Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) at 09:46, 14 November 2022 (→Cascade-protect Wikipedia:Manual of Style and all subpages). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    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)

    Open tasks

    XFD backlog
    V Aug Sep Oct Nov Total
    CfD 0 0 0 12 12
    TfD 0 0 0 3 3
    MfD 0 0 0 2 2
    FfD 0 0 0 10 10
    RfD 0 0 0 42 42
    AfD 0 0 0 0 0

    Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

    Report
    Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (31 out of 8889 total) (Purge)
    Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
    PTI do-or-die protest 2024-11-28 18:50 2025-02-28 18:50 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBIPA ToBeFree
    List of genocides committed by the United States 2024-11-28 18:26 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:A/I/PIA, WP:AMPOL ToBeFree
    Hans (clan) 2024-11-28 02:15 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case
    IDF Spokesperson's Unit 2024-11-27 22:32 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: my bad Ymblanter
    Draft:Laxminarayan Maharana 2024-11-27 19:31 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated, socking, spamming DoubleGrazing
    Aras War 2024-11-27 19:25 indefinite create General sanction enforcement for Armenia–Azerbaijan conflict topic area Tamzin
    Blake Snell 2024-11-27 18:08 2024-11-30 04:40 edit,move Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content: Autoconfirmed editors continue to add an unconfirmed contract Muboshgu
    Template:Jsub 2024-11-27 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2510 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Template:Year category name 2024-11-27 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2500 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Template:AFL Haw 2024-11-27 18:00 indefinite edit High-risk template or module: 2515 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    2024 Israel–Hezbollah ceasefire agreement 2024-11-27 13:21 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C
    Draft:Utkarsh Gupta 2024-11-27 12:39 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated UtherSRG
    Utkarsh Gupta 2024-11-27 12:39 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated UtherSRG
    Tomer Bar 2024-11-27 02:17 indefinite edit,move WP:PIA DatGuy
    Sarah Toscano 2024-11-27 01:21 2025-05-27 01:21 move Move warring against RM Red-tailed hawk
    Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion 2024-11-26 23:30 indefinite edit Restoring protection by HJ Mitchell: Contentious topic restriction Protection Helper Bot
    User talk:114.129.250.118 2024-11-26 22:06 2024-12-03 22:06 move Inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked ScottishFinnishRadish
    Za'atar 2024-11-26 21:09 2025-11-26 21:09 edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato
    Israeli generals' plan 2024-11-26 21:07 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato
    Shiva 2024-11-26 16:25 2025-11-26 16:25 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: requested at WP:RFPP Favonian
    User talk:31.163.172.36 2024-11-26 15:12 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector
    User talk:115.23.250.36 2024-11-26 13:12 2025-11-26 13:12 create HJ Mitchell
    Dheerendra Singram 2024-11-26 11:14 2025-02-26 11:14 create Repeatedly recreated, PP (EC) 3mos DoubleGrazing
    Palestine exception 2024-11-25 23:22 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade
    2024 Basta airstrikes 2024-11-25 19:47 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato
    Deif family killings 2024-11-25 19:43 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato
    Oyo Empire 2024-11-24 22:14 2024-12-24 22:14 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Fathoms Below
    ADA vbe EBEN 2024-11-24 22:09 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Fathoms Below
    Ọranyan 2024-11-24 21:38 2024-12-15 21:38 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: per request at RFPP; going longer this time Daniel Case
    Israel Katz 2024-11-24 21:24 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Kerem Shalom aid convoy looting 2024-11-24 20:40 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato

    Massive off-wiki campaign aimed at disrupting Wikipedia

    I noticed this Turkish-language Reddit link.[1]. It seems a massive off-wiki campaign has been initiated by Turkish-language speakers to create more disruption in the cesspool known as WP:AA2 and WP:KURDS. As the posts/comments were in Turkish, they were translated using Google tranlate:

    • "The first spark was ignited in order to correct and organize the unfounded claims we have seen on Wikipedia recently. r/turkviki was established. Let's get organized from there."[2]
    • "Friends, this subreddit was founded on the termination of unfounded claims made on Wikipedia. Our aim is to put an end to the unfounded allegations made on Wikipedia, the propaganda activities targeting our country and nation, to express the truth and correct the mistakes."[3]
    • "we need a larger audience, salaried employees of wikipedia, and I don't know how effective we can be against the current Turkish hatred"[4]
    • "Turkish Wikipedia Community Discord server. Friends, I left the link below if you would like to join the works that started before us."[5]
    • "Friends, let's start with the liberation war first and let there be a spark of salvation for us from the lies in Wikipedia."[6]
    • "First of all, we must explain why this claim [Armenian genocide] is not true. For example, instead of the 1.5 million people they said, there were actually 1.1 million Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire. There is no article about genocide against Armenians in the Treaty of Mudros Sevres or Lausanne. Until 1948, the United Nations and the League of Nations before it never defined a crime called genocide, and if you eat pizza and eat pizza in the future is a war crime, they cannot hold you guilty for what you did in the past. You can write that the deportation was carried out by the Union and Terraki and that the remaining Unionists completely severed their ties with the party at the Sivas congress, and the Parliament was against what the Committee of Union and Terraki did. In addition, we must reveal the evils committed by Armenians in the public opinion, instead of the crimes they have committed, the terrorist attacks of ASALA in Europe will be the best examples."[7]
    • "Ottoman archives of the period are available on this site: Devletarsivleri.gov.tr (<cant post the entire link due to blockquote error>) It is enough for someone to translate it into Turkish for us to understand. then we edit the page on the wiki."[8]
    • "The first thing that needs to be changed is the name. Then we will add the villages and towns burned by the Armenians. The number of people killed by Armenians is not specified. We should add them too. Let's diversify the missing parts as comments. Good luck with."[9]
    • "A patrol is here! hello, i am zemxer from turkish wikipedia. As I'm on patrol on Turkish Wikipedia, I try to help new users as much as possible. You know, there is an approval system for the contributions made in Turkish Wikipedia, and I am one of the patrol friends who approve these contributions. I can help users and groups who want to contribute to Wikipedia and who want to make these contributions in an impartial framework. good wikis"[10]

    So this group of people 1) clearly state their intention to spread Turkish government propaganda at Eng.Wikipedia disproven by the rest of the world 2) They receive support from users at the Turkish Wikipedia. Posting it here at AN as suggested by several administrators. You might be interested in this: @Rosguill: @Buidhe: @Bbb23: @Seraphimblade: @Black Kite: @Deepfriedokra: @Johnuniq: @HistoryofIran: @Dennis Brown: @Drmies: @El C: @Khirurg: @Kansas Bear: @Cplakidas: ‎- LouisAragon (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Noting this is still ongoing, see Vahakn Dadrian and its abuse log. DatGuyTalkContribs 15:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The discord server

    When looking at the members of their discord, I noticed a person named "Berk". He has a portrait of Ulugh Beg as his discord profile picture, the very same added by one of our own Wikipedians, BerkBerk68, here [11]. In other words, they must be the same person. BerkBerk seems to have a prominent role there, as he has published the rules of the discord. This is not the first time user:BerkBerk has participated in off-wiki canvassing through Discord, see for example these two posts back in July 2021, where user:BerkBerk tried to recruit an admin to his "14 people" discord, which was apparently focused on editing the Syrian Civil War and 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War. [12]-[13]- LouisAragon (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Note the date 27-06-2022 at Discord:[14] Seems there's a triad involving editors at the Turkish wiki, off-wiki people, and editors at Eng.Wiki. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @LouisAragon, this report may have all kinds of merit, but doesn't the "The discord server" bit inch into WP:OUTING? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Berk#2835 is me, and that community has permission from authorities of Turkish Wikipedia, and it is not interested in English Wikipedia editing. Many experienced/authorized Turkish-language editors are in that group, furthermore I am not the owner of that server. I undertake all the mistakes done by me at "discord" one year ago. BerkBerk68 13:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why am I not surprised to see you engaging in this kind of stuff again. Not interested in English Wikipedia editing? What is this you have written under Planlama ("Planning") then? Google Translate "Users will be divided into 2 main sectors as English and Turkish Writers. It is obligatory to make a total of 100 edits, 60 from one sector and 40 from another sector, on behalf of users who want to participate in both. When the new week is started, the number of edits between sectors (60-40) may change." I did write a similar report about BerkBerk to ArbCom sometime ago, though I am still awaiting an update. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I invite administrators to the discord server to prove that there is not any single edit provoked by me in english wikipedia, everything asked will be translated by me, and for any kind of distrust, access to server logs (+ProBot for deleted messages) will be given. BerkBerk68 13:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discord link here just got deleted [15] (including the user who posted it) and the discord is now gone. Something you and co. trying to hide? Fortunately I took pictures of BerkBerk's "Planning" list before hand. Would it violate WP:OUTING to post it here? --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    that text is not written by me, the person who writed it wanted me to post it (I understand the reason now), the planning list is already posted and I have opposed the things going on reddit on that server aswell. BerkBerk68 13:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Kutlug Şad — 13.10.2022 O zaman r/Turkviki başlı başına canlı kuklacılık ("Then r/Turkviki is completely meatpuppet") Berk (me) — 13.10.2022 Öyle zaten ("it is, already") Kutlug Şad also posts a screenshot showing him posting a nationalistic comment, calling reddit users to the discord and asks me about it, I told him "don't". BerkBerk68 13:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    again, all logs and messages will be opened for Administrators. I have never motivated anyone to make any edits on English Wikipedia on that server. BerkBerk68 13:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So.. you wrote for the sake of someone else? Honestly, your excuses bore me. Prepare to make more, as this is not even scrapping the barrel. As I said, I also have that huge ArbCom report of you. Not to mention you have been called out for nationalistic editing or similiar by other users than me. Let's not forget my previous ANI report of you either. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have found messages of the owner sending me the text in order to publish it on server at 27.06.2022. since "discord screenshots" can't be used here, I will post it when its necessary. BerkBerk68 16:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly urge you (both) to only send any personal data like that to ArbCom — posting screenshots/text or anything that someone could argue is personal data will, at the very least, cause drama. The back and forth here is unlikely to resolve the issue, given that it appears to depend on this private evidence. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 17:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    its not just me, but also another experienced editor pings 2 other editors including me, asking if that would be "meatpuppet". and I respond: "it would absolutely be called that because it is". messages at 13.10.2022 proves that I am blaming that subreddit. BerkBerk68 13:50, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @HistoryofIran Per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 169#Discord logs Posting discord logs on wiki is oversightable. Email them to arbcom. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. The issue is that it (respectfully) takes too long if I message ArbCom. They still haven't updated me regarding the ArbCom report of Berkberk, which I sent two months ago. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @HistoryofIran: If you believe there's action that ArbCom can take, I'd suggest starting a case request — just ensure you keep the right side of WP:OUTING etc, and (re-)email the committee the private evidence — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 18:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on the evidence already provided in this thread regarding how this Discord group has been advertised and coordinated on Reddit, specifically taking issue with content on en.wiki, I don't buy the claim that this is unrelated to en.wiki editing. Frankly, the rhetoric surrounding this group online is WP:RGW and vitriolic enough that I would have serious concerns about them even operating as a group on tr.wiki; there may be a case for starting a discussion on Metawiki. signed, Rosguill talk 16:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You are openly invited to the aforementioned group to see the proofs of my opposition on the subreddit. messages there are clearly showing that individuals wanted to support the subreddit and to invite reddit users while experienced editors including me opposed that. it would also prove the fact that I have never encouraged/supported anyone to edit on english wikipedia. BerkBerk68 18:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Could you more clearly explain what the purpose of this Discord group is? Setting aside your specific participation, what is the purpose of the group, and why has it been promoted on reddit forums in the highly combative manner detailed by LouisAragon in the first part of this discussion? signed, Rosguill talk 22:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The fact that both the Discord and Reddit sub-forum are now private makes BerkBerk's claim even less believable. I also still have that screenshot of his "Planning" message if an admin is interested. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually, according to this post from 9 days ago, the privating the subreddit was something planned in advance, so. That's on me. ~StyyxTalk? 23:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah, glad to see. Some users think that I am managing a whole reddit group despite I have opposed that group days ago. BerkBerk68 15:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      promotions were made by different users and multiple experienced users including me thought that it would be meatpuppetry and opposed that (as it could be seen on the server messages including the meatpuppet expression). The general thought of the community is that Turkish community on Wikipedia have been regressed a lot due to the disgusting decision of Turkish government on blocking Wikipedia, and therefore source interpretation has changed a lot, which I totally agree with that. BerkBerk68 15:27, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Turkish community on Wikipedia have been regressed a lot due to the disgusting decision of Turkish government on blocking Wikipedia, and therefore source interpretation has changed a lot, which I totally agree with that, this does not allay concerns that the discord is operating as a POV-pushing platform. Additionally, your position in this thread is that there is a subset of people involved with the discord that have been publicizing it improperly, against your advice and against the intent of the server in the first place, would be a lot more convincing if you identified the black-hat editors misusing the discord so that we could investigate and address their malfeasance. signed, Rosguill talk 15:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      ofcourse, the user that I have warned about this situation is Kutlug Şad as I explained above. BerkBerk68 16:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    There's some POV editing happening right now at Karapapakhs, who were renamed to "Karapapakhs Turks" by some IPs and a new account. Drmies (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Have seen a large increase in dubious editing on Turkic history-related articles recently. I asked for a sockpuppet investigation into one because I thought edits were too similar. However, accounts coordinating off-wiki could very possibly be another solution. ~~ AirshipJ29 (talk) 00:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Two brand new users are currently engaging in POV editing at Seljuk Empire, attempting to remove 7k sourced information through edit warring. This is not good. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aaand r/Turkviki has been made private by its moderators. ~StyyxTalk? 17:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • My screenshot of BerkBerk's "Planning" comment also shows a certain user (who has the role of "Yönetici", meaning "Executive"), that is User:Beyoglou. A notorious xenophobic pan-nationalist and sock (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Beyoglou/Archive), whom BerkBerk has claimed that he has "no relation to" [16] and has tried to defend [17]. Yet they are in the same discord, curious. Not to mention some of Beyoglou's socks have come to the aid of BerkBerk several times. Again, I have all kinds of proof to back this up, but WP:OUTING is not making this easy. I would prefer to send this to an admin who would be willing to make a quick judgement of this, rather than ArbCom. Though if I have no choice, I will send it to the latter. This connects rather too well with my current ArbCom report of BerkBerk. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:12, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Individual administrators aren't allowed to act on non-public evidence. It has to be ArbCom for something like this. – Joe (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks, I have sent it all to ArbCom and asked them about an update regarding my other report. However, I do think some sort of action or actions needs to be taken here, as this is very concerning. We can't just sit idle. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've gone ahead and blocked BerkBerk68. If y'all have a clue as to other editors I should block based on this matter, ping me. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:31, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Was that an action based on private evidence (as you mention on the user's talk page) provided to ArbCom? If so, we can assume this was a block made in your capacity as an arbitrator (given that you wouldn't have access to that private evidence were you not one), and not a "standard functionary" — correct? — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 20:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @TheresNoTime Ya know, that is a good question. I'm not 100% sure of that answer? I don't think it can be a block in my capacity as an Arb, because individual Arbs can't place blocks. An ArbCom block is by its nature a block by the committee and we only place them after a vote. So I think it must be a block in my capacity as an individual func. I asked that question of another Arb before I blocked, since I too wondered that, and they were also of the opinion that I could use the info ArbCom had been emailed to make an individual block. We do that from time to time with other matters: we get emailed something that really doesn't need the whole committee to waste its time on it, so one of us will just do it as an individual admin action. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:15, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      An individual admin action based on private evidence that no other admin/functionary (other than those on the committee) can verify/review? Doesn't that sound incredibly close to a recent discussion.. perhaps the community needs to be consulted on if they're happy for these actions to take place. I'm certainly not, and would expect our arbs to use a bit of common sense. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I read that RfC as saying that individual admins couldn't make those blocks, but individual CU/OS could, or of course ArbCom. So unless I've misinterpreted that RfC, I don't see how taking the action as an individual CU is an issue? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I thought the whole point with allowing that was private evidence was available for review by those with relevant access (i.e., all functionaries can review the private evidence which led to an action being taken)? Seeing as all functionaries are unable to review this evidence, and this wasn't an action by an arbitrator, all I can see is that you've decided to make a block based off of this thread. Perhaps that's warranted, I don't particularly care, but I definitely do care about ArbCom making somewhat secret decisions but enacting them in their private capacity. Whom do we hold accountable, the committee or the arb? How can we review an unblock request in this case? Do we contact the committee, or you? Why didn't ArbCom forward this evidence to the checkuser list when it decided it as an entity didn't want to do anything with it? These are worrying questions, and the community deserves transparency in how often this happens. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    While I see your concern, I'm not sure it's a major issue. Let's say that someone emails ArbCom an UpWork profile and says "so and so is a paid editor." Technically it's private evidence. But it would not be worth the time of the committee for all 15 members to deliberate and vote on blocking an obvious paid editor. So an individual Arb can just block said obvious paid editor without needing to make it an ArbCom block. It would be no different if say someone had emailed just me, and not ArbCom. In either case, the block I make is as an individual CU. The appeal is not difficult: the CU looking into unblocking just emails the blocking CU (pretty standard procedure) and asks what the basis for the block was. The blocking CU sends over the UpWork profile, and all is well. This case here is but a variation on that theme. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I disagree, so have opened a dedicated thread below. Thanks. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, CaptainEek. I will soon make a (probably unpopular) proposal here on how we can deal with this massive off-Wiki campaign, I would appreciate to hear what you all think of it. We shouldn't take this matter lightly one bit imo. Before the Reddit got private, there were like 400 members. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • :"I believe this all goes back to the current massive off-wiki campaign aimed at disrupting Wikipedia, which Beyoglou plays a leading part in."
      There is a massive witchhunt going against a lot of person has nothing to do with our so called "massive discord group". I don't even know any of the banned user excluding my sockpuppet "Crasyy". But as I said they try to accuse all vandals and newcomers on Turkish-topics of being meat puppet and related to our "pan-nationalist" group and block them. It's a concerning situation when it comes to newcomer users who try to edit Turkey related topics. when some of the users that making witch hunt against us notice these newcomers, will try to ban them with accusation of relating to us. Is creating Wikipedia-related community and editing Wikipedia illegal according to policies? Absouletly not. But when it comes to some idiotic teenagers in reddit that has nothing related to us, they made our discord group "Pan-Nationalistic", "Xenophobic". 95.70.214.41 (talk) 14:19, 10 November 2022 (UTC) [reply]
      For example under this comment a user named "Nyhtar" says "They are even disrupting article not related to WP:KURDS". A random vandal changes "Russian" with Kurdish and accused to be in one of these groups.
      @TheresNoTime:
      @CaptainEek: and other users who involved. 95.70.214.41 (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Beyoglou[reply]

