly at MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext to determine whether the button should be displayed at all, and then passing that information as a parameter to the template.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Done. The blue button is now only displayed if the corresponding talk page has not been protected against editing. This should greatly reduce the amount of requests like we had in Special:Permalink/1034614683, and the page can probably be unprotected for now. Ping Cyberpower678, the protecting administrator. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

If we're no longer directing people from protected article talk pages to RfPP/Edit, and the page was specifically created for such requests, does it still need to exist? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, it was a section of WP:RFPP before; now it's a subpage. In either form, it still exists, and it can still be used for this purpose. Perhaps removing the blue button is already sufficient and we can show text pointing to the page instead, requiring people to read the text instead of blindly clicking a button. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

(Special:Diff/1034921986) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the info and edits. I've undone the protection at both WP:RFED and WT:RFPP, and I guess we'll see where we go from there. On a relevant side note, please no one suggest a similar button for unblock requests. One of the reasons we don't have one is because we use the block message as an aptitude test. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 2) Huh? Could someone please explain to me how the implementation of non-rolling archives is different to proposals in April and June that received a very chilly reception? I was under the impression that the community was virulently against it, then the proposal seems to have been implemented anyways ... Sdrqaz (talk) 11:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  "virulently against"? Rather uninterested and not seeing a need. Implementing a proper archive was in the making since the 2019 discussion at WT:RFPP; the opposition was directed against Chicdat's repeated proposal of something the community didn't have time to work on. It was part of a series of questionable requests that led to community annoyance and User_talk:Chicdat#Voluntary restriction. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  I seem to have missed that someone pointed out to him that the proposal was in the works. I am aware of the voluntary restriction, but just confused that something you described as the community being "uninterested and not seeing a need" was implemented anyways: when I saw the response at the Village Pump, I assumed that the community was against. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Cyberpower678: so it looks like you decided to implement all these archives despite the closed RfC above - was there an overriding RfC that was as well attended and advertised? — xaosflux ^Talk 18:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  Xaosflux, the one at WT:RFPP was open for 30 days as an RfC and 7 additional days at WP:CENT. The concerns in the above-linked discussions were mostly focused on the proposer's behavior and a lack of a perceived need, neither of which – horse in front of the cart please – has properly "overridden" the earlier decision to implement this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks, wish we could have unFORKed those earlier. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Help with unblock

Can another admin more familiar with OTRS take a look at this discussion on my talk page and unblock the user being discussed? I'm sure there's something that needs to be logged and/or some template added when unblocking a user in this situation, but I don't know what it is. Thanks. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jauerback: having the admin from the other project at least providing the VRT ticket so we could look at it would be a good next step. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Xania:, can you provide the VRT ticket number? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for the late response. Ticket is 2021021210005107. --XANIA - ЗAНИA^{Wikipedia talk | Wikibooks talk} 08:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, if this editor actually is Pere Portabella - they need to be informed about WP:COI / Wikipedia:Autobiography. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Drow

Can an admin clear this edit summary @Drow, thanks. Jerm (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Sure, done. Killiondude (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Jerm (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Block request

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

---

There's currently a proposal on ANI to have me indef blocked. Which seems to stem from the fact that I didn't reply to @Fram: exactly when and how they wanted me to in a couple of discussions we were involved in. Also, Fram used the existence of a past block to justify the proposal. While I think the complaint is completely meritless I was already thinking of taking a break from Wikipedia due to IRL issues before Fram reported me. So I was wondering if I could be blocked for 6 months as a middle ground between being unjustly punished over nothing and past behavior, or no action being taken. I could really use a break for a while to deal with real life stuff, do some reflecting, and work on other not so toxic projects. I'm fine making the request when the proposal is over if I'm not indef blocked or it would otherwise be better to wait to request a block. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I could block you for 6 months, but no admin has the authority to override a community decision. To put it another way a self imposed block will not alter the community decision. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to alter the communities decision. Just not have to deal with it in the meantime and being blocked while it plays out so I'm not obsessing over it or being tempted to bludging the process with unconstructive comments seemed like the best way to do that. Plus I've seen admins make less harsh judgements for complaints that are meritless. I'll just ignore it until it's resolved instead though. Thanks anyway. Adamant1 (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

You could try the Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer, but it isn't fool-proof. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Per WP:SELFBLOCK, self requested blocks are typically declined. Personally, I would normally consider applying a self request block if an editor requested it, depending on the circumstances. For the record, I wouldn't do so in the case of Adamant1 as I feel I am involved (see this thread if you want to know why). If I were not involved, I would not do so in this case. My reasons are that (1) there is a ongoing discussion to indef block Adamant1 and (2) that despite various threads regarding Adamant1's behavior concluding he was out of line (November 2020, December 2020, July 2021), the needed changes to behavior are not happening. Referring to the complaint in the ongoing thread as meritless shows a rather stark lack of understanding of the impact of their actions. I don't think a cool down block will help, even if it is for three or six months. We've been having these problems for eight months or more now. Also, this feels a bit like Adamant1 is resigning being an editor under a cloud. This could set up a false belief that the self imposed block somehow clears the past out, and is no longer an issue. There's just too much wrong going on here to apply a self requested block in my opinion. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose An attempt to wave the white flag to stop a known process and end up with a lesser punishment should not be entertained. This user wore my nerves down when I vote!d on a few of their AfDs last year and they WP:BOMBARDed my rationales, and has only worn more editor nerves since then. No discipline process should have the accused dictate what sanctions should be applied. Nate • (chatter) 19:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose in a nutshell, OP is asking for a lighter sentence because they believe they did nothing wrong. That's not how self-requested blocks work. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - If you want to take a 6-month wiki-break, then do so. It's quite easy, you just stay away from the project for that amount of time. Besides, I think your fate is being determined over at ANI. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose There's already an ongoing discussion at ANI about a possible indef block. I don't see what this self requested block is going to solve. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 21:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

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

CheatCodes4ever's unblock request

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

---

CheatCodes4ever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently community banned due to an ANI discussion that led to their indefinite block. The discussion can be found at AN-archive 1027#Competency issue with CheatCodes4ever. There had been unblock discussions on their talk page until I noticed that a community discussion led to the block and asked CheatCodes4ever to appeal to the community instead. This is now happening.

