Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Total
CfD	0	0	0	3	3
TfD	0	0	0	7	7
MfD	0	0	2	1	3
FfD	0	0	1	7	8
RfD	0	0	20	38	58
AfD	0	0	0	1	1

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

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (27 out of 9046 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Template:Müzik sanatçısı bilgi kutusu 2024-12-19 00:47 indefinite create Turkish for "Infobox musical artist", attracts mistaken creations Tamzin Khaled Nabhan 2024-12-18 22:07 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Draft:Windows 7 On A Virtual Machine 2024-12-18 21:44 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated UtherSRG Mikhail Shatsky 2024-12-18 20:09 2025-12-18 20:09 create WP:GS/RUSUKR ToBeFree Igor Kirillov (general) 2024-12-18 20:08 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/RUSUKR ToBeFree Template:Certification Table Entry/Sales/NewZealandPeriod 2024-12-18 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2617 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories 2024-12-18 02:17 indefinite edit,move Requests should not be posted here; please use WP:AFC/R or WP:AFC/C Queen of Hearts Lucky Ekeh 2024-12-17 20:17 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz Leroy Cronin 2024-12-17 17:16 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:BLPCT / This page has repeatedly been misused as a battleground by users with apparent undisclosed conflicts of interest ToBeFree Dmitry Rybolovlev 2024-12-17 15:40 2024-12-27 15:40 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts Less Unless KMFDM 2024-12-17 11:23 2025-01-17 11:23 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: Wisconsin school shooter wearing the band's t-shirt, same as Columbine; as a GA article, there's little chance valid improvements to the article will happen in the next month from new users. Zanimum Ada and Abere 2024-12-17 08:57 2025-01-17 08:57 move Persistent vandalism The Bushranger Draft:Nicolas Atanes 2024-12-16 22:40 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Nicolas Atanes 2024-12-16 22:38 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD S-300 missile system 2024-12-16 21:35 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement -- ARBPIA and GSRUSUKR both affect portions of this article frequently subject to edit warring/disruption. Swatjester Chief of the General Staff (Bangladesh) 2024-12-16 20:35 2025-06-16 20:35 create repeated attempts to recreate using version deemed by AfD to require improvement. Force to go through AfC. OwenX Ramzy Baroud 2024-12-16 20:33 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Draft:Chief of the General Staff (Bangladesh) 2024-12-16 20:32 2025-06-16 20:32 move per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chief of the General Staff (Bangladesh) OwenX Template:If autoconfirmed 2024-12-16 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2501 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Nicolás Atanes 2024-12-16 15:09 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Malayalam 2024-12-16 13:41 2025-06-16 13:41 edit Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato User talk:Tourorguk 2024-12-15 22:42 indefinite move Oh oops I only meant to protect against moves Pppery User talk:JuxtaposedJacob 2024-12-15 18:46 2025-01-15 18:46 edit,move vandalism Widr Template:Year category name/AD year 2024-12-15 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2500 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Vimukthi Dushantha 2024-12-15 17:33 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Fall of Damascus 2024-12-15 10:45 indefinite edit,move Restoring protection by Daniel Case: Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/SCW&ISIL Protection Helper Bot Republic TV 2024-12-15 02:02 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBIND Johnuniq

Requesting RfC be re-opened

An RfC recently asked how to summarize a section at People's Mujahedin of Iran. Stefka Bulgaria (SB) and I (VR) offered competing versions. @Chetsford: closed as consensus for SB's version, but graciously encouraged me to seek review here; I'm asking the RfC be re-opened re-closed.

• The RfC was closed Nov 29‎. Yet there was active discussion on Nov 27-28 on whether the proposals violated WP:DUE([1][2]) or MOS:WEASEL ([3]). But wikipedia has no WP:DEADLINE.

• Secondly, the SB proposal mass removes longstanding content. Major divergences from the status quo require a strong consensus (as pointed out by El_C). Although the RfC was closed as "seven editors support the summary proposal while three are opposed", I count 10 supports for SB and 7 for VR. The closer felt the opposition to SB's version was ambiguous; I disagree and have provided the exact comments (see below "Vote counts"). Given this, the policy considerations below and closer finding both sides' arguments "equally compelling", the result leans to "no consensus". Re-opening the RfC might change that. Also, there is recent indication that RfCs on that page are voted on without being read, so result should be based on policy not votes.

• Lastly, there were serious policy issues with SB proposal that no one responded to. This version's weasel wording ("various sources...while other sources...") implies a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Academic sources overwhelming say that MEK is a cult (list of sources provided here and here). Even SB acknowledged that no source actually dismisses the cult claims. Yet SB's version balances the opinion of peer-reviewed books and journal articles against those in newspaper op-eds. The argument that high-quality RS can't be counterbalanced with low quality ones was made repeatedly ([4][5]) but never got a response.