    Proposal

    As LouisAragon rightly put it, the WP:AA2 and WP:KURDS is a cesspool, and it's not going to get better anytime soon, especially with these massive off-wiki campaigns. In my 10 years on this site, the vast majority of IPs and brand new users in this area have been WP:NOTHERE, often ending up getting indeffed for pov editing and/or egregious attacks. It's also too easy for these troublemakers to sock nowadays, it's almost laughable. For example, see this long SPI archive [18] of the notorious sock Aydın memmedov2000, which doesn't even show all of their socks, there are even more of this person here [19]. Sadly that's just one of many cases. It would alleviate so much time and stress on Wikipedia if we implemented at least some sort of restriction in this area. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:30, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I concur with HistoryofIran that there are too many LTAs in WP:AA2 (I can't speak for WP:KURDS) and that something needs to be done to address this. Aside from the LTA HistoryofIran mentioned above, there are 2 additional LTAs (1 & 2) whose socks I must report at least once or twice each month. It's extremely rare for a new account or IP in AA2 to make a helpful edit; instead, 99% of the time, they only do so to vandalise or promote a POV. I think the requirement of 500 edits and 30 days (which could possibly be lowered to 200-300 edits and 15 days) is a good idea to address this problem, so I support it. — Golden call me maybe? 10:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Take a look at this edit I reverted just now. They're even disrupting article not related to WP:KURDS. Let's at least ECP articles directly related to that topic area. — Nythar (💬-🎃) 22:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If anyone needs further evidence, check out the 8 9 10 reverts by an IP at the Orontid dynasty. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, so it's more or less the same as my proposal, but also takes cares of other details related to it. Thanks, I have slightly reworded my proposal. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, this is a good idea considering what I've seen when patrolling vandalism. LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 23:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, Disruptive IPs and socks are becoming a big nuisance for the AA2 area, with experienced editors spending significant time protecting the articles from the never-ending flow of IPs, socks, and new accounts, when they could be spending it more efficiently. Yes, it will affect new editors who have good intentions, however, I believe it is better for them if they do not begin their editing in intense editing areas such as AA2. So, I fully support proposed initiative. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 06:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, but only for ethnic or political topics in this area. Under the current scope of AA2, an article about an Armenian railroad would be covered by the sanctions, but ECP would be counterproductive unless the railroad has a significant role in an ethnic conflict, or a non-ECP user has repeatedly added ethnic fanaticism to the article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Appeal my topic ban from BLPs

    I was topic banned from BLPs. I would like to be un-topic-banned. I completely admit that some of my edits on/about 25 September 2021‎ to Kendall Clements, Garth Cooper, Michael Corballis, Douglas Elliffe, Robert Nola, Elizabeth Rata, and John Werry were unbalanced, cut-and-paste edits; bad encyclopedia-writing up and down. They were made in the heat of the moment and I should not have made them. They will not be repeated should I be unbanned. In the meantime I've:

    1. made a mistake
    2. made a couple of thousand edits (link slow to open due to age of my account and the number of edits)
    3. recieved a (procedural) NPP barnstar (another one, maybe two, likely see Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Backlog_drives/October_2022)
    4. seen some drama on meta (since en.wiki is the only WMF wiki I'm really active on, I'm assuming this was related to something on en.wiki)
    5. had an en.wiki BLP I largely wrote nominated for Translation of the Week on meta
    6. had a pretty good record of PRODs
    7. since it was mentioned at the original ANI thread, I've also used an alt.
    8. been contacted off-wiki about Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ronald_R._Fieve by someone who appeared to think this was relavent. I don't think it's relavent, but I'm including here for completeness.

    Please be aware that there a technical reasons why old twitter content cannot be deleted (only the first 3,200 tweets of each account are accessible via API); all/almost all of my remaining tweets fall into this category.

    In addition to my topic ban being lifted, I request that someone fix the copyright issues with Listener letter on science controversy. The initial version of this contains text lifted from one of the above-mentioned BLPs without declaring the source of the copyrighted text. Due to the close link to the previous issues I should probably not touch that right out of the gate. TBH, I'm not sure how that gets fixed either. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Stuartyeates: I posted an edit summary to note the copying within Wikipedia, per the instructions at §Repairing insufficient attribution. I think that what you meant is that this copying happened without such a note—more of a licensing than a copyright issue—but if there are also issues with insufficient attribution to copyrighted source, I think you could (cautiously) be more specific without breaking the spirit of the TBAN. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Firefangledfeathers. I think your edit covers my concerns. I'm unaware of any further issues. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm leary to extend grace in this case; your allocution above seems to focus on the more technical violations involving copy-paste issues; but completely ignore the meat of nearly every person who supported your ban which was that these were essentially attack pages. It's not just "unbalanced" or "bad encyclopedia writing"; your whole request seems to be of the "mistakes were made" type. You edited Wikipedia articles specifically to disparage and attack real living people. You wrote things in Wikipedia to maliciously damage the reputation of several people. That's a far worse behavior than being "unbalanced" or "bad encyclopedia writing". --Jayron32 15:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am in general agreement with Jayron32 on this matter. In order to support removing the topic ban, I would expect a much more frank addressing of the indisputable fact that Stuartyeates created a bunch of non-neutral, poorly written BLPs for the purpose of besmirching living people who took the other side in an academic controversy than Stuartyeates's personal opinion. And then he gloated and bragged about his BLP violations off-Wikipedia, bringing this encyclopedia into disrepute. As one editor said in April, weaponzing Wikipedia to attack opponents who are living people in a misguided attempt to "right great wrongs" is a truly egregious violation that requires a much more detailed and much more "on point" self-reflection before I could support lifting the topic ban. Cullen328 (talk) 06:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Jayron and Cullen have already said everything I would have said about this appeal - no need for me to repeat. Begoon 11:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adding, as perhaps a still outstanding issue: At the previous discussion I remarked: "Back on topic, and I think this was mentioned above, the User:Stuartyeates user page says: "Disclaimer: I own multiple Wikipedia accounts in a manner permitted by policy." Obviously those accounts are subject to the same topic ban, since it is the person, rather than a specific account, to whom the ban applies. I don't immediately see where/if Stuart names the 'multiple' accounts, though...". Stuart confirms the use of "an alt" above. If the topic ban is maintained then unless any other "alt"(s) is/are linked then I'm not sure how these "multiple Wikipedia accounts" can be monitored for compliance. Unless, of course, "an alt" means, or is supposed to be taken to mean that it is the only one... Begoon 14:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have this account. I have User:Not your siblings' deletionist. I have one other recently-active account, I have sent an email to AC about, as per WP:ALTACCN. I have a bunch of inactive accounts like, User:StuartYeates (last edit 2011), User:Stuartyeates (code test) (last edit 2014), User:Stuartyeates_randombot (last edit 2014), and probably others I've forgotten the names of. I have no other recently-active accounts. I am 100% aware that my TBAN applies to all of these and believe my only breach has been the one listed above which was dealt with proactively. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not convinced. The BLP violations and off-wiki behaviour that led to the ban were egregious, which the appeal does not really address. Stuartyeates has not sufficiently explained what kind of BLP material they would edit after the ban is lifted or how they would avoid repeating their mistakes. Politrukki (talk) 16:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • (non-admin comment) At the time, I argued for leniency, not because I thought Stuartyeates' edits were justified, but because the bad behavior was highly focused on a singular event, and a blanket ban from all BLPs seemed both disproportionate and punitive. I am not sure how to phrase a narrower interdict (a ban from editing BLPs on scholars and academics? from living New Zealand academics or anybody to with the controversy, broadly construed?, as a couple people suggested at ANI?), but I continue to think that a response along those lines would be more proportionate to the offense. XOR'easter (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Many/most of my edits post-TBAN have been assigning new/orphan articles to wikiprojects, which are talk namespace edits. Narrowing the interdict to only apply to article space would allow me to do this for BLPs and BLP-like articles which I've had to avoid. Also a much more black-and-white test than 'controversy'. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would "narrowing the topic ban" be seriously considered while the crux of the matter remains unaddressed?
    Above, Cullen said: As one editor said in April, weaponzing Wikipedia to attack opponents who are living people in a misguided attempt to "right great wrongs" is a truly egregious violation that requires a much more detailed and much more "on point" self-reflection before I could support lifting the topic ban.
    Do you disagree with that assessment?
    I don't. Begoon 12:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose I do. That is, I've read Stuartyeates' statements then and now, and my honest take on the matter is that they know what they did wrong. I don't need to see further paragraphs of repenting in sackcloth and ashes to be convinced of that. XOR'easter (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It has been pointed out to me off-wiki that it's been six months. I am, however, unable to partake of the WP:Standard offer which doesn't seem to apply to a TBAN, only a site ban or an indefinite block. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Standard Offer is an essay and has no real value except as a vague indicator of the minimum time many editors like to see between appeals or before a first appeal. It has no actual value and no more impact on blocks than on Tbans or anything else. Fram (talk) 08:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Block of Rathfelder

    uninvolved, non-admin close. Notice has served its purpose. No additional discussion in 4 days; portions of block reduced. Buffs (talk) 17:31, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I have just blocked Rathfelder, an editor with over half a million contributions, indefinitely for socking. CU data shows that they have also been editing as Bigwig7, and have repeatedly used that account to back up their main account in discussions. Posting here since I know a lot of people will be surprised to see the block. Girth Summit (blether) 09:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I wish I knew what it was that makes people who seem level-headed do such silly things. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. Well, I've looked at the history and the evidence is clear. Sorry to be losing another prolific category editor, even if he was abrasive. I guess it's one way to be cured of Wikipediholism. – Fayenatic London 12:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Before anyone reports me to the Ombuds, I have not shared the CU evidence with Fayenatic london. The publicly viewable evidence was sufficiently strong for me to run a check; the CU data was obvious and undeniable. I don't want this to be the end of the road for such a prolific editor - it's an indefinite block, but I'll say for the record that it doesn't need to be permanent. If they address why they did this, and make a convincing undertaking not to do it again, I wouldn't stand in the way of an unblock. Girth Summit (blether) 16:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted – I just meant that I had reviewed the editor interaction history, and found it conclusive. Apologies for implying anything else. For the record, I have no objection to Girth Summit's other statements either. – Fayenatic London 16:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No apology needed! Just didn't want any unnecessary dramah... Girth Summit (blether) 16:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC) [reply]
    I wish I knew what it was that makes people who seem level-headed do such silly things. The fact that we view them as level-headed is generally what opens the door for them to do it. The vast majority of fraud is not committed by overtly bad actors, but by people with access and the wherewithal to know how to get away with it. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 00:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. I didn't expect to be shocked when I visited the noticeboard today but here it is. Rathfelder is a long-time editor I've seen around Wikipedia for nearly forever who has done good work here. I also agree with Girth Summit that if Rathfelder addressed why they did this and undertook to not to do it again, it would be reasonable to support an unblock.--SouthernNights (talk) 20:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW, I think I understand how good editors could wind up doing a bad thing like using a sock for support in discussions: An editor is dedicated to improving the encyclopedia, and makes many edits that do so, but they find that at times they are prevented from doing so by objections from other editors. Discussions are held, but the other editors aren't convinced by our editor's arguments, and consensus goes against them. Wikipedia has no mechanism to make certain that the "right" edit is advanced, so our editor starts to feel that having another voice in discussions would help them to win consensus and continue to improve Wikipedia. Probably they know that what they are doing is wrong, that it's against the rules, but improving Wikipedia is the bottom lime, isn't it?, so they keep on doing it. The ends, they feel, justifies the means.
      I have no idea if this is what happened with Rathfelder (and my description is not something which I ever did or would so, I assure everyone, although the thought has certainly crossed my mind), but that's surely one way it could happen. I think that many of us have come across what feels to us like wrongful blockage of good change -- I know I have -- so I have empathy for Rathfelder, and agree with those saying that a full explanation and a undertaking not to do it again should be sufficient for an unblock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rathfelder has certainly made an inordinate number of edits and created and populated an enormous number of categories (100s per month). However many of these categories are ill-conceived, badly named, incorrectly parented, and only partially filled, absorbing the patience and time of other editors at cfd after cfd (see Rathfelder's talk). At least 2 editors have recently called for Rathfelder to be banned from category creation (user:BrownHairedGirl at this cfd (June 22) - "it is long past time for Rathfelder to recuse themself from categorisation or be banned from it for repeatedly demonstrating a severe and disruptive lack of competence" and user:Johnbod at this cfd (Oct 22) - "At the moment I would support a ban on new categories creation").
      My own view is that an indefinite ban for sock-puppetry is draconian, but that unblocking without a general discussion would be far too lenient. I also concur with BHG and Johnbod: Rathfelder should slow down, pay attention to other editors and cfds, do things properly or not at all. (The combination of Rathfelder and Bigwig7 at this cfd is particularly egregious.) Oculi (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Unblock

    I have unblocked Rathfelder. They have accepted a one-account restriction, and TBans from categories, and from XfD discussions. These may be appealed in no less than six months, at this noticeboard. Girth Summit (blether) 00:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Ongoing problems with #CfACP

    Ever since problems were raised three weeks ago with the #CfACP campaign, I've been keeping an eye on the edits of Special:AbuseFilter/1073. To recap, this is a meta initiative with four Wikimedians in residence, to combat climate disinformation. The quality of the edits has been very poor: copyright violations, weird wikilinks (for instance, [[global positioning system|global]]), nonsensical citations (f.i. a dermatology paper to talk about the environment), and additions of unsourced text. Participants barely engage on talk.

    @Jwale2 is coordinating. The participants from the Kenyan part of the project, for which @Cmwaura is the WiR, are responsible for most edits. @Clayoquot has been so kind to offer training, but disruption has continued. Not entirely sure what we do in similar circumstances. @Astinson (WMF) may advice from the WMF side.

    I propose we ask the organisers the following:

    1. Immediately stop recruiting volunteers
    2. Deal with problematic edits themselves. Cmwaura is a new editor herself, so I'm not sure they have the skills to do this.
      1. Monitor edits. Check each for copyright. I have not seen a single comment on participants talk pages from organisers, nor any corrections in main space. Which means volunteers have had to check around 400 edits, most of which require reverting + warning, or fixing.
      2. Inform participants of basic policies on copyright, linking and citations. Ask problematic editors to stop editing unless they have finished training.
    3. Clarify to participants that they will not get compensation for data usage if their edits are unconstructive.