Per the block log, there is "no CU evidence to not unblock." The unblock request reads as follows:

Okay, I think I'm officially ready now. Please read my previous unblock requests for more information. ToBeFree has told me that I am banned and this needs to be moved to WP:AN, so here we go. In terms of what I was blocked for, I was blocked for not being here to build an encyclopedia. This was because I didn't listen to advice in the past and it made everyone think I was WP:NOTHERE. As stated in my previous unblock request, I do not no why I didn't listen to advice back then. I guess I could say I was immature? I honestly don't know how to explain it. I really don't. But for what it's worth, it took 22 months for me to start using talk pages. From January 2018 to October 2019, I never talked with people on talk pages. In fact, I used to not even go on my talk page, so if someone sent me a really long message, I wouldn't have read it all (so in other words, if you're reading this @Jmcgnh:, as much as you don't have much to do with this, I noticed you sent me a message here on my old account, but I never read all of it until about 14 months later, so I just wanted to say, I'm sorry about that). Anyway, I have now learnt to use talk pages. Back to me getting unblocked, if I do get unblocked I would like to make edits such as these edits along with participating in reverting vandalism/unsourced edits. I'll probably end up doing other stuff, but one thing's for sure: I won't cause as much trouble as I did in the past. You can learn more about that here. In terms for what I did do in the past, I continuously added unsourced content. This was because I kept forgetting to add a source. However, from now on, I will try my hardest to remember to add a source. In addition, I created lots of articles for non-notable topics. If you have read my previous unblock request, you will see I have learnt from that and now understand how the notability system works. Please could I be unblocked? Thanks, CheatCodes4ever (talk) 06:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Participants of the original discussion: @Robvanvee, The Mirror Cracked, CaptainEek, Kinu, NinjaRobotPirate, Yamla, Ian.thomson, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, Serial Number 54129, Michepman, Celestina007, Darthkayak, Jusdafax, RickinBaltimore, Johnuniq, and Ad Orientem: Ping requested by CheatCodes4ever. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Leaning Oppose as written. I've had a read through their talk page and its history, and about two months ago they started compiling their list of edits they planned to make. There's a few items that were added to that list that are deeply concerning to me, and in my view indicate that this editor still really doesn't get the concepts of sourcing and notability. Among the edits they proposed to make were the creation of a copyvio article on a non-notable phobia, cut and pasted from a source that obviously does not meet requirements for a medical article [11]; adding poorly sourced speculations on someone's relationship status to a BLP (complete with disclaimers that the sources may be unreliable and that they find sourcing "confusing") [12]; and writing a discography sourced only to Spotify [13]. Even their remaining proposed edits are still slightly problematic and show a lack of understanding of sourcing policies, like proposing to change the release date in a good article based on what seems to be a combination of original research and guesswork, and requesting that a redirect be deleted due to lack of sourcing (redirect link plausible search terms to related articles, there's no need for them to be sourced). Their responses to the criticisms of their proposed edits are equally as concerning, and include statements like "I don't remember being told that it was wrong to copy text" (in response to the copyvio). I suppose that in order to support an unblock I would need to see some kind of evidence that this user understands Notability and sourcing guidelines, because it is abundantly clear that as recently as a month ago their understanding was little better than when they were first blocked. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 17:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment CheatCodes4ever again omits several key points in their unblock request. First, they were indefinitely blocked for sock puppetry, too, not just for WP:NOTHERE, as they imply in their unblock request (their sock puppetry is documented here, here and possibly also here). Second, CheatCodes4ever keeps claiming that they were not listening to advice in the past, as they were not reading their talk page in 2018 and 2019, but now they are. This does not appear to be true either. Their talk page is full of repeated and failed attempts to advise the user (as Ian.thomson said: "The root cause of all the problems you're facing is that you haven't been paying any attention to the advice anyone gives you"), even in 2020 and 2021. The user keeps repeating they are listening to the advice, but the results do not show it. For example, after one of their countless unblock requests where they, as always, promised they were mature now and understand everything, they were trying to prove that they now understand how to edit reasonably by suggesting (among other problematic things discussed on their talk page) an article on Kappaphobia. This was so close to insanity that it was almost indistinguishable from trolling (violating copyright by copying the text directly from the website, which was clearly a scam website and the text itself was obviously total BS, computer-generated, generic template-based text, used on many other websites on many other topics—a fact that should be blatantly obvious at first sight to any reasonable editor). So, I still see deep, chronic problems with the user, who still fails to at least admit them. It doesn't really matter whether the user is doing it on purpose or unintentionally, as WP:CIR explains that the end result is basically the same.—J. M. (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose based on J. M.'s findings. The suggestion to create an article on Kappaphobia was made just last month and, I'm afraid, shows we are far better off with this user remaining blocked. --Yamla (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. I remember the original ANI discussion, and went back over it and the newer issues brought up above. There's just no sign that this user will ever be a competent editor. DoubleCross (‡) 17:50, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I was the admin who originally indef'd the user. I don't see anything here that would make me want to revert that block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Given some of their recent unblock requests and attempts at article creation seen on their talk page, I do not believe that this user can contribute in a constructive manner. I doubt that this user is intentionally being disruptive, but there's just too much WP:CIR and/or WP:IDHT going on here. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose with regret. After a reasonable period of time from a block I usually look for reasons to give editors a second chance. And it must be admitted that I have never really suspected CC4E of deliberately malicious behavior. So this is not a NOTHERE situation. My problem is that while active they were a monumental time sink for numerous editors, especially over at WP:AfC. But lots of other editors were involved including Ss112. WP:CIR is definitely a factor here. Compounding that, is their deliberate block evasion after I specifically warned them not to and offered hope for a WP:SO after one year. So we have a lot of issues and I am highly skeptical that they are even capable of constructively contributing to the project unless their hand is held. The only way I'd even consider such a request is if they were adopted by an experienced editor with plenty of background working in the music genre. But honestly I don't think it's worth the trouble. Their motives may have been good, but the bottom line is that CC4E was not a net positive and I do not believe that is likely to change if they are unblocked. I would gently encourage them to find another hobby. (I am no longer active on the project and most of my notifications are turned off. If you wish to contact me, please do so by email via the link on my talk page. I apologize for any inconvenience.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Page protection backlog