    In addition, I think it would be good if an uninvolved administrator could keep an eye on the abuse filter, and place partial blocks from main space/CIR blocks where appropriate. Many participates continue to disrupt after multiple warnings. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Sending brand new users into a topic area with DS is unwise -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    An experienced editor is needed to guide brand new editors in this area, which we don't seem to have. For a DS topic, it's a relative friendly topic area. The disruption is around generic WP:Competence is required issues, so I think the DS angle is less relevant here. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 13:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is deeply unfair that the (apparently paid) organizers of this project are refusing to engage appropriately. This essentially forces unpaid regular editors into the position of having to scrutinize and correct 400+ problematic edits added by barely-competent participants in another stupid WMF outreach project. This goes double in the area of climate change, where editing usefully may take more scientific understanding than many volunteers have (myself very much included). Frankly I think we should mass-revert anything with this hashtag and block participants if they keep adding rubbish to articles. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking through that edit filter log, here's a summary of the last few edits from that contest, ignoring edits that were just adding images:
    Extended content
     
    Why does the WMF continue to run these "contests" and "campaigns" which do nothing but degrade the encyclopedia and waste editor time? From what I can see, the campaign participants have not responded to any of the concerns other editors have brought up on their talk pages, and nor have they tried to rectify any of those issues. For example, VickyOmondi's talk page is filled with dozens of warnings about copyright which all seem to have been ignored. I get the feeling that under normal circumstances, some of these users might have already been blocked for disruptive editing/WP:CIR/WP:IDHT issues. Thank you Femke for donating your time to help clean up their contributions, but I heavily question why it was made necessary for you to do that in the first place. (edit conflict) Endwise (talk) 09:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Today's edits were inappropriate changes of WP:ENGVAR, and the insertion of citations at random locations; I reverted all. Still no response from the organisers. @Jwale2 was active yesterday.
    Is this type of disruption sufficiently straightforward that I can impose blocks myself, given how involved I am in this topic area? (I prefer somebody else deal with it, not only because I've yet to figure out how blocking works).
    If we do not get a credible route for improvement from the organisers in the next few days, and disruption continues, would it be an idea to disallow these edits with an edit filter? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Given multiple warnings, I'd be inclined to it now. Distinct, I would also (now) contact the WMF grant-giving setup stating the issues being had and that we advise against the provision of any grant to any of the four, until sufficient guarantees of engagement have been carried out. Those receiving grants have a vastly higher obligation to make damn sure those editors they're supposed to be supporting are, and that communications are adequately handled. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite frankly, indef anyone who isn't responding to warnings (especially copyright), until we can get them to communicate. Communication is not optional and we have had way too many of these ridiculous contests creating major issues. Asking nicely hasn't worked, so we need to take more drastic action. It's immensely unfair to those who work in that area to have to deal with this on top of the normal level of bad edits. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Femke lets have a call if that works for you, to further address the situation. Jwale2 (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Jwale2, I don't feel that it's fair of you to expect Femke, as a volunteer editor, to handle this via a phone call. Can you please respond to these concerns onwiki? That's where the damage is being done. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Premeditated Chaos, I am not saying we should have a phone call, I ment we should have a meet-up either online using any of the suitable tools like google meet or zoom, also I am not looking at only @Femke joining, everyone here in the forum can join because of the openness of the community. If that has been agreed a follow-up link will be sent so that we can discuss this.In the mean time you can all watch this video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=196DsSMUfy0. Thanks Jwale2 (talk) 04:19, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Jwale2, If you're wondering what to say, I strongly recommend saying that you will immediately email all the participants of CfACP and ask them to pause editing, and that you also commit to reviewing all of the edits that participants have already made and fixing any damage that they have caused.
    What you're seeing here and on the User Talk pages of various participants is serious warnings from the Wikipedia community. If the problems continue, Wikipedia will take steps to stop the disruption, even if that means banning your project altogether. The only way to avoid that is to stop the disruption yourself. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's see: "Hi, your project for which you are a paid (?) coordinator, is causing tons of problems, can you please help us in cleaning up the mess and reducing the flow of further problematic edits?" "Nah, not really, but you can join me on zoom or watch a 30 minute youtube video instead!". Time for an edit filter to stop the project, and blocks for people persistently adding copyvio's and the like. And in the future, we should be blocking all these initiatives a lot faster once they turn out to be timesinks here.

    I mean, this is the kind of shit this effort produces: an editor changing from one English variant to another, and along the way linking "gangs of professional poachers" to Ganges. Before this, the same article was edited by another CfACP editor, who succeeded in linking poachers to Poachers (film) (twice!) and skirmishes to Skirmisher (amidst a see of overlinking, e.g. linking modern). Fram (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Other edits from yesterday are less a lack of competence and look more like sneaky vandalism or whitewashing: this "typo" correction removed the whole "controversy" section. Perhaps it needed removing, but doing it as "edited typo" with a minor edit indication looks very bad. Fram (talk) 08:58, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I seem to have missed this thread being started, but if there are problematic editors like this they should be blocked, even if only for short periods, until they can demonstrate that editing appropriately is more important than winning a t-shirt in a contest. Primefac (talk) 09:17, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jwale2: Issues concerning Wikipedia are discussed in the open using text comments that everyone can see (we don't meet-up in private calls). Assuming the claims above are correct, the participants must stop immediately or all those involved must be indefinitely blocked. Johnuniq (talk) 09:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnuniq, well noted. Jwale2 (talk) 22:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Spot check, recommendations

    Pardon the new subsection. Uninvolved spot check here. I just opened a list of the 300 most recent edits in the edit filter and clicked the diff for the first time each username popped up (excluding unrelated hashtags). Here are all of them:

    • [20] changing focussing to focusing. Focusing is generally more common, including in Australia (the subject of the article), but focussing isn't wrong. Meh.
    • [21] adding a citation to the official website in the lead. Not in line with best practices for leads or citations, but not particularly damaging, either.
    • [22] adds an organization to a list of organizations. looks good.
    • [23] changing English spelling variation. I don't see, at a glance, if the article uses one in particular, but it's likely unnecessary.
    • [24] adding wikilinks. At least one seems more or less positive; the others are WP:OVERLINK.
    • [25] adds an image to an article on the 2020 East Africa floods, but the image is taken in 2019. it's possible the image could help illustrate issues with drainage/water management in that region, but the context should be clearer. Just "rainy day in bujumbura" isn't particularly useful.
    • [26] adds a citation (to material I think the same user added). Seems like a decent source, added properly.
    • [27] Expands an overview with a statement that's implied in the preceding sentence, though I could see why someone may find it useful to spell it out (i.e. X affects Y, so changes in X affects amount of Y). Not necessary, but not damaging, either.
    • [28] adds a wikilink. Looks appropriate as first instance of that term. It's linked below, but that doesn't make this addition incorrect (the next AWB user will grab it).
    • [29] links first instance of "weather disasters" to natural disaster, which seems pretty reasonable.
    • [30] adding a citation to a section the same user just added. The section is clearly inappropriate in style and tone, and the wikilink is not intuitive. The citation looks reliable enough, but I cannot access it to ensure it's appropriate where cited.
    • [31] adds wikilinks. One looks constructive, one is a redlink (with some formatting trouble), and one is circular.

    On a scale of 1-10 where 10 is extremely constructive, 1 is extremely damaging, and 5 is neither constructive nor damaging, the average of these edits is roughly a 4 in my subjective estimation. That is, they're mostly not so constructive, but not all that damaging.

    That's not good, but I question the urgency to undo all of them en masse, both because the problems are pretty minor, and because this isn't the great big bomb of bad edits that I was expecting from this thread. The combined impact of this campaign and 1lib1ref and WPWP amounts to about 12.5 edits per day over the past few weeks. It looks like about two thirds are this contest, so we're talking about 8-10 less-than-ideal edits per day. That's not nothing, but it doesn't strike me as an emergency.

    That said, participants clearly need more training and guidance, and organizers need to understand a cardinal rule of Wikipedia-related campaigns: volunteer Wikipedians really really really resent feeling like they have to clean up after people who are getting paid/supported. I dare say it's the surest way to turn people against whatever you're working on and make your life hard. The best thing you can do is stay in communication on-wiki, work to fix the existing problems (although some will make it seem like you have to go through all of the edits, making a visible effort to fix things is what most people are really looking for), and, most importantly, explain how you're going to help prevent additional problematic edits through training/dissemination/oversight.

    Just based on these edits (and what other people have mentioned), here are a few best practices to disseminate:

    1. It is of paramount importance that everyone understand the extent to which Wikipedia respects copyright. Failing to summarize material in your own words, leaving it too similar to the source, will get you banned from Wikipedia faster than any of the other issues being raised. This can be a cultural challenge, because copyright rules and best practices vary by country. Wikipedia has to adhere to a strict view as practiced in the US.
    2. When adding wikilinks, click on them to make sure it's the correct page. Only link the first instance a subject is mentioned, and don't add links to subjects that don't exist. Never link a general concept to a specific subject (like from the term "climate change" to an organization with "Climate Change" in its name).
    3. There are multiple variations of English, with different spellings and stylistic conventions. It may be wise to google a term before "fixing" a spelling to see if what you're changing is actually considered valid, too.
    4. If a new user is unsure what they're doing is correct, they can ask first. Ideally, there are people connected to the contest they can ask, but there are also new user resources like the WP:TEAHOUSE (although that, too, is volunteer run, so we must be mindful not to flood it).
    5. I'm sure others may have things to add.

    Feel free to leave a message on my talk page. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    So if the average of these edits is a 4, what is the weighted average? That is you looked at a sample of 300 by 12 different editors. If 100 edits were done by someone who is at an 8 that means something very different than if 100 edits were done by someone who is at a 2. If the larger number of edits is coming from editors lower on the 1-10 rating that suggests a different course of clean-up than if the edits are more evenly distributed among editors or more edits are done by the more competent editors. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:23, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Good question, though I don't have time to calculate that. (and on consideration checking the most recent edit from each person and generalizing the impact is better suited to something like WPWP than this project, since here someone may make a larger edit followed by smaller ones). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If a spotcheck shows that most edits are not really useful (but not actually damaging), and a detailed check shows that inbetween these "meh" edits you have a number of clearly negative ones (copyvio, bad links, ...), then you end up with net negatives. You may "question the urgency to undo all of them en masse", but if your spotcheck has shown anything, it is that nothing much of value is lost by undoing these edits, while the checks of others have shown that actual problems will be removed: and en masse reverts will at the same time save us a lot of work and frustration (as evidenced by Femke's comments). Nothing to lose, lots to win, so why not? Fram (talk) 09:06, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a fair argument from the content perspective. Mass rollback just comes off as a rejection of the project and its contributors, and inevitably catches some constructive edits that shouldn't be reverted. That's a drastic move I'm not ready to support. This is obviously a big project with a big budget that has the potential to do a lot of good. Rejecting it when the negative impact just isn't all that expansive seems like too much. Obviously any bad edits should be reverted, but, you know, let's make sure they're bad. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    For the people who still expect something useful from the paid coordinator Jwale2, see Paid editing disclosure. Refusing to disclose thei paid status, refusing to engage meaningfully with the community here and instead setting up zoom calls, and then failing to show up at the appointed zoom call with an unpaid volunteer without bothering to let them know that they are too busy. The utter disrespect for enwiki while running a campaign which creates lots of issues while providing no benefits for anyone but Jwale should be enough to show them the door. Such parasitic behaviour should be eradicated, not tolerated. Fram (talk) 09:06, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no problem with the Zoom suggestion. Many people consider making the time to connect "in person" (in the sense that Zoom is more personal than enwp communication) is a gesture of good will and friendliness. If I were Jwale2 I'd probably also be looking for someone to meet with to better understand the problems and how to fix them, and just have a conversation removed from the angry clamoring to "eradicate [my] parasitic behavior" (people tend to be less willing to say such things when you're looking at each other, after all). Missing a call when a volunteer agrees to one is pretty bad, though. We all have freakishly busy days sometimes, but there's some catching up to do now. A question, though: what's the breakdown of responsibilities. Each country has a Wikipedian in Residence -- is it them, rather than the coordinator, who is ultimately the one who needs to check edits? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In a Zoom, you get to explain things to one or a few people, and then what? Then these people must relay the responses here? Why would we add an intermediate level to have this discussion, which is about the edits on enwiki? And not with some newbie, but with someone experience enough to become the paid WiR for this? Someone with more than 300 article creations (with 62 of those deleted, a very high ratio of about 1 in 5 articles deleted!). And of course, you are reversing cause and effect; I talk about "parasitic behaviour" just because they want to have the position and the money, but not the consequences, the work, the responsabilities that come with it. To use that as an excuse not to come here is reversing cause and effect. If they wanted "good faith and friendliness", they could have shown perhaps some inclination to take the issues serious (and no, posting a link to a 30 minute youtube movie is not really helping). Jwale2 was made aware of the issues on 19 October, nearly a month ago. Nothing has improved since. Fram (talk) 13:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I just revisited your spotcheck. Your first one was part of a series of 4 edits, which I just reverted. The editor came across "floral and fauna" and instead of correcting it to "flora and fauna", they linked "floral" to Floral (emblem) and added a source for both the words "flora" and "fauna"[32]. That's not a "meh", that's an "ugh", a negative we can do without.

    Your third one[33] may seem useful, until one notices that the same organisation was already included twice in the list... So labeled "looks good" in your list, but I reverted it. Your fourth and fifth ones were already discussed and are both reverted already. The 8th one was already partially reverted, and I reverted it completely as a copyvio[34]. 9th one was already reverted[35]. This one[36] was reverted as well. The few others were mostly meh are at the very best a useful wikilink, but overall this is a clear timesink, a waste of money from the side of the investors and a waste of time of volunteers both those enlisted by the WIRs and those here. Fram (talk) 14:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    As recommendations have already been given, both to individual participants by volunteers and to organisers, and all were basically ignored, that route is not feasible any more. While the conversation has moved from the edit filter, I still think that's the best solution for now to ensure these concerns are no longer ignored. Can somebody set up and edit filter to disallow?
    I don't know who at the WMF is responsible here (@Jwale2/@Cmwaura)? In an unrelated call, I have spoken to somebody who knows the funders well, who will do some enquiries. I afraid my involvement ends here, as an old injury has resurfaced. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tgr has provided some Quarry queries that could be of interest here:

    The latter gives an overall revert rate of 26% for all #CfACP edits. This includes complete manual reverts in addition to automated ones. Edits that are partially reverted, like this one which I partially reverted in this edit and this edit are not included. The second query gives us a list of users whose contributions should be individually checked, preferably by people who are part of the Code for Africa project. There are definitely edits with the hashtag that still need to be reverted (again, preferably by people responsible for the project) but unfortunately it's too late to do some of them automatically. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Finance stuff

    I'm just going to leave this here: One of the sources of funding for this project is a USD $95,000 grant from the Poynter Institute.[37] I have asked Jwale2 to make a paid editing disclosure; people might be interested in the reply here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jwale2#Paid_editing_disclosure . Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:45, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This is getting ridiculous. If anyone should be getting paid, it should be those such as Clayoquot who are cleaning up this mess and have tried to resolve this without shutting down the campaign. If it were up to me, I'd hand Jwale2 an indef right now for UPE. Looking at Jwale2's history here, I am flabbergasted that anyone though putting them in charge of an editing campaign was a good idea; they have no clue about how policies work here. Their response to a copyright warning from Diannaa was to, and I'm not making this up, invited her to a podcast interview. Creations that end up deleted as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Filling Station In Ghana give me no confidence either.
    Editors far more skilled and polite than I have tried their best to resolve this. As Femke says above, they've been stonewalled. All that leaves us with is an edit filter and/or blocking the participants. One or both should be done in all due haste. This is a tremendous waste of volunteer time and we shouldn't have to deal with it anymore. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Pausing editing

    I just got an email from Cmwaura that she asked me to share here as she doesn't have a good Internet connection today. SHe has told the Kenyan editors editing climate change articles to stop editing for now. Cmwaura is the WiR for the Kenyan volunteers in the project. I am not sure if her message will get to the other countries, but this should dry up most of the stream of bad edits. She also shared details of how she is arranging for more training for herself and others. Best, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:26, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The Edit Filter log has been quiet for the past 24 hours. I hope it stays that way for a while. Femke and I, and maybe other volunteers here, need the rest. Hopefully, the CfACP organizers will use this pause in activity to fully examine what went wrong and address the root causes. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:14, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Need spot-checking for #CfAEP

    Jwale2,who brought us #CfACP, also seems to be the organizer of #CfAEP. I looked at edits to two articles and one of the edits turned a correct factual statement into a factually incorrect one.[38] Hooray for misinformation-fighting! Would anyone like to do some further spot-checking? Here's the hashtag search tool. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:28, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    New essay about noticeboards