Hi. There's a ~12hr backlog at WP:RFPP. Please could someone help out? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I overslept. El_C 14:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks El C. Try not to have the luxury of sleep again! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Why did we change the main RFPP page to just be transclusions? I can't find any recent discussion. Anarchyte (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

No idea, but it's a pain in the arse that the helpful edit summary with all of the various {{RFPP}} codes is gone now. I don't have time to dig into why everything changed, but at the very least PLEASE have someone restore the group edit notice(s). Primefac (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

There's a discussion further up about the changes.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Primefac, I thought I did at Special:Permalink/1034077480, re-creating the editnotice? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Talk with DonFB

I'm having extreme difficulty talking with DonFB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) justifying his rewrites/revert over my edits. We have unresolvable conflicts of interest, and just like policy states, the repeated undos is aggravating and stressful. I would like an administrator's opinion, not over the content disputes, but as to whether his behavior constitutes to personal attack, particularly when he would slyly pick at old wounds, like mentioning the previous ANI incident, or smugly bragging that his edit would remain stable for the period of a page protection.

Recent:

[14]

Archivable: [Talk:Boeing 737 MAX groundings/Archive 2] "brevity". I rest comfortably knowing that my improved version will be stable for the next four days.... :-) DonFB (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC) {ping|DonFB}} 133 KB (14,999 words) - 12:04, July 15, 2021

Shencypeter (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment - this seems to be a content dispute between the two of you. I've asked at WT:AV for others to join in and help find consensus. Mjroots (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Is Using the UPE Template against policy?

I was going to start an RFC when I remembered that AN is just as effective or rather, an alternative to an RFC I do have a question and for the sake of transparency I do have an active case please see here. I have a question I do need you all to assist me with and would be eternally grateful if I can get a definitive reply from you all who have bestowed great trust on me of which I do not take for granted.

• My question is, is it against policy to leave a UPE tag on an article? I was advised off wiki by a functionary and sysop that when I leave a UPE warning I should also initiate a dialogue with the editor in question and explain to them why i think they are engaging in UPE, but an editor by the name of Kaizenify in that thread told me it wasn’t proper and this got me confused as the {{Upe}} is quite self explanatory. The OP classified me leaving a UPE template as making false allegations and I really do not see how leaving a UPE template is a “false accusation” . I have come here for clarifications because if indeed it’s against policy to UPE template an article effective immediately i wouldn't do that but if not I would like a feedback from you all on what you think. Celestina007 (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The template exists for a reason. There was a proposal to delete this template, but it failed. While it is technically not mandatory to start a dialogue with the editor(s) in question, I'd certainly consider it a best practice. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Orangemike, Mike, thank you for your response, I have placed UPE templates on dubious looking articles, which more often than not ended up as actually being UPE indeed but in the aforementioned thread it’s used as “evidence” against me, largely the narrative there is that me tagging articles as UPE is “making false UPE allegations” against editors even when the UPE template is precisely worded and straightforward. Celestina007 (talk) 01:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - @Celestina007:, leaving a UPE template without a strong evidence of UPE by the editor is a false accusation. Promotional tone of articles are not enough evidence of UPE. WP:COI and WP:UPE are two different things. Apparently you seem to be assuming that users who have COI are UPE.