    Editors and admins here may perhaps be interested in WP:Don't knit beside the guillotine. It addresses some aspects of the wiki-culture at noticeboards, and grew out of a now-archived discussion at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 16#Making ANI less toxic. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a fantastic essay, definitely needed more than ever in this day and age. I will thoroughly ponder its lessons, and will do my best to take them to heart. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well written, Tryptofish! But ... is this your way of telling us that you have a completely unrelated doppelganger who looks just like you? --GRuban (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a far, far better essay than I could ever write... --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a really excellent essay. #Dealing with it is especially good advice. The (thankfully few) times I've been the subject of the ANI mob, I've felt appallingly alone, and wondered why nobody is stepping in to speak reason. But when I see others being subjected to it, I can't even bring myself to read the whole thread, never mind try and de-escalate. We should do better. – Joe (talk) 09:34, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • In our current culture, I don't see mob rule going away any time soon, but we would do well to avoid such behavior. Hyperbole and assumption of nefarious motives is the way people see the world (especially online). I applaud the effort all the same. Buffs (talk) 17:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Much as I like the content of the essay, on the essay's talk-page I commented that the choice of title and historical examples is peculiar, and could cause the essay to be criticized for (unintentional) gender bias. NightHeron (talk) 11:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Self-requested review: Tamzin's blocks of Volunteer Marek

    Involved close I think this has been resolved to everyone's satisfaction. TLDR: Tamzin asked for feedback/review, got it. VM asked to be unblocked, got it. Solid discussion all around; lingering procedural update request remains under Suggestion Buffs (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Brief summary:

    Rationale for p-block
    • VM's edits to Aaron Maté, making the same revert after 27 hours, and then again after 31 hours, while making no other edits to the article, appeared to be deliberate gaming of the community-imposed 1RR on Syrian Civil War articles. VM doesn't seem to dispute that this was deliberate; he just feels he didn't do anything wrong in doing so.
    • Even if this was not a 1RR violation by way of WP:GAMING, it was regular old edit-warring. Repeatedly making the same edit that you know will be reverted is edit-warring. The timeframe does not matter. VM is far from the first person to be blocked for three reverts in under 60 hours. VM also doesn't seem to dispute that he was edit-warring; he just insists that it's okay because he was (he feels) right.
    • Marek's response to that block prompted Newyorkbrad to request he strike an aspersion, which VM obliged.
    • VM's subsequent comments echoed that same aspersion though and were otherwise incivil; while an administrator does not become INVOLVED because a user responds incivilly to their administrative action, I recognized that it was bad optics for me to take action, so I asked NYB to assess whether action was needed.
    • VM then removed that comment with summary Please refrain from posting here again.
    • I restored it with summary this is an inquiry relevant to your ongoing unblock request. if you would like to remove it, you are welcome to remove the full request. you do not get to curate what the reviewing admin sees.
    • VM removed it again with summary feel free to post on NYBrad's talk page. But in the meantime, since you've said "That's all I have to say here unless pinged by a reviewing admin" and since you WEREN'T pinged by anyone, including any reviewing admins, and since this is MY talk page and I don't feel like being threatened by someone who has already made one bad block: please. refrain. from. posting. here. .... ever again (unless pinged by a reviewing admin
    • I siteblocked VM with rationale Community sanction enforcement: Disruptive editing and personal attacks in response to edit-warring p-block on a WP:GS/SCW article. As disruption has occurred on own talkpage, revoking TPA; you are welcome to submit an AN appeal through UTRS.

    Now, to start off: I fucked up. Removing content from your own unblock discussion is more straightforward disruption than personal attacks, and, importantly, much less personalized. And disrupting one's own unblock discussion is routinely grounds for loss of talkpage access. So I thought that the same optics issue involved in taking action over the personal attacks would not appply. Clearly, I was wrong. From my perspective, having already made the decision not to block over the aspersions, the crucial role of the comment removals was clear to me, a but-for cause of the block. But I recognize now that to anyone other than me, this came across not much different than if I'd blocked one step earlier. I also felt there was some time-sensitivity involved, as potentially an admin could come along to review the unblock, be deprived of the information that the blocking administrator felt the blocked party had engaged in personal attacks during the request, and unblock based on imperfect knowledge; in retrospect, this was unlikely, and it would have been better to bring the matter to AN or AN/I promptly.

    I apologize for falling short of the expectation that administrators not give off an appearance of impropriety, and await the community's trouts and admonishments. That leaves us, though, with the question of what to do with the block. I do think my block was justified, and did not violate INVOLVED, but I recognize that it should not have been made by me. So I am opening it up to peer review. I have no objection to any admin restoring TPA, reverting to the p-block, or unblocking outright, if there isn't consensus to maintain the current sanction. Update 14:42, 7 November 2022 (UTC): Reverted to p-block (see below); review still requested as to whether to maintain p-block or unblock outright.

    Courtesy pings: @Red-tailed hawk, Piotrus, GizzyCatBella, Only in death, Zero0000, and Fyunck(click). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 12:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oh, and for admins, noting without comment utrs:65091. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 12:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You think just "trouts and admonishments" are what should happen?
      This was a "respect mah authoritah" block, or lèse-majesté if you prefer.
      Way outside of what the community expects from an admin.
      It leaves me, for one, with absolutely no confidence that you understand how to behave impartially and fairly.
      Yeah - you fucked up... Begoon 12:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Two things -
      1 - Tamzin is a great (in my opinion) but newish administrator and we are all humans, mistakes happen.
      2 - We'll probably see all of those crawling up here because of the editor affected by the block. Just ignore them. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Tamzin, where's the "personal attack" in feel free to post on NYBrad's talk page. But in the meantime, since you've said "That's all I have to say here unless pinged by a reviewing admin" and since you WEREN'T pinged by anyone, including any reviewing admins, and since this is MY talk page and I don't feel like being threatened by someone who has already made one bad block: please. refrain. from. posting. here. .... ever again (unless pinged by a reviewing admin)? Is it saying you made a bad block, or is it saying they feel threatened by your subsequent behaviour? I don't see an "attack" in either thing... Begoon 13:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Begoon: I addressed te matter of the personal attacks in this comment on my talkpage. To answer your direct question, I was not saying there was a personal attack in that edit summary. Looking back, I wish I hadn't mentioned personal attacks in the block rationale at wall. The presence of any personal attacks was merely context for what came next; the block itself was for removing the comment (and, pace BilledMammal, I have never seen OWNTALK interpreted to mean that an editor can pick and choose which comments an unblock reviewer sees, especially those by the blocking admin). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 13:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't seen any editors choose to use the provision in those circumstances, but that doesn't mean they aren't permitted to do so. At the moment, there are four justifications that would permit you to restore the comment, and as far as I can tell none apply here and as a consequence your edits were both WP:EDITWARRING and a violation of WP:OWNTALK. This comment restoration was an understandable mistake, but still a mistake and I believe it would be best to quickly reverse the mistake, as well as the actions that were taken using that mistake as a justification. BilledMammal (talk) 13:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I really do not think it wise to suggest that Tamzin violated WP:OWNTALK here. Users should not be able to remove comments they don't like from their unblock request. OWNTALK (a guideline) yields to WP:OWN (a policy) where the two contradict, and they most certainly do with this section: [User pages] are still part of Wikipedia and must serve its primary purposes; in particular, user talk pages make communication and collaboration among editors easier. These functions must not be hampered by ownership behavior. [emphasis added] If users could remove any negative comments from their unblock requests, that would make editors (or in this case an uninvolved admin) trying to communicate their concerns to unblocking administrators more difficult.
    Tamzin was absolutely in the right to initially restore her comments/questions regarding the unblock (no comment regarding later actions), and it would be a mistake to think WP:OWN does not apply here. VM's interests in maintaining his talk page do not outweigh Wikipedia's regular unblock processes.
    For the record, this comment is meant to solely address the OWNTALK concerns here. I don't have any other comment about Tamzin's behavoir here or elsewhere. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    When someone is asked to not post on another's user talk page, they should do so unless absolutely required to do otherwise. There was no need to restore said comments (or, quite frankly, even make them in the first place). No one is required to keep disparaging remarks on their talk page. Buffs (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buffs: That would completely change the nature of how unblock requests are conducted. You are suggesting that if User A requests an unblock, but User B provides evidence against them (or any other feedback meant for administrators), User A has the authority to remove it because it's "their talk page". That'd be absurd and clear gaming the system.
    You don't actually own your talk page as explicitly stated by WP:OWN. Also, just to be clear, WP:REMOVED makes it pretty clear that there are certain things that shouldn't be removed by users if they're part of wider community processes; the list provided isn't exhaustive. The unblock request process is clearly a part of that process.
    I don't have any opinions on whether Tamzin should've commented there in the first place or not, but I know all users have a right to comment on active unblock requests as a matter of process (per Wikipedia:Blocking policy § Unblock requests). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just commenting to reiterate that you are absolutely right here and the relevant guideline that explicitly prohibits this sort of thing is WP:TPNO which I didn’t see anyone point out. Anyone saying otherwise is wrong. While editors generally have the right to delete comments from their talk page, yes people, it is absolutely prohibited to selectively delete a part of a significant exchange in a way that misrepresents the record of the exchange that occurred. You obviously cannot just suddenly decide to start to delete someone else’s participation from an ongoing conversation which they are party to. And you obviously can’t just appeal a block and choose to delete the blocking admin’s comments about the block or appeal (I’ve never even seen anyone attempt it!)
    Also, just to remind everyone, while “banning” users from your talk page like VM did here is hardly a foreign concept on Wikipedia, it is not a right, it is a specifically-articulated form of tendentious editing. Regardless of everything else, let’s not defend the actual policy violations here. ~Swarm~ {sting} 08:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Tzemin’s comment that I removed was not part of the appeal process. It was made *after* they said “I’m not going to say anything more”. Then they decided to come back to rub it in some more. There was absolutely nothing necessary about it. If they wanted to they could have made the comment on Newyorkbrad’s talk page. It was gratuitous and unnecessary, and provocative, to put it in mildest terms I can. Volunteer Marek 08:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There was an active appeal on your talk page at the time, and the comment was specifically addressed to an admin known to be reviewing it. If the comment was gratuitous and unnecessary, and provocative (a claim I have no opinion about), that still does not mean you were in the right to remove it. Perhaps Tamzin should've posted directly to NYB's talk page (which could've avoided further antagonizing against you - again no opinion there), but two wrongs don't make a right as far as I know. You shouldn't have removed that comment, VM; and this shouldn't be that big of a deal to admit outside the context of the remainder of these events. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you missed "they should do so unless absolutely required to do otherwise". If it is required, then it is required.
    If User A requests an unblock, but User B provides evidence against them (or any other feedback meant for administrators), User A still has the authority to remove that from their talk page. That isn't gaming the system. User B is under no obligation to provide evidence on their talk page when they've been asked to stay off. They can just as easily post that information on their own talk page, an admin's talk page, or AN/ANI (at which point a notification would be appropriate). I don't think WP:REMOVED says what you think it says: "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred...There is no need to keep them on display, and usually users should not be forced to do so."
    "The unblock request process is clearly a part of that process." You're interpreting something that isn't there.
    WP:TE is an essay whose interpretations have "not been thoroughly vetted by the community." I can write an essay supporting literally all of anyone else's behavior (pick someone), but that doesn't mean it carries weight. If you're going to hold people to account based on the not-widely-shared-or-codified opinions, this is going to get really messy really quickly.
    As VM stated, T's comment was well after the appeal process, not part of it. The idea that the blocking admin has an obligation/duty to vocally correct anyone they've blocked and to publicly do so on the User's talk page and the user is obligated to keep it there is absurd in the extreme. Buffs (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (1) The appeal process was still active. This page clearly shows {{unblock}} is active, and the block log makes clear VM was still partially blocked. How anyone can claim the appeal process was over is beyond me.
    (2) REMOVED is written with the idea that comments are normally addressed the user who's talk page they are posted on. Unblock requests are an obvious exception to this since people are going to want to talk to the blocking admin, reviewing admin, etc. Whether certain comments have been read by the blocked user is not relevant when the comments aren't being addressed to them.
    (3) No, User B can not post evidence against User A on their talk page or AN/I, etc. The community discussion about whether to unblock User A is happening on their talk page because (under normal unblock requests) that's the only page they can edit (and why would forking the conversation even be seen as a desirable outcome?). User A can't effectively respond to evidence presented outside of their talk page, so it'd be maddening to allow discussion about them to happen literally anywhere else besides their talk page. If User A is uncomfortable with that, then they either need to (i) appeal to AN/the community directly so this conversation doesn't happen on their talk page despite the fact they won't be able to as effectively respond (also risking a CBAN if their request fails), or (ii) not appeal their sanctions in the first place.
    Before you point out that this was just a PBlock, please consider the fact that policy explity treats the unblocking process for both PBLOCKs and regular blocks as the exact same. The logic may not always apply, but the community decided that was what the case should be. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:57, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (1) "The appeal process was still active" WP:REMOVED states "Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active sitewide block" may not be removed. At this point, this was not declined. Tamzin's remarks after VM's request to leave the user talk page had nothing to do with the unblock, but were remarks about the user's actions AFTER the block.
    (2) you kinda proved point 1 above
    (3) Whether or not someone is blocked doesn't mean you cannot seek another venue for your discussion/further administrative action nor is he obligated to keep material on their talk page that doesn't fall in the realm of the exceptions noted in WP:REMOVAL. Whether it is wise to ask for the blocking Admin to stay off your page is irrelevant.
    (4) I have no idea what you're getting at with the Pblock...I never made any statement about it. Pre-emptively attempting to take apart an argument I didn't make...really odd... Buffs (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s clear you’re one of the users who feels very strongly about this situation but you’re straightforwardly wrong here and obviously you’re one of the main reasons for my comment. Nobody has to listen to me but in spite of the contentious circumstances this part is fairly straightforward and the policy considerations are clear. Do not try to push a narrative that VM did nothing wrong here, they were absolutely not allowed to delete comments that misrepresent a significant exchange (in this case the blocking admin was commenting on further sanctions being warranted) or ban a good faith editor from their talk page just because they’re in an unpleasant dispute. ~Swarm~ {sting} 00:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    obviously you’re one of the main reasons for my comment Me personally? I'm touched. I thought we were supposed to Comment on content, not on the contributor.
    Do not try to push a narrative that VM did nothing wrong here What a wonderful argument! Oh wait...there isn't one here. It's just "don't disagree"
    they were absolutely not allowed to delete comments that misrepresent a significant exchange nothing was misrepresented. It was a comment to another editor and was removed. He didn't refactor the comment. It cleanly/clearly falls within the bounds of WP:REMOVED and you've shown no rationale otherwise.
    ...or ban a good faith editor from their talk page just because they’re in an unpleasant dispute. Again, this is explicitly allowed. "If an editor asks you not to edit their user pages, such requests should, within reason, be respected...[it goes on to state that required notices cannot be banned]"
    You are completely entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is not policy. FWIW, I agreed with you under prior rules (WP:OWN)...and was blocked by an admin. That segment of WP:User Pages was added in response. Buffs (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not have an opinion, I am completely uninterested in this situation. I am just clarifying policy implications that you and others are leaving out of your arguments, because that’s part of my job as an administrator. Beyond that, I have no desire legitimize your attempts to undermine policy considerations just because they don’t line up with your side in a dispute, and I’m not going to become baited into an argument with you. Your repeated insistence that I’m wrong is irrelevant, I’m not trying to convince you, I’m simply documenting this for the record. ~Swarm~ {sting} 23:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not have an opinion, I am completely uninterested in this situation Okaaaaaay...they why are you replying?
    I have no desire legitimize your attempts to undermine policy considerations just because they don’t line up with your side in a dispute I'm not undermining policy. I'm quoting it. In summary, you have yet to actually show how any part of what I stated was incorrect in any way. Effectively, all you've said is a Trumpian "Wrong!" and declared your opinion correct because you're an admin.
    I’m simply documenting this for the record. You don't have to do any of this, but you're continuing anyway...that's pretty much the definition of an argument. Buffs (talk) 04:24, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, ok, I don't see any of those things as "attacks", and, as Brad says below, an admin who has just blocked someone, particularly questionably, is going to need a thicker skin than that before escalating to harsher blocks unilaterally (and I'll go further - should in nearly all circumstances not do so themselves at all). I'm not sure there's really any defence for how you used your tools here, frankly - it seems to me like "how not to admin" 101. Begoon 13:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed Buffs (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Editors are forbidden from removing four types of comments from their talk page; I don't believe any are relevant here, which means WP:OWNTALK applies and Volunteer Marek was permitted to remove the comments.
    In such circumstances, I believe the correct response would have been to make the comment on Newyorkbrad's talk page, rather than edit warring over it and then blocking the editor you were in an edit war with. Without considering the wider dispute, I think the correct response now is to revert the block. BilledMammal (talk) 13:09, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    agreed Buffs (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Tamzin, in the past I've seen you try to deescalate a situation [39]. I think that would have been the proper thing to do here. In this case VM was frustrated by original admin action and got frustrated. Their actions on their talk page may not have been helpful but given the wide latitude people are given with respect to their own talk pages I don't think it crossed any lines nor did it require further actions to protect Wikipedia. Thus I don't think the further escalation was justified and the action taken could certainly be seen by others as "respect mah authoritah" even if that wasn't the intent. Springee (talk) 13:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Newyorkbrad:

    • Volunteer Marek e-mailed me yesterday asking me to comment one way or the other on the page-block. I asked Tamzin for her response first, which she provided, for which I thank her. I view the page-block as being of borderline necessity. As Tamzin acknowledges, VM did not violate the 1RR/24h that was in effect on the page at the time, and if I am reading the chronology correctly, there was an ongoing talkpage discussion. I would not have blocked, even p-blocked, but it's well-known that I am less of a "hawk" on "edit-warring" than many other admins. In any event, even before this escalated, I was not planning to act as the reviewing admin on the page-block, because I was specifically called to the page, and blocked (even partially blocked) users do not get to select their own reviewers; but the page-block has served its purpose and I suggest that if not reversed, it at least be commuted to "time served." The same goes for the other editors who were blocked at the same time.
    • In my view, the full block, while placed in good faith, was unwarranted and should be overturned, whether by Tamzin or by consensus here. Adverse comments by sanctioned users against sanctioning admins are part of the territory. While I'd prefer it to be otherwise, sometimes these comments become personalized, and while I would not have expressed myself as VM did, I don't think he crossed the line into blockworthiness with his comments. (He did, at the outset, strike one comment I thought particularly unnecessary.) As noted above, it can be especially escalatory for an admin who perceives herself as the target of an attack to place the block, except in cases of gross abuse or harassment, and this was not that. I do, however, agree with Tamzin that VM should not have removed comments by the blocking administrator from his talkpage while an unblock request was pending.
    • The removal of VM's talkpage access was unnecessary. I suggest that that be reversed immediately so that VM can comment on-wiki, rather than in an UTRS thread that only some administrators, and no non-admins, can read.
    • One user has suggested bringing this matter before ArbCom. That is not necessary and I hope it will not be pursued.
    • Lastly, while looking into this yesterday, I noticed that many of the unblock requests in CAT:RFU have been pending for weeks or months. We promise blocked users a reasonably prompt review, and should keep that promise, even for blocks with a much lower profile than this one. It would be useful if some admins with some extra time would give attention to those; I will try to do my part in clearing the backlog. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I removed TPA because the disruption was happening on the talkpage itself, so otherwise a siteblock would have seemed purely punitive. But I'm not going to argue on that if even one admin disagrees, so, TPA restored. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 13:14, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have opened a case request at ARBCOM here. That is about Tamzin's poor decision making and use of advanced tools in enforcing that. Not about overturning Marek's block, which this noticeboard is more than capable of doing. What it cannot do is remove tools from an Admin who slaps someone with an escalated block for being annoyed at a particularly poor block to start with. ARBCOM have made it clear over the years removal of tools is their remit and I have no wish to see Tamzin continue with their high-handed approach, and this sort of poor thinking is exactly why they were lucky to pass RFA in the first place.
    As to Marek's block I think it should be lifted ASAP for being poor in the first place, and poor in the escalation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh goodness. One hates to see this. One of the most difficult parts of being an admin is being able to show restraint in the face of comments that could be seen as pointed or escalatory. In light of the essay that Tryptofish posted, I don't want to jump to any sort of conclusions regarding what the next steps are in this scenario. But within the scope of this thread, it's safe to say this was not a good block. It seems that at the very least, some formal apologia is needed in order to avoid an ArbCom case (which I think at this point is a little too aggressive a next step for a relatively new admin).--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree 100% with Newyorkbrad. Both the page block and the site block should be lifted ASAP, ideally by the blocking admin. 28bytes (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The original block could be debated but it was rather mild and not much out of the ordinary. The second block looked too much like a personal response to VM's angry reaction to the first block. When people are blocked, they often react badly but taking this on the chin is in the administrators' job description. In the most severe cases a different admin should step in. VM's removal of a paragraph was improper but didn't prevent the pinged admin from reading it. I would prefer to see the second block lifted. Zerotalk 14:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • FYI, Tamzin has undone the site-wide block. The page block remains, and can/should be discussed here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Okay, it's clear there will be no consensus to maintain the siteblock, so I have reversed that, and have apologized to Marek for overreacting and escalating the situation. I've left the p-block intact, and will leave it to another admin to decide whether to maintain it or unblock outright.
      I do want to say a word on thickness of skin. I get a lot of criticism way worse than this, and shrug it off. Just as I shrugged this off; I took no personal affront, because I learned long ago to disregard those kinds of comments. I don't think I was acting emotionally here. The emotional response would have been to run for the hills, out of knowledge that blocking an experienced user would likely lead to stress. Instead I did what I thought was the right thing, based on facts, not feelings; I just miscalculated badly. Really badly. And I'm sorry for that, and sorry to be taking up volunteer time with this. That's the opposite of what I ever want to do here as an admin and as an editor. I hope people trust that, if this were the kind of mistake I make habitually, it would have come up about a thousand blocks ago. I can assure everyone it's not a mistake I will make again. I thank my peers for their feedback here, and will bow out from here on out unless anyone has any questions. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 14:42, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I do have one question. You say you "miscalculated badly". Can you expand on that? What calculation did you make, and what was its "wrong" result?
      And one more: " I can assure everyone it's not a mistake I will make again". What was the mistake, and what will you do next time instead?
      I'm not trying to flog the horse, really, but the answers to those questions aren't really clear to me yet, sorry, from your perspective...
      I know what I think you did wrong, I'm just not clear on what you think you did... Begoon 14:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Begoon: No, I welcome the questions.
      1. The miscalculation was not realizing that this would come off as retaliatory. As I said in my initial post, in my mind, the removal of the comment was a bright enough line that it differentiated things from if I'd blocked purely over the aspersions. I do genuinely think I would have made the same block if I saw this on some random unblock request without previous involvement. But clearly to anyone else this just looked like me getting my feelings hurt and blocking over it. I should have realized it would look that way.
      2. The mistake is maybe better framed in terms of the lesson learned: If one is having to say (words to the effect of) "I'm not technically INVOLVED", it's probably best to proceed as if one were INVOLVED. (Or more precisely applied to this case, just because no policy outright prohibits an admin from blocking a user who has been criticizing their administrative action, that doesn't mean that it's remotely a good idea.)
      -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks. I think the "optics" were far worse than you seem to understand - in fact I'd much prefer you to be contrite about what you did than how it might look... The fact that your reply above is basically wikilawyering about how you might have conceivably thought it would be ok is quite telling. On the other hand, you did open this section by saying "I fucked up", which is to your credit - I guess I was hoping that meant more that you knew what you did was basically unjustifiable, and an utterly incorrect use of tools, than that you thought it might just be tricky to explain away... Begoon 15:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I am concerned that you don't see this as a violation of WP:INVOLVED. You and VM had a dispute, which included edit warring by both of you, over whether it was permissible for VM to remove your comment. This is clearly a dispute in which [you] have been involved, but you persist in saying I'm not technically INVOLVED. BilledMammal (talk) 09:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Generally dont think the original blocking admin should be the one to respond with escalatory blocks for conduct after the block, leave that to somebody else. And I like VM, but I do agree that the initial sequence was "gaming" (and I note Zero's distaste for that term, but still use it). If you are actively working towards some compromise or resolution or pursuing DR then sure partial reverts may not be gaming, but the 1RR is put in place to not just slow edit-wars but to stop them. If you are repeatedly reverting, without change, you are edit-warring, and if you are doing it just outside the x number of hours then you are gaming. That said, I am sure VM would have taken a hey, this looks like slow-motion edit-warring, can you please pursue DR instead of reverting comment in stride and done exactly that. The block was justified but not necessary, and that being the case means it should have been handled with less forceful means. nableezy - 15:09, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Talking some specifics, the partial block needs to stay. In this talk page section numerous editors pointed out that Mate should not be described as a "conspiracy theorist" in Wikivoice. VM has put that language back in twice now [40], [41]. There clearly is no consensus for this and the continued attempts to reinsert it is disruptive, requiring editors to "burn" their revert. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protecting the page, a notice of 72h 1RR time expansion and eventual warning was a more fitting way. Original blocks (all 3 editors) should be also lifted. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fully protecting the page would have prevented the edit warring, yes, but it would have also prevented the lead from being expanded and rewritten to more closely follow MOS:LEAD and address the SYNTH concerns on the talk page. Full protection should rarely be used, and the use of p-blocks seems more narrowly tailored than full protection towards stopping edit warring if only a limited number of users are actually edit warring. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    P-blocks prevented access to the talk page. That terminated the ongoing discussion among affected editors. A straightforward warning with a request to continue the discussion and reach consensus first, would work much better in my humble opinion. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:08, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it was just a block from editing just the page Aaron Maté. Not Talk:Aaron Maté or any other place where discussion would have continued. nableezy - 20:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it 👍 - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Did affected editors know that they still can edit talk page? I think they didn’t 🤔 ? - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind, they did know. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:23, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tamzin: - do you stand by your statement that this was without a doubt, the most unbecoming conduct I've seen from an experienced user in response to a block? starship.paint (exalt) 15:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    VM's site-block has been reduced to a page-block, his talkpage access has been restored. Tamzin has apologised for her actions as an administrator. There's no need for an Arbcom case. Let's remain calm & move on. I've been around the 'pedia for about 17 years, so trust me. My advice 'here', is the best advice. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    17 years, you say? Well, that's me convinced. Thanks for your deep analysis - it's always a joy to absorb. Begoon 15:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, the perils of p-blocking, I could sing tales of dread and wonder on these. ;) Look, Tamzin, like I said to you last time when you acted too authoritatively by way an intentionally-cryptic public warning — you are moving too fast and loose. It's one thing to study experienced admins, it's another to actually be and act as one. You are still very new. You're did half things right and half wrong here. Credibly, what you did right, the p-block, etc., was done exceptionally well. [Stricken: this was mostly stated about how well WP:GAME was explained. Beyond that, I'm a bit hazy about the overall timeline.] But after that, it's all down hill.
    When you venture into the GS/ACDS topic realm, you're going to run into users that perfected walking the line like a tight rope without ever crossing it in a major way. VM is an exceptionally challenging editor to deal with in that regard. I try not to repeat this too often, because what came to pass came to pass, but to my ever-lasting regret, I was instrumental in arguing before ArbCom for his EE topic ban to be lifted, which came to pass.
    Yet, here he became the victim. VM will usually respond uncivilly and unkindly even to warnings (not to mention sanctions), no matter what. That's something you ought to expect, and not just from him; there's no shortage of users who act that way. But keeping your finger off the trigger when it gets heated, when you feel that heat, that, as alluded to, is the other half where you faltered. So, you really do need to start taking it slower. Temper non-emergency actions against users whom you've sanctioned. As I know you know, it is standard practice to give sanctioned users extra-leeway. The challenge as an admin is to live up to that maxim. Because the fallout when you fail to do that, is this easily-avoidable time sink. El_C 18:03, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur that Tamzin is "moving too fast and loose," as I described here.[42] The ban I previously received from another admin was dubious enough, but Tamzin's subsequent block was reflexively capricious, absolutely without merit, resulting in a permanent black mark on me in the block log. I see absolutely no contrition on Tamzin's part, which only deepens my concerns about Tamzin's suitability to be an admin. soibangla (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Soibangla Your topic ban and resultant block were completely correct and followed policy to the letter. You were given numerous warnings that your talk page comments fell within the boundary of a topic ban and were told to stop commenting - the "black mark" arose entirely due to your own actions. You have already had this explained to you at your talk page, at the talk page of the enforcing administrator [43] and at AN [44] where every single person has pointed out that you have a flawed, incorrect understanding of how discretionary sanctions work. How many times are you going to continue beating this dead horse? How many times do you need the workings of discretionary sanctions explaining to you? Your request to have the log entry removed is completely without merit and would be an example of gross administrative tool misuse - Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Misuse RevisionDelete does not exist to remove "ordinary" offensive comments and incivility, or unwise choices of wording between users, nor to redact block log entries. 192.76.8.87 (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I will not consider the views on this contentious matter from any editor who posts IP. soibangla (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP is absolutely correct. This isn't an opportunity for you to air your grievances or relitigate your block. -- Ponyobons mots 22:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Discriminating against IP views is an uncivil act by definition unless backed by evidence of sockpuppetry/block evasion. Buffs (talk) 22:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Undo P-Block of VM and apply a solid trouting
      From a technical standpoint, Volunteer Marek did not violate WP:1RR as all the edits were outside the 24-hour window. You want to view that as gamesmanship? That's fine, but the justification for this block is flawed at its premise. Now, is this the start of or a continuation of edit warring? Probably, but you didn't make that case. If someone is going 58 in a 60 mph zone, you don't write them a ticket for for speeding "because it was clear what they were trying to do." Buffs (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      This is a flawed analogy. The correct analogy is someone driving 62 in the 60 mph zone knowing nobody would usually bother to write a fine, and if somebody would, they have good lawyers. Ymblanter (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, but why do they have such good lawyers? When I started editing here, an admin warned me: You need to read WP:3rr carefully. It’s not an allowance. Well, I guess the same applies to 1RR. VM is constantly edit warring in the EE area while formally abiding by the 3RR rule: he literally does it all the time. Why doesn't anybody intervene? And the same applies to incivility. El C says VM will usually respond uncivilly and unkindly even to warnings. Ok, but this happens not only when VM deals with admins issuing warnings and blocks, but also and especially with fellow editors and even newcomers. Since no one is paid here to be bullied, I don't understand how this could be allowed to go on for so long. I welcomed the block, although I thought it would have been better applied in response to some of his many intemperances against non-admin users. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I intervened last time and you remember what the result was. Ymblanter (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Even NYB stated "As Tamzin acknowledges, VM did not violate the 1RR/24h that was in effect on the page at the time, and if I am reading the chronology correctly, there was an ongoing talkpage discussion." The "law" wasn't violated. Buffs (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      There was ongoing talk page discussions, which VM was participating in. Which makes the 2nd revert of the “conspiracy theorist” language disruptive, as clearly VM was aware that most editors did not support it in the article. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Then wouldn't a simple warning be sufficient? The threshold for "disruption" is exceedingly low. Buffs (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      3RR and 1RR are both bright-line rules. You cross them and the punishment is clear/crisp/unambiguous. To both of you, no, the analogy is driving 58 in a 60 zone, but what he really should be cited for is reckless driving because the road conditions warrant a slower speed. You want to cite VM or anyone else for 1RR or 3RR, then you better have clear evidence to back it up. Otherwise, you need to provide other evidence of an infraction. What you are describing is incivility and/or edit warring. If he's to be blocked for that, honestly, given the general sentiment, I don't particularly have a problem with it if it's backed up with evidence, but that evidence is not presented here.
      ...in short, this is NOT 1RR or 3RR and VM is following those rules to a "T". Buffs (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd say the gaming description seems quite reasonable. A new account would probably be warned, maybe p-blocked. An experienced editor should know better. I'm not sure what the right way to handle the issue would have been, but I don't think the original p-block was crazy. As long as VM acknowledges that their behavior wasn't great here and they will avoid similar things in the future, I think we're good and the p-block should be removed. Hobit (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Editors - Please learn all the facts before expressing your opinion - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Hey Gizzy, perhaps you should WP:AGF and assume we've all read the history and know the facts. I don't agree with Gitz, but I assume he/she has read the history and relevant criteria. 1RR and 3RR are bright lines. Anything else really falls under edit warring. If the person is edit warring, block them for that, not a violation that didn't happen. Buffs (talk) 22:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Got it 👍 - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually I hadn't missed a single comment and I had followed the drama in real time as the events unfolded, a bowl of popcorn on my lap, so there might be lack of understanding on my part, but no lack of information. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:45, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, Gizzy. Misread the comment. I think we're on the same page here. Buffs (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Assuming the comment from GCB was directed to me: yes, the blocking reason should have been something about a slow edit war and gaming. And yes, I think a warning might have been best as a first stop. But I do think a p-block in this case isn't crazy. Is there some other point that I'm missing? Hobit (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    IMHO the concerns brought up at ARBCOM should instead be raised as a separate thread here. A request for a self-review of a block does not have the scope to deal with the issues raised.North8000 (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Not to belabor the point, but anyone reviewing please look at the page history for the context. Volunteer Marek reverted 5 times in 3 days - (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), all while a talk page discussion was ongoing and had been started on the first day of the edit warring. This is a pretty clear cut 1RR violation that would have probably been handled with stricter sanctions had it been reported at AE. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    No one, and I mean absolutely no one editing that page was aware that there was a 1RR restriction on that article until Tamzin announced it. There was the additional problem of various brand new, fly by nights accounts showing up reverting and removing info left and right (obviously such accounts don’t really care much about 1RR). Volunteer Marek 07:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, a very similar situation to the one on Aaron Mate article is taking place at Mariam Susli AfD (these two persons are linked, they share the same “propaganda space” and both have canvassed users off wiki to edit their Wikipedia pages). There’s some really over the top shenanigans going on over there (and the article) with some very likely coordination and/or sock puppetry from like half a dozen accounts. It’s also Syria related so I’m assuming under 1RR, basically the same kind of POV, but drooling donkey donuts, now I’m all paranoid about engaging and trying to take care of it. Volunteer Marek 08:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And on that note let me point out that having a GS/SCW 1RR restriction on contentious articles such as these *without* a concurrent 500/30 restriction that allows for reverting non auto confirmed accounts is really really really foolish. It’s basically handing over the relevant articles to fly by night throw a2ay accounts who, unlike established editors, don’t care about 1RR because they simply move on to the next account. Why do we never think this stuff through? Just love of making up rules? The “something must be done and this is a something” mentality? Volunteer Marek 08:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No one, and I mean absolutely no one editing that page was aware that there was a 1RR restriction on that article until Tamzin announced it — that's because there wasn't, until Tamzin announced it (on Nov 3, you were pinged). More importantly, in order for WP:1RR to come into effect, an admin must place the required notices (added also on Nov 3): talk page notice, page notice. El_C 09:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, it doesn’t seem like thats what Tamzin thinks [45]: (1RR) which I did not impose, but rather merely noted the existence of; it had rightly been in effect since the article was created. Now I’m even more confused. Is it always in place if it’s Syria related or does it have to be officially “announced” first? How come the admins don’t know this? Volunteer Marek 09:20, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It came into effect once Tamzin imposed it in the manner I described above. Until then, while the WP:SCW sanctions regime was pertinent to that page, it only existed in potential. El_C 09:36, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Volunteer Marek @El C All articles related to the Syrian civil war and ISIL are under a community imposed 1RR restriction, which does not require notice. See WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#1RR: In addition a one revert rule, which does not require notice, with the following specifications is imposed. 192.76.8.87 (talk) 09:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See also the preamble of the remedies section Pages may be tagged with {{SCW&ISIL sanctions}}, and {{Editnotice SCW 1RR}} may be used to indicate that articles are under general sanctions. The presence of these templates is not a prerequisite for issuing sanctions, but editors should be made aware of them prior to being sanctioned. 192.76.8.87 (talk) 09:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) IP, that's the thing with WP:GS rules, they can be especially arcane. With WP:ACDS, across the board these notices are required for enforcing 1RR, etc. Which is why there has been a growing push to subsume GS into DS, so they could be better standardized. And which is why I felt WP:GS/RUSUKR was a step backwards in that regard. But as for WP:SCW, indeed, its page states:
    The presence of these templates is not a prerequisite for issuing sanctions, but editors should be made aware of them prior to being sanctioned. Editors must be notified of discretionary sanctions with the {{subst:Gs/alert|syr}} template (emphasis added).
    So, due to these arcane features, technically, the page notices were not required. But also, technically, the {{subst:Gs/alert|syr}} was, and Tamzin placing it alongside the sanction itself was (technically) inappropriate, as it is meant to alert editors to it [full stop]. In my view, none of that really matters. I presume VM was aware that it was put into effect on Nov 3 when he was pinged. And if he somehow wasn't aware of it until being sanctioned, well, that would be a fuck up (not on VM's part, I miss pings all the time). El_C 10:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @El C Per the GS page, these sanctions are modelled after the Palistine-Israel Arbitration case. The only part of the ARBPIA Sanctions that requires awareness are the discretionary sanctions, [46], the extended confirmed restriction and 1RR rule do not require an editor to be aware to be enforced. This has been clarified in these 2020 clarification requests [47] [48]. Reading the general sanctions page I think the same setup was intended here, the 1RR restriction is applied "In addition" to the general sanctions, rather than as a part of it, and the requirements for user talk page notices doesn't make any sense combined with the statement that the 1RR rule "does not require notice". 192.76.8.87 (talk) 11:04, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As a matter of principle, no editor should ever be sanctioned for violating a restriction unless he or she was reasonably aware of the restriction, using the term "aware" with its common-sense everyday meaning. The only exception would be if the edit would have been improper anyway, even in the absence of the restriction. But this thread is probably not the best place for any further discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    IP, I've moved downstairs because this section is too long, and it's too annoying trying to find this thread within it. El_C 17:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: the situation at Aaron Maté had developed into a shit fight. There was some discussion through edit comments which isn't ideal but does demonstrate editing toward consensus. IMHO somebody needed to call time-out, have editors go to a neutral corner and listen to the ref and start up a real discussion. Wikipedia:Gaming the system would state: "Borderlining" – habitually treading the edge of policy breach .... I don't think a pattern of gaming conduct was reasonably established. Wikipedia:Gaming the system would state: A warning from an administrator is usually the best way to prevent gaming, because a clear warning should help correct both good-faith mistakes and bad-faith games. Nor is it clear that Hobomok has been made DS aware, though I would think that VM probably is. Seven days block does seem somewhat excessive in the first instance. I don't think that these blocks were reasonable or appropriate. Poyani has already been unblocked. So should Hobomok. As to the block applied to VM re civility: nemo iudex in causa sua. VM does need to watch their civility but I think that the circumstances should be considered and significant latitude given. I would agree with the observations of Newyorkbrad (and El_C) in this and that the block should be fully removed. If possible, I would suggest these blocks be erased from the record if possible. To Tamzin, others observe that they are a new admin that has generally shown good judgement. They acknowledge (at least in part) that they fucked up. They are prepared to accept a trouting from the community if that is our decision but IMO a Beluga sturgeon is more in order. Such an admonishment should be noted but I don't think that in itself (this incident) any further action is require in respect to Tamzin. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:15, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The situation at the Mate article has become a shit show for a very simple reason - for the past few months (and maybe even going further to 2021 when apparently there had been some COI looking editing going on) there has been a steady flow of brand new (occasionally sleeper) accounts coming to that article, trying to remove any negative information about the subject no matter how well sourced it is. This of course escalated recently when apparently Mate posted about the article on twitter, effectively encouraging his followers to go edit it along the same lines (remove any negative … etc.) A lot of these accounts have like five or ten edits to their name yet they also possess an uncanny knowledge of esoteric Wikipedia policies (like quoting WP:COATRACK in their first ever edit). They also have absolutely zero compunction about misrepresenting their edits with false edit summaries (like falsely claiming that text sourced to The Guardian is sourced to a “blog” or “LinkedIn”) or following 1RR for that matter. Because for them there’s no consequences to breaking the rules - just make a new account. Volunteer Marek 09:26, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    At the time, the Guardian source presented as a hyperlink "[1]", where ref 1 was to Lidekin. So, unless there was deliberate interference with the citation (I didn't see one), the revert comment was in "good faith". Cinderella157 (talk) 10:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC) [reply]
    I don't think that's true. Initially the ref was not formatted but it did not "present as" or link to LinkEdIn. All you had to do was click it or hover it to see that it was indeed the Guardian. Am I missing something here? By the time I restored it it was properly formatted. Volunteer Marek 16:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    More eyes please