If a user writes about their university professor or about their uncle who is a lawmaker, that person would be violating our policy on WP:COI regardless of the tone of the article (promotional or not). In most cases, there is no way we are going to proof their connection with the subject unless there are off-wiki evidences. Tagging the page with the WP:COI template without evidences that connects them together is inappropriate and against policy let alone tagging with UPE. If there are offline evidences, you could advice the user to refrain from making further edits on the page. If they continue, you could give them a final warning and this could be followed by a WP:NOTHERE block if they continue. If the user is the sole contributor to that page and engaging in sockpuppetry after the block, the page may now be tagged with the WP:COI template. Police do not kill a suspect before taking them before judges. It's a crime. For WP:UPE, not all editors who have WP:COI are undisclosed paid editors and tagging them as such is inappropriate and may be considered harassment. Before you use that template on articles, you do have to be sure that they have been paid for their edits on the article. The evidences must be strong and significant such as access to the financial or transaction statements. It's almost impossible to proof that a user is UPE and that's why the tag should rarely be used. When you tag an article written by an established editor or new editor as UPE, you are directly or indirectly accusing them of undisclosed paid editing. In this case, you must have a significant evidence to proof that they have been paid or likely to have been paid based on the evidence you have gathered (not just the article promotional tone). The evidence must go beyond the article's promotional tone. Allegation or accusation of UPE is a very serious one at least here on the English Wikipedia and a strong evidence must be presented to back up your claim. The {{UPE}} template says "Add this tag to articles for which there appears to be a significant contribution by an undisclosed paid editor. " This is the condition under which the tag should be used. From that clause, it means that you must have established that the user is an "undisclosed paid editor". That's almost impossible to establish without off-wiki evidences. So, the tag should rarely be used. Kaizenify (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kaizenify, umm calm down, I’m trying to establish a fact. In any case I think the template is worded precisely. Celestina007 (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The tag does not say the contribution is actually proven to be from a UPE. The tag says it is "for articles where there appears to be a significant contibution be a UPE." "appears to be" is a fairly loose criterion. Perhaps there could be a separate tag for " articles where there definitely has been a significant contibution by a proven UPE." In more usual terms, I think "appears to be" is not even equivalent to "preponderance of the evidence" but an even lower standard, perhaps "reasonable suspicion". It's not an accusation, but an alert to the reader. (FWIW, since I do specialize the university professors, most articles with coi are indeed UPE by the labs or university's PR staff, which is certainly UPE; there are indeed some by enthusiastic students, but it is generally possible to tell them apart; this in;t the place to give the distinguishing signs, but I can expand on this elsewhere. The more troublesome cases is when someone honestly writes and article, but copies the style of promotional editors, thinking that this is what we want--some have in fact said exactly that when challenged. That's the reason for using the very weaj wowwrding "appears to be". We cannot necessarily determine someone's motives, but we can see what they write. DGG ( talk ) 10:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

In regard to situations where there there has been definite paid editing, we have Template:Paid contributions. - Bilby (talk) 10:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

DGG says what is sometimes easily forgotten, perhaps: "It's not an accusation, but an alert to the reader." And I agree with his analysis of who writes up professor's articles, though I will add that in my experiences it's frequently the PR people who write up the administrators, rather than the professors. Drmies (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Unreformed disruptive editing by 16ConcordeSSC

16ConcordeSSC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for 31hours by Oshwah after a previous WP:ANI discussion here. Upon return this editor continued to mark every single edit as "minor" while making sequential and cumulative edits to add unsourced information and changing wording and punctuation to fit personal preferences. Examples are:

• diff1
• diff2
• diff3
• diff4
• diff5

The editor is particularly obsessed with the Rutland Railroad where he made sequential edits with only the subject's web home page as a bare url here:

• diff6

which he then added back after another editor reverted his changes:

• diff7

This editor refuses to respond to warnings from other editors and shows disrespect to the work of other editors with comments such as "fixed grammar", "my edit should never have been deleted", and "sloppy commas and run on sentances" here. It's very difficult to discern what is a useful edit and to clean up the article without picking through each and every one of his "minor" edits.

Per WP:CIR editors must have "the ability to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus..and avoid editing in areas where their lack of skill and/or knowledge causes them to create significant errors for others to clean up". Blue Riband► 05:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Blue Riband: I see they are using edit summaries but still marking edits as minor. I've blocked them from editing articles indefinitely until they respond here (or possibly their talk page) and convince another Admin to unblock them. Doug Weller talk 12:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I think he's choosen to leave Wikipedia as indicated by this message left on my talk page. Blue Riband► 11:58, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Blue Riband Doug Weller While his parting message is certainly uncalled for, I must say, I don't think his edits were all that bad. Clearly he's a newbie, and he emailed me because he was quite confused as to what was happening. Like many newbies, especially on mobile, messages and notifications are received shoddily at best. (A problem the WMF should have fixed years ago!!!) So what, he was adding half referenced additions to a page with almost no references. I'd say he was improving the quality of the page, and the solution could simply have been to add some CN tags where he missed adding references. That his references weren't fully formatted in the ideal way? That's not an issue, that's why we have gnomes. It was just a page about a local railway that he was clearly interested in, not some life or death COVID or politics page. I think this is a case where we have severely BITEn what could have been a productive newbie editor. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it's a new account of DonPevsner (talk · contribs), who has edited for many years. DrKay (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I saw that the editor was starting to attempt referencing after their short block expired, as indicated here, but it didn't happen until the block got their attention, and in edits like this one, they add elements not explicitly backed by the source. Nothing in the timeline about a "two-year delay in bankruptcy court", although one might make that assumption. Couple this with edits that actually make punctuation worse, and now you have multiple editors spending time sifting out the good from the bad. Overall, it was disruptive to the project, and had the editor been willing to discuss or engage on their talk page using a fraction of the energy they dedicated to dropping nasty talk page messages, some of these relatively minor issues could have been worked out. To presume they may have missed the warnings is a big stretch, considering the slight change in behavior after the first block. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

CaptainEek, I cannot agree with your assessment of 16ConcordeSSC as he appeared to be hostile to any advice or correction right out of the gate. On June 5th, his second day on Wikipedia, he demanded a mediator at his user page. The next day he comments on his talk page "Are all of you self-interested technocrats who care only for computerized rules and nothing for dishonest content on sites? If so, to hell with all of you.." In his later "minor" edits he shows disrespect for other editor with comments like, "sloppy grammar and run-on sentances". Even if an article DOES indeed have "sloppy grammar and run-on sentances" there's no need to be uncivil. Something like "edited for clarity" would have sufficed without denigrating another editor's work. DrKay, DonPevsner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) shows the same pattern of editing as 16ConcordeSSC, although the former account seems to have been abandoned. DonPevsner's addition of unsourced material to Steamtown National Historic Site was questioned by an editor and he replied with hostility to being challenged. It's a real shame it had to end like this because he clearly his interest and knowledge - but no willingness to work in collaboration. Per WP:CIR competance includes ..."the ability to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus...Blue Riband► 20:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

16ConcordeSSC's first edit was to the talk page for DRN, next two to the talk page of centralized discussion, fourth to a user talk page, fifth to DRN talk again, then four to their own talk page and one to their user page. They were given advice, help, and links. They are now insisting (repeatedly) on their talk page that they had no idea they even had a talk page until today. At over 1400 edits and after ignoring multiple warnings and failing to explore any of the resources provided to them, they need to start taking responsibility for their actions on wikipedia. This user talk page comment, this comment to an article talk page, and this edit to an editor talk page are all uncivil and belligerent. Being new does not excuse those comments. Schazjmd (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I would concur with GoneIn60 and Blue Riband. In addition to his problems with sourcing and his belligerence, most (but admittedly not all) of his grammatical "fixes" actually introduced errors which necessitated subsequent clean-up. Grandpallama (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

User talk:Female bodybuilder enthusiast unblock request

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

---

Given the age of the block(2013), and the number of unblock requests that have been reviewed in the past I have decided to take this unblock request to the community rather than handle it personally.

In addition to the unblock requests on the talk page there is also UTRS appeal #45084 and UTRS appeal #39150.

I understand that they are admitting to some sock puppetry, and claiming that other sock puppetry was not true. They are also "willing, but not requesting, to abide by a topic ban around zoophilia, broadly construed".

I am not familiar with the events prior to their block and at this point am withholding my personal opinion.

A checkuser has verified that there is no technical evidence of recent abuse of multiple accounts[15]. This is a standard offer request.

Here is the text of their unblock request:

I am requesting to be unblocked after six months of being blocked, which has been verified though Wikipedia:Check User, for sock puppeting. I am applying under WP:SO. My initial block was inappropriate (not checked though Wikipedia:Check User) and the overlap between the two accounts (Latitude0116 and me). However, my other bans were appropriate for sock puppeting afterwards. I have been blocked for six months and had time to go over my errors. I will never sock puppet again and identified my old sock puppets. I am willing, but not requesting, to abide by a topic ban around zoophilia, broadly construed. I will stick to Female bodybuilder enthusiast account going forward. Female bodybuilder enthusiast (talk) 11:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention on this matter. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@Reaper Eternal: the original blocking administrator. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support w/ TBAN From Zoophilia, or really all animal related articles, broadly construed. They were caught socking just in December, and that last sock needed to be tbanned if they were a legit user. Valeince (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support w/ TBAN Admits wrong and states wants to go forward, after 10 years it responsible to want to return and given another chance. Des Vallee (talk) 03:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support On 25 April 2013, User:Female bodybuilder enthusiast was confirmed to User:Fbbfan according to the CheckUser data, see here. Fbbfan never edited the English Wikipedia, but edited Ann Coulter article at Wikiquote, the same article one of their socks User:AHC300 edited 36 times, see diff. On 3 May 2013, User:Female bodybuilder enthusiast was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Latitude0116 per behavioral evidence, see here. In this unblock request, User:Female bodybuilder enthusiast is claiming that they're not User:Latitude0116 and Latitude0116 also confirmed that User:Female bodybuilder enthusiast is innocent and not related to them, see here. Since User:Female bodybuilder enthusiast has not socked recently and understood that what they did in the past was wrong and willing not to do it again, I'm willing to support this unblock request and the TBAN around zoophilia, broadly construed as that will stop disruption in that area. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 05:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support unconditional - as Nnadigoodluck pointed out, no technical link was ever established between Female bodybuilder enthusiast/Fbbfan and the Latitude0116 case, however the behavioural evidence was quite compelling (significant unrelated topic overlaps). Regarding "no edits", there are other events that show up in checkuser data that can be used to establish connection, so I don't doubt the confirmation of those two accounts, however they should be re-tagged as "suspected" (they are not cu-confirmed to Latitude0116). I don't see where Female bodybuilder enthusiast's editing in the topic of zoophilia was ever discussed, they were just lumped in with the disruption of another user, and without any conclusive evidence of disruption I can't see why a topic ban is necessary here. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 19:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

  If Female bodybuilder enthusiast's editing in the topic of zoophilia really hasn't been discussed, it should be. Starting with their repeated creation of articles such as Death by horse cock, Two Guys One Horse etc. [16] AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Okay let's talk about it, then. I don't know the history of everything here but frankly, on the surface, all those creations seem to be legit. First they were trying to create an article about the website which was at the time apparently hosting the video referred to in the lede at Enumclaw horse sex case (or this contemporary revision, anyway), which evidently was 2guys1horse.com (I didn't go check). The final revision before deletion read in the lede: "2guys1horse.com, also called 2 Guys 1 Horse, Mr Hands, or Death by horse cock, is an Internet shock site/viral video, that has lead to over 500 reaction videos on Youtube. It was also featured in the 2007 documentary film Zoo and is regarded as the video of the incident that killed Kenneth Pinyan." The content was referenced (I didn't review the references but they were there) and covered a notable and sensitive topic without being gratuitous. It might not have been appropriate to have it separate from the Enumclaw article but I don't see any discussion about that, it was simply speedy-deleted by Fram for having no credible claim of significance, which without more information seems absurd. Another version at Deep Thrusts was deleted by Boing! said Zebedee as vandalism, which also seems absurd. Female bodybuilder enthusiast then simply tried to redirect these titles to the relevant related article, which was then deleted for being an implausible redirect (also absurd), except in one instance where The Anome deleted one as a redirect to a "joke page" (even more absurd). I say "seems" absurd because I would prefer to believe there is a related discussion somewhere that I haven't found, which would provide a better explanation than that a bunch of veteran admins ganged up on this user to censor their article. Female bodybuilder enthusiast seemed to be in conflict with Little green rosetta, who was Arbcom-banned a month later, and I also don't know what that's about.