    I have been partially involved in adminning the Aaron Maté page over the past few days although Tamzin has borne most of the burden. Now with them potentially stepping back from the article + ongoing Ukraine war + upcoming US elections + change of ownership at Twitter, the article is likely to receive more outside attention in addition to the ongoing disputes. So can some experienced editors and admins add it to their watchlist, help resolve the current differences, and keep an eye for more flare ups? Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for posting this, Abe. To be clear, this isn't an outright recusal from the article, but an acknowledgment that most heavier-duty admin situations there would probably not benefit from me being the handling admin at this point in time. If it's something like a disruptive SPA or a sock, or an incredibly blatant 1RR violation, I may still take some action. But the last thing a contentious article needs is an admin who will only invite more contentiousness if they make an even slightly controversial block/ban. I'm also around if there's any questions about the scope of the page sanction I imposed, although it should be quite straightforward: same as the regular 1RR, just change "24" to "72". -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)

    Response needed at VM's

    BTW - Would an administrator please respond to VM's unblock request. GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sure thing. Unblocked VM and Poyani, for time served. I don't think they'll be fighting in this article again. I guess I should unblock User:Hobomok for the same reason, though they seem to have quit and I'm not impressed with the enormous amount of bad-faith editing they displayed. I don't know, though. Should I unblock without an unblock request? Does it matter? Drmies (talk) 01:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hobomok unblock? why not. My guess is, he'll un-retire, shortly after. GoodDay (talk) 02:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you remove the DS from the topic area if nobody will bother to enforce it? Get rid of the bureaucratic nonsense that is routinely unfairly enforced. I am bookmarking this thread for the next time an admin tries to tell me about 1RR. It is officially dead. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Upon further consideration - Drmies you don’t have the authority to undo DS admin actions unless certain provisions are met. Looks like we may need an Arb case after all. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh Jesus Christ. Well. Someone redo the sanction, whatever. Or, Mr Ernie, make me party to an Arb case, whatever. And make sure you slap the two now temporarily unblocked editors on the wrist for incorrectly placing unblock templates on their own talk pages. I'm going to read a book. Drmies (talk) 02:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: Unblock as you see appropriate. Let's just end this. /pos -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 03:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) For what it's worth, the block on Poyani appears to be an ordinary edit warring block, not a GS enforcement block. As such, I don't see a reason that Drmies is prevented from unblocking that user in response to the unblock request. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn’t make the rules. In fact I’ve been outspoken that they are stupid. I’ve also been outspoken that they should be enforced uniformly and fairly if they are to be enforced at all. But again, I’m pinging you to be my savior if I revert 5 times in 3 days on a 1RR article. Thanks in advance. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW I believe we can modify AE sanctions with a clear consensus of uninvolved editors on AN (ie, here), so all we need is a quick straw poll (or not even that, if the consensus is obvious.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Can we please all stop repeating the same nonsense? VM didn't "revert 5 times in 3 days on a 1RR article", they reverted 3 times on a standard 3RR article, then 1RR was imposed, and they reverted twice in the next two days. If you want to enfirce rules uniformly and fairly, or if you want to start an ArbCom case, first make sure that you have the facts, which have been explained in this discussion again and again, right.

    Secondly, what's with the "Drmies you don’t have the authority to undo DS admin actions unless certain provisions are met." According to WP:GS/SCW, "Sanctions imposed may be appealed to the imposing administrator or at the appropriate administrators' noticeboard." The blocking admin started a review here, and stated explicitly "I have no objection to any admin restoring TPA, reverting to the p-block, or unblocking outright, if there isn't consensus to maintain the current sanction." So, please enlighten me, what "authority" did Drmies miss to undo the block, which "provisions" weren't met, and what would warrant an ArbCom case? Please don't needlessly and wrongly create additional drama in an already tense situation. Fram (talk) 10:03, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Fram All articles relates to Islamic state and the Syrian civil war are under a community imposed 1RR restriction, which does not require notices to be enforced: WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#1RR. The article was never a "standard 3RR article", it was always under 1RR, it was just that the people editing the article don't seem to have realised that such a restriction existed.
    I completely agree with you about the reversal of the block though, it was brought here for review with the explicit instruction that any administrator could remove it. 192.76.8.87 (talk) 10:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not feel happy, however, about sanctioning an editor for breaking 1RR on an article where there was no notice whatsoever about discretionary sanctions on the talk page (and no mention of them in the 21 talkpage threads that existed before the DS notice was added on 3 November), let alone a 1RR notice. Black Kite (talk) 10:20, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To reiterate what I just stated above, until an editor is made aware of the sanctions regime being in effect, it cannot be enforced. So, if we're following the rules to the letter, as noted: Editors must be notified of discretionary sanctions with the {{subst:Gs/alert|syr}} template (emphasis added). Therefore, technically, only those violations that come after that alert, then become sanctionable (or deemed violations, however you phrase it). El_C 10:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And to reiterate what I said above, you are incorrect. 1RR restrictions passed as a remedy do not require awareness to be enforced, 1RR restrictions placed under discretionary sanctions do. 192.76.8.87 (talk) 11:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Which inevitably leads to the quite reasonable defence by an editor that they could not break a restriction which they were unaware existed, regardless of whether "awareness is required". Black Kite (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That defense is usually not accepted. It happened to me a few weeks ago, and either the reviewing admin didn't look very closely at the details or didn't care. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mr Ernie: I did not see the sanction discussion against you (I haven't been very active lately), but as a matter of principle I uniformly oppose imposing sanctions for any edit where the editor was not reasonably aware of the restriction he or she allegedly violated (unless the edit would obviously be improper in any event). This has been my consistent position for 15 years. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    IP, wrt to there being discretionary sanctions inside Wikipedia:General sanctions and general sanctions inside Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, no one understand any of that (save maybe NYB, above, who is a lawyer). I wouldn't be able to devise a more confusing system if you paid me. And I'm one of the most active admins in that area. But as to the purpose and function of an alert, and in general, the alerts — these are intended to come before a sanction derived from the sanctions regime they alert over, always. They are never meant as mere info packets alongside a sanction message for that same sanctions regime. Imagine the following. An admin sanctions a user in 2022 over, say, WP:AA2 (easy to write), but also attaches {{subst:alert|a-a}} alongside the sanction message. They then tell the sanctioned user something to the effect: I see you haven't been given an alert to this sanctions regime since 2018, so here it is again, to remind you of it. Oh and btw, I'm also sanctioning you on the basis of that sanctions regime that maybe you forgot existed. If so, tough luck for forgetting.