  Anyway, all of this happened eight years ago, and so I still don't see why a topic ban now would prevent any sort of ongoing disruption. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

  The December SPI report lists some of their disruptive activity on zoophilia-related articles. To add on to what AndyTheGrump stated, the majority of their edits where to Legality of bestiality by country or territory, Legality of bestiality in the United States, Timeline of zoophilia, Zoophilia and the law (notice how the sock tried to redirect move that article to Zoophile rights by country or territory), which are all now (rightfully) deleted, so their edits to those articles are not visible in their contribution histories. Some1 (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC) correction, Some1 (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

  It's confusing but I think you've got the timeline at least partly wrong. Zoophilia and the law was moved to Zoophile rights by country or territory, which was then moved to Legality of bestiality by country or territory, which was then deleted, however all three of those titles were the same article which has a continuous history going back to May 2006. Legality of bestiality in the United States and Timeline of zoophilia were both separate articles. The deletion discussions for all three indicate that they were deleted for being poorly written original research, not because they were inappropriate topics nor because of any editor's disruptive editing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

  On 20:31, 6 January 2017, AHC300 sock moved Zoophilia and the law to Zoophile rights by country or territory. Admin BD2412 moved the page back from Zoophile rights by country or territory to Zoophilia and the law on 15:11, 7 January 2017 stating: (No consensus found for likely controversial page move.) Those are all the same articles as the Legality of bestiality by country or territory, which was created by Female bodybuilder enthusiast, and the bulk of the content came from those socks. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Legality_of_bestiality_by_country_or_territory, where an editor stated: According to XTools [17] this article was primarily authored by AHC300 (talk · contribs), .... who is a pro-zoophilia user [18]. I didn't mention any timeline, just pointed out that those were the articles the socks frequently edited. My parenthetical above regarding the page move was to show how the user believes "bestiality" is a "zoophile right." Some1 (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC) correction, Some1 (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

  I'm sorry but you're wrong, and so was the editor referencing Xtools. Zoophilia and the law, Zoophile rights by country or territory, and Legality of bestiality by country or territory are not three copies of an identical article, they are the same article which was moved around. It was created under the title Zoosexuality and the law by FT2 on 19 May 2006, and FT2 was the principal contributor. It was moved to Zoophilia and the law by Avalik in 2010. At the time in 2017 that AHC300 moved to Zoophile rights by country or territory the article was a plain list of countries and their laws under the headings "zoosexual activity", "sale and distribution of zoophilic pornography", and "ownership of zoophilic pornography" (the list was present before AHC300 ever edited the article) so "zoophile rights by country or territory" was a reasonable move; BD2412 moved it back because the move hadn't been discussed, which is a pretty standard reason to revert a move (essentially WP:BRD). AHC300 then expanded the redirect at Zoophile rights by country or territory with a copy of the same list but they greatly expanded it, and that was then moved to "Legality of bestiality by country or territory" after a talk page discussion started by Flyer22 Frozen. That page's history was later split and now lives at Legality of bestiality by country or territory (version 2), and that's the big reason why Xtools will get this wrong.

  In the move discussion that I mentioned, AHC300 wrote this: "Oppose Because there are various zoophile rights organizations thoughtout the world and various legal cases in places like Canada and Germany that upheld legal zoophilia. There are organizations in the 20th and 21st century that have been documented to be zoophile rights organizations. The oldest documented zoophile group I could find is the "Students of Objectivism for Rational Bestiality". It's not Wikipedia's job to declare what is and isn't a right. I try to be as neutral as possible on these issues. Some libertarians, Objectivists, anarcho-captialists, liberals, etc. would either argue that animal abuse laws already cover harm to animals and sexual activities between animals and humans should be allowed. The issue of zoophile rights are evolving and maybe in a few decades they will be viewed as another part of civil rights movement." That last sentence is an awfully bold (and maybe offensive) prediction, but otherwise I basically agree with the statement. Flyer inaccurately equated zoophilia (a medically recognized paraphilia with notable advocacy and support groups) with bestiality (human sexual activity with animals, illegal in most places) and AHC300 was not the only editor who pointed out the distinction in that discussion. I do agree with that page's deletion: it was synthesizing conclusions from unrelated sources, and also probably not a notable separate topic, but I don't agree that its creation is evidence of promotion of a POV by AHC300 or Female bodybuilder enthusiast, if they are the same person. I also don't agree with your assumption that these moves imply that "the user believes 'bestiality' is a 'zoophile right'", as you said; in fact they were arguing against that position. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector: You might be aware of this, so please excuse me if the following is not useful: the term "zoophilia" is actually a dog whistle used by people actually engaging in bestiality (i.e. actually having sex with animals) to encourage support for their cause and to advocate for the legalization of bestiality. In Germany, for instance members of the Zoophiles Engagement for Toleranz und Aufklärung, a self-proclaimed "zoophile" organisation, is in fact made up of people advertising on social media their romantic and sexual relationships with their domestic animals. I'm always willing to AGF, but we should be skeptical of people making conceptual distinctions between bestiality and zoophilia: in a lot of cases, it's just a way to move bestiality in the mainstream by arguing (or suggesting) that there is nothing wrong with zoophilia. JBchrch talk 13:11, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