    Beyond that and more concretely, there is a best practice which started with WP:ARBPIA at the enforcement level (not at the arcane committee level) a few years ago, then went on to be applied elsewhere. It goes as follows: barring chronic repeat offenders, sanctions for WP:1RR don't really happen anymore unless the editor in question is first given a chance to self-revert (and if it's too late, they're usually given a break). I'm ballparking here, but this easily ended up reducing the number of blocks for 1RR by, like, 80 percent. And anywhere you'd go: WP:AE, WP:AN3, WP:ANI, WP:RFPP, an admin's talk page — the reporting user would be asked the same thing: did you let the user know that they broke 1RR and ask them to self-revert? So, ultimately, regardless of what all these weird rules of code and code of rules that no one understands actually say, that's how 1RR is enforced in practice. El_C 16:57, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @El C I think I've caused some confusion here regarding the words "alert" and "aware" and their wikispeak meaning vs their normal usage, for which I apologise. The discretionary/general sanctions requirements for talk page notices, edit notices etc (to make someone "aware" of the sanction) only apply to discretionary/general sanctions. They do not apply to the 1RR restriction because it is not a part of discretionary/general sanctions, it's a standalone sanction in its own right. The 1RR restriction essentially runs on the basis of use common sense, give people notice, giving people to self correct etc. as you describe, but the formal awareness system and templated messages do not need to be followed. The whole argument that they couldn't be blocked for edit warring under/gaming 1RR because they didn't have the awareness template doesn't hold, because the awareness template is not related to the 1RR restriction and ample efforts were made to inform them of the existence of the 1RR restriction via edit notices, talk page notices, talk page messages etc.
    The original ARBPIA sanction was modified in 2019 to require edit notices on pages before it could be used, which brought it more in line with normal discretionary sanctions on the basis that it was possible to sanction editors who did not even know these sanctions existed, [49], but this requirement is not present in the 2012 era version of the restriction used here and was removed from ARBPIA again in the most recent case.
    I fully agree that DS/GS are a complete mess, but I think that's just an artefact of it being a confused system that has grown out of 2 decades of arbitration cases. Really it needs a full rewrite - defining some boundaries on what an admin can do as an individual action and what requires a consensus of admins would be a good start (can an individual admin place an indefinite topic ban or does it need to go to AE is a perpetual debate). 192.76.8.87 (talk) 18:28, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    IP, what I'm getting at, is that in the vast majority of topic areas covered by sanctions regimes, it doesn't matter if it's 1RR or any other enforcement mechanism (that's a direct sanction). When these are applied while invoking a sanctions regime, then that sanction has to be logged and all the awareness criteria apply. That's as per the cross-currents of conflicting rules.
    Anyway, I think we're sort of getting lost in the sauce. The issue is to have a good, consistent standard across the board. As I mentioned at the DS reform page, many (most?) of ArbCom are not that experienced working on the ground floor of the day-to-day AE, so they may have gaps about some established best practices; what works best in practice. But, regardless, there is no reason for DS/GS to be that opaque. I'm sorry to repeat this and even quote myself for emphasis, but the presentation: discretionary sanctions within Wikipedia:General sanctions and general sanctions within Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions — is incredibly confusing and counterintuitive.
    But even with all it's failing, I think there needs to be a sweeping move to, if not subsume (like with WP:GS/COVID19→WP:COVIDDS, WP:GS/IRANPOL→WP:ARBIRP, WP:GS/IPAK→WP:ARBPAK, et cetera, etc.), at least standardize WP:GS to follow WP:ACDS. I haven't kept up with the DS reform developments, but I suppose the question is how long will it take. If it's soon'ish, wait. But if it's gonna be a long time, might as well (with the power of magic) standardize all GS with un-reformed DS, just to have a semblance of overarching consistency, at the very least. El_C 19:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stating the obvious: The endless murkiness and contradictory guidelines and policies and recommendations around GS and 1RR and sanctions thereof need to be straightened out and clarified and codified, stat. Softlavender (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Discretionary sanctions have a different appeal route than normal administrative actions. Appeals can only be made by the sanctioned editor, by asking the sanctioning admin or opening a review at AE, AN, or ARCA. Additionally, no admin may modify the sanctions without explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator or consensus at AE, AN, or ARCA. I don't believe Tamzin's statement opening the discussion here qualifies, as it also states "if there isn't consensus to maintain the current sanction." I don't see consensus that the partial block was not justified. Finally, as the article is a BLP, and valid BLP concerns had been raised, edit warring to insert contentious material 5 times (especially against a talk page discussion consensus) is never appropriate. Editors get blocked for that on a daily basis without much drama. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a DS topic area. It is a community GS topic area. All DS are GS not all GS are DS. Arbcom controls DS. Some GS are controlled by arbcom some by the community. This GS is controlled by the community and so it's not actually appealable to AE or ARCA which are Arbcom spaces. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Reads more like "I was blocked unfairly, so everyone else should be as well" sour grapes than an actual defense... In any case, Tamzin agreed to an unblock "if there isn't consensus to maintain the current sanction.": not an active consensus that it was a bad block, but lack of consensus that it was a good block. In the above discussion, from a rapid glance (bound to miss some people), I see Newyorkbrad opining that the block was "of borderline necessity" and that they "would not have blocked, even p-blocked", Only in Death called it "a particularly poor block", 28bytes said "Both the page block and the site block should be lifted ASAP", Zero said "The original block could be debated but it was rather mild and not much out of the ordinary.": Tamzin then said "I've left the p-block intact, and will leave it to another admin to decide whether to maintain it or unblock outright." (so no longer requiring a lack of consensus even). After this, discussion continued with Nableezy saying "The block was justified but not necessary, and that being the case means it should have been handled with less forceful means", you said "the partial block needs to stay.", Gizzycatbella said "Original blocks (all 3 editors) should be also lifted", Buffs said "Undo P-Block of VM", Gitz said " I welcomed the block"
    So it seems obvious that there was absolutely no consensus to maintain the sanction (more leaning to a consensus to unblock), which means that Drmies was following both the "prior affirmative consent" of Tamzin (see also their later comment I included above), and consensus here (plus what Barkeep said). Fram (talk) 13:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not blocked, so I'm not sure what the sour grapes refers to. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:07, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you weren't blocked, then I don't know what this was about. Fram (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The "I was not aware" defense. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You used that defense, and you weren't blocked. And somehow this justifies or is comparable to VM's block? Never mind, I doubt this will become a fruitful discussion. Fram (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • My $0.02 based on reading the whole thread and looking over the sum total of the evidence: I think at this point we don't need an ArbCom case or any sanctions against Tamzin at this time. This entire thread serves the purpose of educating them on the mistakes that they made; they have admitted to the mistakes, proactively sought feedback, undone their mistakes themselves; all the things we expect out of anyone who screws up. Rather than being evidence that they are not responsible enough to use the tools, the response here by Tamzin, proactively starting the thread themselves, and conscientiously taking on advice from more experienced admins, accepting the well-deserved criticism with grace, is literally a model for how admins should behave when they screw up. Perfection, even by admins, is not required, but this is how WP:ADMINACCT should work. Given all of that, this entire event should be taken as "lesson learned" and the thread closed with a trout for Tamzin and no further action at this time. I think if we see this behavior again by Tamzin, then we should consider moving forward with an ArbCom case, but at this time, it is not necessary. --Jayron32 14:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Suggestion

    In the midst of the firm head shaking above, I think something of some importance has been lost. When a 1RR is imposed in a hot-button topic you have a mix of good and bad faith editors. In ARBPIA, when the 1RR was imposed topic-area wide it was imposed along with the extended confirmed restriction so as to prevent the fly-by-night made an account to revert and vanish type of editors. I cant really think of a case of a topic that is so disrupted that it requires DS/GS imposed 1RR but also not so disrupted it does not need extended confirmed also. The Syrian Civil War GS goes half way there, saying Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. I propose to modify that to match ARBPIA, so that reverts of non-extended confirmed editors and IP editors are both exempt from the 1RR and not considered edit-warring. Can use the standard phrasing found in whatever arb page that uses it. nableezy - 17:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Just as point of information on the history here, which may clarify how we wound up in this situation, ARBPIA1 (2008) had no ECR or 500/30 clause. That was ARBPIA3 (2015, as 500/30 restriction; converted to ECR last year). The SCW GS were created as an extension of ARBPIA1&2 in 2013. As they were explicitly intended to be identical to the PIA sanctions (except where procedurally impossible), I imagine they would have included the ECR if it existed at the time. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • EZ support and a 👍 Like. A clear improvement in a number of ways. One reason I've always found this clause, which I believe is unique to this GS, discomforting is that it relegates IPs as 2nd class citizens while still being allowed to participate in the ongoing editing process; as opposed to just fixing a tenure in the normal way. In my view, once an IP is allowed to edit a page, they should have the same rights as any other named account, regardless of tenure. It seems to also distinguishes IPs from nonconfirmed named accounts. As such, theoretically, a 2-day named account would have an advantage over a 2-year IP (this wouldn't actually happen, of course, but it's still worded like that). Not to mention that we get the wtf cross-current of a 1RR exemption that at the same time is still subject to the usual rules on edit warring. El_C 21:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Any time El C and I see the same on an issue, it's probably a good idea...support Buffs (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this is a good discussion to have, but would rather not see it buried in another discussion in a user-behavior thread. If we're going to make such a change to standard practices, even a much needed one, I would prefer this were a new thread, and either held at WP:VPP or held as a new thread at WP:AN and advertised at VPP. If it's important enough to do, it's important enough to do right. --Jayron32 11:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, we could retitle the header from "suggestion" to "proposal to," I suppose, but it seems fine as a subsection. Also, WP:AN is the correct venue (by far), WP:VPP, not so much. We're not changing the policy in significant way on WP:GS; we're altering a specific thing about one of many GSs, and AN is where that's done. Most recently, to expand the scope of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Uyghur genocide (that discussion is here, if you're interested). El_C 15:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC) Added: oh, that was WP:ANI, actually. But it doesn't matter, the two are basically interchangeable in that regard (i.e. proposal in a subsection that follows an incident @Incidents). El_C 15:35, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I just don't want this discussion, which is really unrelated to the discussion to which it is attached, lost or see that people who have an interest in contributing can't find it because it is in an unexpected location. --Jayron32 15:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's true that while the incident above involves this sanctions regime, it only does so wrt its general features and it as a general example. This proposal concerns its unique features. So, a subsection or refactoring to a new thread, I'm good with whatever. But WP:VPP would be good for having the WP:CENTRAL discussion about standardizing the myriad of hodge-podge WP:GS sanctions regimes to align with one standard: WP:ACDS. Myself and an IP editor discuss that issue at some length above. BTW, I was of course in favour of expanding the scope of WP:GS/UYGHUR. But, truth be told, I, myself, had always treated it with expanded scope (because, fuck it). El_C 15:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC) Added: Jayron32* (ugh!). El_C 15:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I suggest that if the idea is to do some larger standardization to wait? Hopefully in the next couple of days the Proposed Draft of the revision to WP:AC/DS will be posted and before the end of the year it will be possible for the community to amend their GS authorizations to allow them to be heard at WP:AE. Given the feedback ArbCom has received I suspect the community will want to do this in at least some instances and it's conceivable to me that the community could want to do this writ large. This feels of a piece with some larger scale wording standardization of community GS. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, days, wow. Okay, we got our answer. Self quote from above: I haven't kept up with the DS reform developments, but I suppose the question is how long will it take. If it's soon'ish, wait [...] El_C 16:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Barkeep, sounds good, but just provisionally I'm going to support the above suggestion. Volunteer Marek 16:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear I was commenting about larger scale changes. This was not a suggestion or comment about nableezy's suggestion in this instance. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Jayron32 - I was under the impression that the P-block was still in place. If it's been lifted happy to celebrate this having been done. FOARP (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the block log. Drmies lifted said block on November 8. --Jayron32 14:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Jayron, I wasn't clear if that mean the p-block was gone or not, but if it does...nothing much more to say except Support the above suggestion as eminently sensible. FOARP (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's all good man, I was a bit of an asshole back there. In reality, the thread is so WP:TLDR anyone should not be blamed for missing stuff like that. --Jayron32 16:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Sanctions: discretionary, general, standing

    So, to continue my rant, consider the following. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles (WP:PIA) mentions three kinds of sanctions:

    1. Discretionary sanctions are mentioned in the opening paragraph ("the discretionary sanctions procedure") and elsewhere throughout.
    2. General sanctions are mentioned at WP:PIA#ARBPIA General Sanctions, WP:PIA#General sanctions upon related content, and elsewhere.
    3. Standing sanctions are mentioned at WP:PIA#Standing sanctions upon primary articles.

    Who understands this? El_C 04:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Given that 1RR is mentioned in the lead section but not under General Sanctions, does that mean all articles in the topic area are subject to 1RR by default? Never mind; according to the documentation at {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice}}, The visibility of this template is a prerequisite to sanctioning an editor for violation of the 1RR restriction. Does this contradict what the IP said above, or is the template documentation wrong?
    This page and WP:AC/DS (pretty much mandatory to comprehend any of this) are awfully hard to parse; they're certainly not structured in the same way most policies are. They're written too much like laws, not like prose essays, and Wikipedians are not all lawyers.
    Evidently (at least, according to {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice}}, in absurdly small text), we average users are expected to familiarise [ourselves] with WP:PIA, WP:AC/DS, WP:ARBPIA4, and {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} before editing pages in the topic area. Fine, but surely at least the reading experience of WP:AC/DS can be improved. That page is cited all over the place, and it's incredibly difficult for a first-time reader (like me) to even figure out what exactly a sanction is without reading minutely through half of it. There is a single sentence that explains what sanctions are, and it's all too easy to miss when there's absolutely no indication of what parts are important and what parts are irrelevant trivia to anyone besides administrators. ( Peanut gallery comment) Shells-shells (talk) 06:50, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Like myself and the IP, you're kinda getting lost in the sauce, Shells-shells. So, welcome to the club. The 1RR notice thing (etc.), though, it's really not that important to the thrust of my argument, which is about accessibility. What actually prompted me to create this subsection is that earlier today, following a request at RfPP, I WP:ECP'd an article under ARBPIA. Then, I imagined a new (unconfirmed) or newish (confirmed) user trying to edit that page and seeing the following (emphasis added):
    Then, I imagined such a user clicking on the highlighted link. A link containing contents that even I, one of the most active admins in the DS/GS realm of the project, struggle with. So, that's where I'm going with this. El_C 07:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I catch your drift. I guess the question is: Why are these abstruse policies so public-facing? Sanctioned articles, by their very nature, typically attract new and inexperienced editors. If restrictions must be placed on them, surely they should be as clear and straightforward as possible, no? After all, most of Wikipedia is not impenetrably bureaucratic like this. How come these specific bits are so confusing and incomprehensible? Shells-shells (talk) 08:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that (public-facing) is the right question and direction. Needless to say, it should also make more sense to experienced users and enforcing admins. I still don't know what Standing vis-à-vis General vis-à-vis Discretionary is suppose to mean exactly. But it would stand to reason that someone does.
    Like with the point I made concerning discretionary sanctions within Wikipedia:General sanctions and general sanctions within Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions — "impenetrably bureaucratic" is an apt description. Are we stuck? El_C 16:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I do. General sanctions are the largest category. Discretionary sanctions are 1 kind of General Sanction which authorize admin to act. Another kind of general sanction is Extended-Confirmed protection which means all pages in the topic area can only be edited by EC editors. This particular set of sanctions came into existence over time and so standing sanctions details how to rolls this out. I wish they'd used another name.
    On the whole this is needlessly confusing. ArbCom is attempting to clarify some of this with more understandable language. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please consider, as you work on this, the public-facing versus the deep. It'd be great for 'deep users' to also be able consult a simple guide, 'cause who can really remember what's what?
    Also, if "General sanctions are the largest category" of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, would the reverse be true — that Distortionary sanctions are the largest category of Wikipedia:General sanctions? Because there's a music to that, and also it's fuckin' insane. Cheers! El_C 00:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    With the caveat that some users might not follow the specific definitions laid out on the guidance pages, general sanctions are a type of Wikipedia sanctions that apply to all editors working in a particular topic area. These contrast with editing restrictions, also called "personal sanctions", which apply only to individual editors. So page-specific restrictions are general sanctions, such as page-specific one-revert rules or extended-confirmed protection. Editors should know about a given page-specific restriction before receiving a sanction for violating it. An edit notice is the usual mechanism, but there could be other ways (for example, you might participate in a discussion where it is mentioned).
    For topics where discretionary sanctions have been authorized, a single administrator can apply sanctions that would normally require community consensus. One possibility is for the administrator to apply a page-specific restriction (thus, a general sanction). Just like community-imposed page-specific restrictions, editors should know about it before being sanctioned for violating it, and there are multiple ways to learn about the restriction. Administrators can also impose a personal sanction on their own authority, provided the editor has first received a discretionary sanctions alert message on their talk page, using the officially designated template, or one of the other conditions for awareness of the authorization of discretionary sanctions has been met. isaacl (talk) 03:11, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    isaacl, as a policy authority, could I maybe press on you to voice an opinion as to my repetition? Which is as follows: citing the use of discretionary sanctions under Wikipedia:General sanctions, like with WP:GS/UYGHUR (top Ombox→) as a "community-authorised discretionary sanctions regime"; and citing the use of general sanctions for Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, like with WP:PIA#ARBPIA General Sanctions — does the way in which these things are worded sound intuitive to you? And if not, would the solution be 🎈colours?🍀 El_C 04:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Without colours, I've come to realize that a solution that would take us a good ways forward would be to simply rename the Arbcom and Community sets of sanctions. So, change Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions (WP:ACDS) into something like Arbitration Committee authorized sanctions (WP:ACAS); and change Wikipedia:General sanctions (WP:GS) into something like Community authorized sanctions (WP:CAS).
    I mean, both redirects are taken (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Fortifications task force, respectively), but that can be worked out. Or they could be renamed into something else, just without the Discretionary / General in the title of either. 'Authorized' should do, then outline discretionary and general to one heart's content within each. Anyway, maybe I'm just speaking into the ether with this, so I'll stop talking now. El_C 05:03, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The first sentence of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Uyghur genocide seems to be an example of the term "general sanctions" being used to mean "community-authorized discretionary sanctions" (or, as the closing statement of the relevant discussion put it, community-imposed discretionary sanctions). I agree this is confusing. (The first paragraph in the "Remedies" section does seem to be correctly using Pages with discretionary sanctions to mean pages where a restriction has been enacted by an admin on their own individual authority.) The ongoing review of discretionary sanctions has discussed new terminology and a somewhat different approach, which I think could be used as a common base for authorizing more administrator authority by either the community or the arbitration committee. The community could also take it out of the hands of the arbitrators and modify policy to generally allow more kinds of sanctions to be enacted directly by admins, without requiring community consensus. (For example, policy could be modified to allow admins to impose a one-revert rule on any article when they deem it is warranted.) isaacl (talk) 08:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, isaacl, I remember, Counter-Terrorists win, I love the Krieg most, etc., but my issue above wrt to #Name isn't that Discretionary sounds intimidating or whatever. Rather, it's that this weird Discretionary/General inversion and intersection across both WP:ACDS and WP:GS is extremely disorienting. In that sense, I'm not sure resigning ourselves to only renaming the former would be enough. Thus, I hope to see you push for that broader view, so that we don't end up with a bandage solution where that confusion still remains acute. El_C 20:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I didn't say anything about "discretionary" sounding intimidating, and I've already espoused unifying the framework for authorizing additional administrator authority, so the terminology is the same no matter who did the authorizing, or just reaching consensus to approve additional unilateral admin actions across the board, which will also simplify matters. isaacl (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, not you, I meant, the first bullet point in #Name is that It's implicitly intimidating. Anyway, I believe in having community-authorized sanctions regimes, but with that "unified framework" (i.e. standards), and I want any of the weirdness with Discretionary/General inversion and intersection gone. So, I hope we're on the same page there. El_C 21:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Terrorist propaganda

    Request denied. Editors are encouraged to report any continued disruption coming from the OP. ~Swarm~ {sting} 10:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi

    Could you delete this from history? Panam2014 (talk) 22:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not see any WP:REVDEL condition it meets. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Giving the public the radio station frequency of a terrorist group...I dunno, that might meet the criteria for what we do. Buffs (talk) 22:45, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buffs and EvergreenFir: URL of Amaq News Agency have been removed from history. Panam2014 (talk) 23:03, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Panam2014:, while the url was removed from the article on Amaq, the edit removing the url from the article is not revision deleted. What do you mean by URL of Amaq News Agency have been removed from history? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Red-tailed hawk: it have been blacklised. But I think we should remove it from history because the links and frequences are illegal.--Panam2014 (talk) 14:03, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    What country's laws are you claiming this is illegal under? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    94.3 FM is an illegal frequency? Tell that to, e.g., [50]. There are only so many FM frequencies. It's not like a Tor node. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether the frequencies should be in the article is a content dispute. I believe this is otherwise a WP:NOTCENSORED issue. ~Swarm~ {sting} 00:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Swarm: it is illegal to have content to illegal organization per US and EU laws.--Panam2014 (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Then I have restored the deleted content, though not in the same section as before. Continue discussion at the article's talk page, if this is contested. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Inappropriate username

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

    Jebem vam mamaru (talk · contribs) uses an inappropriate username, which translated from Serbo-Croatian stands for "I F* your mom". This goes against WP:DISRUPTNAME. Governor Sheng (talk) 08:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The user hasn't edited for 2.5 years, so blocking or not blocking is unlikely to make a difference here. In the future, please report bad usernames to WP:UAA. —Kusma (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Governor Sheng Usernames should only be reported if they have recently edited, likewise last week or two. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, they only had three edits, so apparently the mom wasn't a major muse. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm blocking anyway, no sense in letting someone resume using what was probably intended as a burner account to begin with. There's no cost to blocking and some risk of disruption for not. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    A Demonstration of the Untrustworthiness of Information on Wikipedia

    This is an article content issue, which should be discussed on the talk page of said article. Primefac (talk) 15:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The following was posted here User talk:Doug Weller

    I have often heard warnings about using caution in obtaining information from Wikipedia especially on topics outside of settled factual matters. Your actions prove exactly what I wished to test. I'm summarizing this here to serve as whatever record it may (assuming you don't further abuse your authority to delete or modify this):

    I made the following 2 modifications to the page in Sinauli [34] and you cited both of them as examples of unsourced information: User talk:HandleDePlume

    You, nor any of the other 3 individuals who kept reverting my change, have yet to explain why I need to prove a negative. No mainstream scholar agrees with the assessment that is provided in the quote. It's as simple as that. And yet, instead of presenting any evidence of agreement by mainstream scholars, you simply abused your authority and blocked me. It makes one wonder what your rationale is for controlling information like this.