  Some1, you aren't an admin, for obvious reasons it's probably not worth arguing with an admin over the history of deleted pages.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

  That is true; if I could see the revision history, then I can bring up diffs showing the user's disruptive editing in that topic area. Legality of bestiality in the United States is the article that I was thinking about, where it was created by Female bodybuilder enthusiast socks and was mainly edited by those socks. Admin JBW deleted that back in January when AHC300 was blocked for socking, stating: (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user... in violation of ban or block. (Despite the long time for which the article has existed, no substantial content appears ever to have been added by anyone other than the creator, using various sockpuppets. Other edits have all been minor or reverted, or both). Ivanvector said: AHC300 or Female bodybuilder enthusiast, if they are the same person I already included diffs in my !vote comment below where they confirmed that they (Female bodybuilder enthusiast and AHC300) are the same person: [19][20]. It's even visible right now on their talk page, third unblock box: I am User:AHC300. AHC300 also made this edit to Zoophilia in the "Arguments for bestiality section" [21], would you have kept or reverted it and why? Some1 (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you, Some1, in fact I did miss that admission. That changes my opinion entirely, see below. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• I am not going to support or oppose, but Female bodybuilder enthusiast should at least be:
  1. Restricted to only one account, since they had a sleeper account Fbbfan at the same time as the Female bodybuilder enthusiast account for whatever reasons, then engaged in sockpuppetry as CentrumZero, Snowden supporter, 61-1099lm, Chiseled abs cutter, GayTenn, Dawkinsfan44 (there's probably more); User:AHC300 was their latest sock that was blocked in January (they confirmed it here and here), and they had the GregThomas93 and Lupertazzi342 accounts at the same time as that AHC300 account.
  2. Topic-banned from zoophilia (or all animal-related articles, as another editor above suggested), broadly construed. Some1 (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support unblock w/ TBANFrom Zoophilia, User is ready. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I see a one account and no logged out edits as a given, but I need to be clear. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• if this user is unblocked - something I won't vote on, but about which I'm skeptical - they need to be aware that there won't be a lot of tolerance for disruption in some other non-zoophilia topic. If disruption begins in some other area, it will be nipped in the bud with an indef block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support unblock w/one-account restriction, TBAN from zoophilia (broadly construed). I'm supporting the tban because they've been a bit WP:BATTLEGROUND in this area before, and a tban gives the highest possibility of success going forward. Much as I personally dislike that subject area, I'd be willing to vote in favour of lifting the tban at some point in the future, when this user has a substantial history of constructive contributions and no significant disruption. --Yamla (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
• Weak support unblock w/one-account restriction, TBAN from zoophilia Yamla has convinced me to support this request tentatively, though I was originally on the fence. Both of those restrictions are a deal breaker for me. There should be a very low tolerance to disruptive behavior. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, convert to site ban - by their own admission, this user used sock accounts to evade a block for nearly a decade, and they're only agreeing to abide by the rules now because they were caught. Six months is the bare minimum for the standard offer; this user ought to sit out for a lot longer. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
• I'd like to ask the user, if they are unblocked, how do they plan to contribute to Wikipedia (in non-zoophilia-related areas)? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

She said in the UTRS ticket, but did not carry it over to her talk page. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose I'll be the jerk that says it: Why are we ok with someone who blatantly used a number of socks for over 10 years to avoid a block to come back, all because they said "Oh you caught me!" Add to that their editing history, and I don't see a reason they should be allowed to edit. Just because this is the encyclopedia anyone CAN edit, doesn't mean it is the encyclopedia anyone SHOULD edit. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose for now at least. If he does get reinstated, he should be permanently banned from any animal-related articles. —-Delderd (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock per RickinBaltimore. People with a very long record of misconduct are not credible when they promise to stop misbehaving. Sandstein 21:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Rickinbaltimore and Ivanvector. I am not convinced that this is "I'm sorry I behaved badly" so much as "I'm sorry I got caught." ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• As the blocking administrator who was pinged here, I have no strong feelings either way. Frankly, I don't even remember this block since it was made eight years ago. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• To those who are opposing I want to say I 100% understand where you are coming from. I am supporting the unblock because of the time that has passed and the knowledge that they can be reblocked with very little effort should they further disrupt the community. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

  The "time that has passed" is about six months, versus about eight years before that during which they knowingly and deceptively evaded their block. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 14:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

  We have no policy dictating a duration extension to the six-month standard offer for long-term sockpuppetry, and this isn't the venue to discuss policy changes. It is what it is, the user meets the requirement. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

  To be fair the standard offer is not a policy, rather a very informal tradition. People can use whatever standard they want when considering it. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support with topic ban as proposed. The editor is willing to be a constructive contributor. Re-blocking is trivial to do if the need arises. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support with topic ban as per the above. Obviously there will be eyes on the editor, so they will be well-motivated to be positive and productive. If that does not happen, a reblock would be fairly automatic. BD2412 T 04:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment As I have given my opinion of what should be done with this request, I will not close, however this was archived due to inactivity. Can an admin that has not commented on this please review and make the call as to what to do with this request? RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Looks no consensus to me, but I opined. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

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

My page creation attempts are blocked against a title எண்ணியம்

The title I created is general, not pointing to any person. It is a topic on materialism. Materialism is a philosophy. Promote free thinking and freedom of expression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hvvisweswraran (talk • contribs) 14:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. Give it an English title. And try creating the page in your sandbox or in draft space first. Main space page creation attempts such as yours look like vandalism. Create it in a safer space and preferably submit it for review via WP:AFC. Be aware that if you are trying to "promote" anything, your article will be deleted anyway. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Hvvisweswraran: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We do not promote anything. And Wikipedia is not a place to freely express oneself. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