    And, the other change you cited is quite comedic. The existing source cited was already to a popular non-academic media. My minor change only clarified the sentence.

    It's also interesting the strategy the 4 of you took. From my brief understanding, 3 reversions of an edit in a 24 hour would result in someone being blocked or something negative. So, 3 different editors chose to keep reverting my changes. Not too shabby! HandleDePlume (talk) 10:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    If you see your edit being reverted by three editors all way more experienced than you (the number of edits is not always a good measure, but these three editors made 5K, 9K, and 49K edits, respectively, against your 22 edits), you should go to the talk page of the article and discuss. Ymblanter (talk) 10:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your actions prove exactly what I wished to test You made these edits as a "test"?
    • The following was posted here User talk:Doug Weller Huh? Doug Weller didn't post anything related to this here. Why did you add this?
    • Edit to Avestan addition of "hypothesis" wp:WEASEL Everything is a "hypothesis" until validated by multiple studies? wp:WEASEL? Adakiko (talk) 11:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Adakiko: They apparently posted this complaint at DW's talk page before reposting it here, because DW indef blocked them from editing the Sinauli article. InsaneHacker (💬) 12:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Then why not state that? My first impression is that it was posted by DW or copy/pasted by DW. 12:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Inappropriate username 2

    And after all that, it was just a sock. Now CU blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:‎Extreminatethejuice Juice sounds similar to Jews, and that seems intentional. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I was thinking maybe it was referring to O.J. Simpson. Either way, it's a WP:ATTACKNAME violation that needs to go. However, the proper place to report this is WP:UAA.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    User:WaltCip, I think this place is just fine and things happen quickly here. Drmies (talk) 03:17, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at their contributions, they appear to be an Indian editor with no interest in topics related to Judaism or OJ Simpson. I suspect that its not intentional, but the name should be changed anyway to avoid disruption.
    However, they do appear to be engaged in plagiarism; their article Auniati Satra appears to be plagiarised from Tour my India and Auniati. BilledMammal (talk) 15:53, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how it isn't intentional. I've hardblocked. If they can actually come up with a believable alternate explanation, it can be turned into a softblock and they can get a username change. But it can't be something like "oh my goodness, that never even occurred to me". Someone should actually believe it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I'm too generous in assuming good faith, but I would expect an anti-Semitic editor to edit topics related to Judaism and their edits are instead focused on Hindu temples and appear to have no relation. BilledMammal (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that seems too generous. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at that unblock request, it was. I need to be more cynical. BilledMammal (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Good block. The editor apparently wanted attention & got it. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Yamla declined their first unblock request and I've declined the second. However, because of formatting issues with the request, I haven't been able to remove the "Requests for unblock" category. If somebody smarter could do that for me, I'd appreciate it. Bishonen | tålk 20:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]
    I wouldn't say I'm smarter, but I think I fixed it. And declined as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Rick. Bishonen | tålk 20:55, 8 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]

    The line is apparently from the film Sausage Party, but this clip definitely proves the context of the name was definitely not innocent (or funny). Good block. Nate • (chatter) 20:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The block then was 100% warranted here since they referenced that awful movie.[FBDB] –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    An IP has posted two links to articles in Taiwannews.com.tw (in English) to my user talk page, about the hacker group Anonymous and about Wikipedia. They have also posted to the unprotected web page of Jimbo Wales, and to the talk page of resigned administrator Pratyeka. I am guessing, but this is only a guess, that they are also posting from other IP addresses to other users. I am just mentioning this. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Interesting. Perhaps, dear readers, some of you may know more, and will have a look at User_talk:Softlemonades#Inquiry. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      There is much I could say about this, but won't for WP:NEEDTOKNOW and WP:OUTING reasons. I will say that this is not the first time this particular editor has been brought up at at an admin noticeboard, and that I have my suspicions as to who the IP editor is (I'm happy to discuss this by email with a CU), as well as some of their off-wiki accounts that are being used in a way to manipulate both us and Taiwan News to try and cause a Streisand effect. Ironically that article was edited by the same user earlier today to try draw further attention to it. I'm not sure if there is a best way to handle this, other than perhaps applying the concepts behind WP:DENY and related essays. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Agree. Other than permanently protecting some of thosee pages, Im not sure what to do. Maybe Taiwan News is worth another RfC since theyre getting taken advantage of and their staff writers or at least the one in question are pumping out 5-8 articles a day? But theyre syndicated or used as sources for others in the region, which the IP editor is also using to jam in as many sources as possible
      I dont think I have anything else to add that Sideswipe didnt see or I didnt write on or link from my talk page but if admins have any questions Ill try to answer Softlemonades (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not sure a new RFC is needed, though I've always preferred The Taipei Times and The China Post now unfortunately demised as sources. That aside, the COI of Keoni Everington is evident, and we shouldn't be using his articles as references in that topic area, or possibly anywhere given that he changes them without acknowledging any correction being made see [51] compared to [52], which is rather undesirable from a WP:V perspective. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    cf. zh:Wikipedia:互助客栈/其他#英语维基百科这次出臭了. —— Eric Liu（Talk） 21:14, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
     Courtesy link: Relevant diff for context, no translation needed. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 01:59, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Backlog at Requests for unblock

    There is a serious backlog of unreviewed unblock requests at CAT:RFU, with some pending requests having remained unreviewed for weeks. Most blocks are for good reasons, but we promise blocked users a reasonably timely review process and we should keep that promise. If a few admins with some available time could take a look at these, it would be very helpful. Regards to all. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Where do we "promise" this?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I echo what Newyorkbrad said. Although it's somewhat controversial, template:decline stale may be an option for the older requests. Fundamentally, though, we can't and don't keep up with unblock requests these days. I'm hoping to put together some thoughts on this and solicit feedback from interested parties, perhaps a WP:RFC later this month. Though, shudder. :) --Yamla (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Unblocks are one of the areas I'm interested in patrolling, but was waiting till I had a bit more experience. I'll take a look a bit later and see if there's any I'm comfortable handling. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Be warned. It's a thankless job. Lots of commercial spammers, lots of WP:IDHT, daily death threats once you've been around long enough. Still, someone's gotta do it. And occasionally, you get to actually unblock someone and they turn out to be a constructive contributor. :) --Yamla (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If a prospective non-admin wanted the tools with the express purpose of clearing out the backlogs in areas such as CAT:RFU, how would they break their teeth on it, i.e. prove that they've had sufficient experience in this area to warrant being given the tools? I guess they wouldn't, would they; they'd just have to build trust in other areas of Wikipedia.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The solution might be an unofficial RfU "clerk" function for non-admins who review blocks in a systematic manner and make recommendations for admins to act upon. Perhaps in the form of a colorful template box (because we like those) with specific criteria to check off, so that it's not just somebody's drive-by opinion. Sandstein 20:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I'm not an admin and also busy I'm not going to look at the backlog myself, but what are the 'weeks' request actually like? When I looked maybe ?2 years ago, I noticed that most of these seem to be like that for a reason. Often they were cases where it wasn't an obvious deny but also wasn't an obvious unblock. Perhaps including or alternatively a large amount of TL;DR or other things which may require significant time investment for a ~fairish review. My gut feeling was most case it wasn't that no admin looked at, I suspected at least one maybe more had but they'd just left it for someone else to deal with. I'm sure there are some who fall thru the cracks, and also the persistent requester where they may start to hit problems of the small number of admins who regular reviews requests most of who'd already reviewed a previoua request or otherwise were either involved or felt it better to let someone else deal with it for fairness. Nil Einne (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think your description is pretty accurate in the best case, but the amount of such requests can lead to a situation where "obvious deny" or "obvious unblock" requests get buried between tough cases in the list. An attempt to improve the signal-to-noise-ratio, if you like, was the introduction of Category:Requests for unblock awaiting response from the blocked user. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User is consistently edit-warring and seems disinterested in consensus in principle

    Lovinqxcherry has been blocked indefinitely by Bbb23 for not being here to build an encyclopedia. —Sirdog (talk) 05:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC) (non-admin)[reply]

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

    Lovinqxcherry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Has been edit-warring at Folklore (Taylor Swift album), e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Folklore_(Taylor_Swift_album)&oldid=prev&diff=1121410786 and per comments at Talk:Live_from_Clear_Channel_Stripped_2008#Should_this_be_included_in_the_chronology_of_releases? I believe is either straight up trolling or is fundamentally uninterested in learning our guidelines and policies and editing according to them. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @TheAmazingPeanuts: ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:27, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ok suree make me look like the bad guy when i'm a literal MINOR ok... Lovinqxcherry (talk) 04:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Change the cause of death in a page

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guru_Gobind_Singh The cause of death of Shri Guru Gobind Singh ji in this article is wrong, it should be corrected immediately, it was stated that he actually left his body and wasn't assassinated. 103.5.133.161 (talk) 12:40, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:AN isn't the place to discuss this. Please take it to the article's discussion page, Talk:Guru Gobind Singh, along with your reliable source (WP:RS) showing your claim. Be warned, such an unusual claim will require a strong citation. Anyway, there's nothing we can do for you here at WP:AN. --Yamla (talk) 12:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 1#Anti-white racism

    Open for 40 days, relisted three times. Perhaps it's time for a close? The discussion there immediately below can also be closed, IMO. Thanks, Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 18:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    OK closed it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:22, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User is consistently edit-warring and violating WP:SYNTH

    Central16 (talk · contribs) This editor is edit warring and violating WP:SYNTH by adding content that is not explicitly supported by sources in the article The Life of Pablo [53] [54] [55] [56]. In this discussion at the article's talk page, they seem disinterested learning our guidelines and policies and have not addressed any points by made me and other editors Binksternet and Kyle Peake. I think this editor is not here to build an encyclopedia. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 03:06, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Nominations now open for the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections

    Eligible editors may now nominate themselves as candidates in the 2022 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections. Nominations must be transcluded by 23:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC). Please note that there is a change to the process this year: per WP:ACERFC2022, questions may only be asked on the official questions pages after the nomination period is over. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:41, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    RPP backlog

    Although the oldest request is only 12 hours old, there are 23 pending protection requests at RPP. Nothing else at the moment. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Bad module deletion

    Perfectly valid G7 deletion (though one could argue G6 is not, this is not the place to do so), and the OP has been blocked anyway. Primefac (talk) 09:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Respected admins, I would like to bring to your attention a module which has been improperly deleted, resulting in redlinked calls appearing in millions of pages.

    The module in question is Module:Class/configuration. This was deleted by admin Nihiltres as "Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: made obsolete by changes to parent module; also I am sole author of this page". This most definitely was not a non controversial deletion that had to be done unilaterally. If you click the "What links here" link in the left sidebar of module, you can see it is still called by 3.3 million pages. Pick any page and see the list of templates used in the page, this red module will be listed there. All these are broken due to premature deletion. This module should be undeleted ASAP and wait till the count comes down to zero, only then is it safe to delete.

    Thank you. Tasleem Shah Junejo (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Why haven't you discussed this with Nihiltres? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also for the benefit of people like me, what is this module here for? I am looking at two pages that link to it, Talk:Tic Tac (TV series) and Talk:Hunting Venus, and see nothing broken. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Module:Class renders table cells with article ratings, mostly for use in WikiProject banners. Module:Class/configuration contained configuration details and loaded the JSON-based definition file (which required a separate loader page for importing the JSON file). With the release of some new Scribunto code, mw.loadJsonData, that allowed directly loading a JSON file, I imported the configuration into the main module and used that new code rather than an external "loader" module. That made Module:Class/configuration obsolete, so I deleted it, believing it to be uncontroversial cleanup (G6) and as the sole author (G7). {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 17:02, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See Special:Contributions/Tasleem Shah Junejo; their only edits so far are to start this topic and notify me. Especially given that this action happened weeks ago, this smells like an attack on me more than a legitimate complaint. That said, being who I am, if others want to entertain it, I'll happily defend my actions.
    In particular, can anyone show me a page with a broken call? I changed Module:Class in a way that removed dependence on Module:Class/configuration before deleting Module:Class/configuration, so the only calls to the latter should be pages that haven't been re-rendered since I made the change. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 16:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like a dummy edit to Talk:Harina de otro costal made it disappear from Special:WhatLinksHere/Module:Class/configuration, so I guess that these redlinks are leftovers that the database hasn't noticed yet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting that the OP has been CU-blocked by Blablubbs. --Kinu t/c 17:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Discretionary sanctions review: proposed decision and community review

    The Proposed Decision phase of the discretionary sanctions review process has now opened. A five-day public review period for the proposed decision, before arbitrators cast votes on the proposed decision, is open through November 18. Any interested editors are invited to comment on the proposed decision talk page. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:54, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Proposed decision

    Cascade-protect Wikipedia:Manual of Style and all subpages

    The Wikipedia manual of style, including all subpages should be always cascade-protected. There is no reason to edit it. Vandalizing a template or file transcluded in the page may cause disruption to the page.
    Protection parameters: (edit=Need administrator access) (move=Need administrator access) (cascading) (indefinite)
    Thank you. 143.44.165.14 (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The MoS is only semi-protected at the moment, so full-protecting is a bit extreme. The policies are also constantly changing every year or so, and that would mean the page and its templates need to be edited just as frequently. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    4me689 disrupting Year pages

    Unfortunately I can't deal with this myself because I am involved, so I am requesting advice from other admins. User:4me689 arrived here early in 2022 and since September, along with User:The ganymedian (who has not edited for the past couple of weeks), has added many images and "collages" to the already over-long Year pages. Many of these are of poor quality and requests to improve them have mostly met with either no response or with backdoor attempts to restore images that have been commented out - mostly because of US-centricity (note that this is part of a recent pattern of IP address editing that has caused me to have to protect both the Year page and some Talk pages, and I'm not accusing either of the named users of keeping socks). After being asked repeatedly not to alter the standard format for Year pages until this RFC is resolved, as well as warned repeatedly for canvassing and for anticipating the result of discussions, s/he has now taken to adding images of Nobel recipients to the Year articles (despite a recent discussion as to whether this whole section should be kept). This refusal to listen to advice is creating disruption on the Year (and decade) pages, and I've come to the conclusion that the only option is a temporary block on User:4me689, at least from editing Year and Decade pages. Note: I am not saying that User:4me689 is wrong to create collages - the RFC will decide that - but s/he has already agreed in principle several times not to continue to do it and is simply going ahead and repeating the conduct for which they were warned. Deb (talk) 09:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1121825565"