It's possible the editor is describing what they think materialism is rather than saying they want to promote that philosophy? We do already have an article at Materialism. —valereee (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I see no deleted contribs from this editor and do not find a deleted page by that title. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

If your query relates to an edit on the Tamil Wikipedia then you need to ask there. This is the English Wikipedia, which has no more power over other language editions than they do over us. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

International Judo Federation

Not sure what's going on here, but an IP has added this International Judo Federation#Controversies. The full Controversies section belongs to it. The question is if this material is worthy of an encyclopedia? Please read everything! I am not going to remove anything because I don't know what action I should take. I feel this should not be on Wikipedia. Regards, Karel .karellian-24 (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@.karellian-24: The IP is clearly on a mission but the issue needs to be discussed at Talk:International Judo Federation. It looks like the "Controversies" section was inserted a long time ago and a January 2018 edit removed it, with the IP reverting that removal on 24 July 2021. You might get assistance from a noticeboard such as WP:NPOVN. WP:DUE and WP:COATRACK apply. Try WP:RSN for assistance with whether ref 5 supports the "controversies" idea (it doesn't—the addition is original research). Johnuniq (talk) 03:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Johnuniq, I'm wondering if it's also time to block this range, and this IP. I suppose the semi-protection keeps that stuff out of the article, but they are being plenty disruptive and argumentative. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

There is more analysis and commentary now on Talk:International Judo Federation. I'm leaning more and more towards a block. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Genetic history of Africa

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

---

Does this "article" qualify for WP:G6? There's Draft:Genetic History of Africa which should be moved there, and it is clear that that is only an "article" because it is a title that should be blue but we didn't have one article where it could be redirected to. Also, the links on it are also outgoing links from the draft (or should be). Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Help needed with work on a local file pointing to commons

• I am an admin. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_history_merge#New requests. I obeyed step 1. I then tried to obey step 2, but I could not find the newly-deleted edits of the local file File:Bermuda Regiment Corporal's Mess 1992.png (rather than the commons file that it points to). What has happened? I seem to have run foul of some automatic mechanism that redirects from local graphics-link files to commons graphics files. Sorry. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

The instructions are:-

“ Please perform a history split of File:Bermuda Regiment Corporal's Mess 1992.png to split the first (2006) revision and merge it with File:Bermuda Regiment Corporal's Mess.jpg, merging it with the file/history that is there now. The problem here is that the first (2006) revision is actually a jpeg file. Presumably the MediaWiki software back in 2009 didn't check if file type and extension matched as Preslethe was able to overwrite a jpeg file with a PNG. Because of how the MediaWiki scaler works, PNG is not optimal for photos. (they get blurry) On Commons there is File:Bermuda Regiment Corporal's Mess 1992.jpg, but unfortunately the conversion of the color corrected version from PNG to jpeg was done with a lot of compression (quite visible on a large display or if you zoom in), which is why I uploaded File:Bermuda Regiment Corporal's Mess.jpg. If I'm not mistaken these are the steps to take:

1. Delete File:Bermuda Regiment Corporal's Mess 1992.png
2. Restore the first revision
3. Try moving it to File:Bermuda Regiment Corporal's Mess.jpg without leaving a redirect
4. Get an error, check "Yes, delete the page" so you can move the page
5. Restore deleted revisions of File:Bermuda Regiment Corporal's Mess.jpg
6. Restore revisions that were left at File:Bermuda Regiment Corporal's Mess 1992.png — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

”

• Anthony Appleyard, that's interesting. On file pages you should be able to add redirect=no like this, I'm not sure if that would have solved your problem. Fastily, I see you copied File:Bermuda Regiment Corporal's Mess.jpg to Commons. As the original uncorrected file is in the history of c:File:Bermuda Regiment Corporal's Mess 1992.jpg I think we have everything now? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 07:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Ren Keyu article assistance

I need help, the button to review for uploading and publishing are gone and IDK why. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ren_Keyu talk

Please see Template:AfC submission/submit. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Possible SPA?

Hi, I was taking a look at the contributions for Chimichangazzz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and have noticed that it is possibly a single-purpose account. I am not assuming bad faith, but almost every one of their edits have been reverted, a lot of their edits have been WP:POINTY and they may be not here to bulid an encyclopedia. I am not involved in a dispute with this editor or anything like this, and while they are not vandalizing pages or have posted anything for a week or so, I think there is a possibility that this account may be a disruption-only account. If that is the case, then it is possible that it gets blocked indefinitely.

It is possible that they are still relatively new and are not well-versed in Wikipedia's core policies, but I think it is worth taking a look. Aasim (talk) 00:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

A bit stale and I indeed noticed apparent WP:RGW/WP:NOTHERE behavior. They had one block for it, then resumed but stopped just short of being blocked again. Maybe can be left a last chance... —PaleoNeonate – 16:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I just reverted an egregiously defective addition with the edit summary "Reverted good faith edits by Chimichangazzz (talk): Unreliable sources and contrary to editorial instructions. Even with RS, you MUST get a consensus for such an addition. Use the talk page.". AllSides and Townhall are not RS. -- Valjean (talk) 01:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

They are back and at the same same old behavior. Numerous attempts at discussion have failed. The temporary block has failed as they only edit every few weeks. I have blocked the account indefinitely with the reason: Disruptive editing, edit warring and POV pushing, refusing to accept consensus against edits. Seems to be a politically motived single purpose account.

I would have considered a DS topic ban from American politics, however this is the only area that they edit.

If another admin can get be confident that they are going to work better within the community they may unblock without further discussion with me. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)