• • It was pointed out (but never responded to) that SB's version inaccurately implies that MEK barring children from a military camp was the only or main reason for the cult designation, but the sources instead give different, multiple reasons for the cult designation. This is worded as a strawman and misrepresents what one of the sources SB cited says (see below "What the BBC source says").

• • By contrast, most objections against VR proposal aren't policy-based. This policy-based objection was promptly corrected ([6][7]). I repeatedly asked for clarification of objections ([8][9]) but no one responded except Bahar1397 (and our discussion was cutoff by the closure).

Vote counts

Stefka Bulgaria's proposal was supported by MA Javadi, Idealigic, Adoring nanny, Nika2020, Bahar1397, Alex-h, Ypatch, Barca and HistoryofIran (only said "Yes per Stefka.") Vice regent's proposal was supported by Mhhossein, Pahlevun, Sa.vakilian, Ali Ahwazi, Jushyosaha604 and Ameen Akbar. The closer felt opposition to SB's proposal was ambiguous, but I disagree and providing the statements below. Mhhossein said "No, for multiple reasons..." Ali Ahwazi said "No... The proposed text doesn't represent the reliable-sources based on WP:DUE." Pahlevun said "...I strongly reject the proposal on the grounds that it contradicts with WP:RS" @Jushyosaha604:, said " The OP who started the RFC removed too much information" (only pinging because the closer felt their position was ambiguous) Sa.vakilian said "No...this RFC is not acceptable per DUE" Vice regent, said "Stefka's proposed version gives WP:FALSEBALANCE to both views".

What the BBC source says

SB's version says The MEK has barred children in Camp Ashraf in an attempt to have its members devote themselves to their cause of resistance against the Iranian regime, a rule that has given the MEK reputation of being "cultish". This wording makes it seem that children are simply barred from MEK headquarters, a strawman argument, even though one of the sources cited makes it clear that this is decades' long child displacement. It says, Not only was the MEK heavily armed and designated as terrorist by the US government, it also had some very striking internal social policies. For example, it required its members in Iraq to divorce. Why? Because love was distracting them from their struggle against the mullahs in Iran. And the trouble is that people love their children too. So the MEK leadership asked its members to send their children away to foster families in Europe. Europe would be safer, the group explained. Some parents have not seen their children for 20 years and more. And just to add to the mix, former members consistently describe participating in regular public confessions of their sexual fantasies. You might think that would set alarm bells ringing - and for some US officers it did. One colonel I spoke to, who had daily contact with the MEK leadership for six months in 2004, said that the organisation was a cult, and that some of the members who wanted to get out had to run away. The source also mentions that "no children rule" as being only one of many reasons (mandatory divorce, members not allowed to leave) for MEK's cultishness.

VR _talk 15:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Changing to request to re-close.VR _talk 19:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The RfC was opened on 2 October 2020, and there had been absence of new participation towards the time Chetsford closed it. As Chetsford explained to VR, the RfC process "is a finite discursive arena designed to achieve a specific purpose and not an infinite chat room for open-ended dialog." Also involved editor Mhhossein requested for the RfC to be closed by an experienced admin, and that's what happened here. After the close, VR was advised to continue discussion on either the article Talk page or personal Talk pages, but both Mhhossein and VR have a tendency to instead complain each time a RfC in this article doesn't close in their favor, making it exhausting for everyone involved. The RfC was opened for two months, and was closed by an experienced admin who gave a thorough and policy-based rational for their close. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• That RFC ran for way too long. VR constantly commented on votes that didn't support his proposal, so when he says "there was active discussion", that's basically him disagreeing with opposite votes. Secondly, the consensus was not to mass remove longstanding content, but to condense a lot of POV. Chestford's vote count was accurate and his closing remarks carefully followed guidelines. Stefka's proposal was more neutral, that's why it won consensus. Lastly, there weren't any "serious policy issues with Stefka's proposal that no one responded to." VR and Mhhossein have been arguing WP:FALSEBALANCE to keep in the article multiple quotes repeating "Democratic Iranian opposition political party = cult" while Mhhossein is removing multiple sources about a misinformation campaign that the Iran’s theocratic regim is running to characterize this political party a cult. Alex-h (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse. Clearly the correct close.—S Marshall T/C 00:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• • The closer said he has counted the votes. There are 9 supports and 7 opposes which use policies in their comments. Moreover, this page is under CONSENSUS REQUIRED restriction, and the admin who himself has proposed Wikipedia:Consensus required and has the most experience regarding page said earlier this restriction should be taken into account, given the fact that "key longstanding text" is condensed by ~60%. Such a mass change requires a strong consensus. Not to mention that VR has raised quite fair concerns which are not responded to. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually, this is what the closing admin said in their closing comment:

"By head counting, seven editors support the summary proposal while three are opposed. Looking more closely at the arguments there was an unambiguous consensus that the text in question needs to be shortened, which is consistent with past discussions. Insofar as to whether or not the proposed alternative text should be the text used to shorten the article, "yes" !votes argued the current text was WP:UNDUE and the proposal accurately and duely represented all content in a more succinct and readable form. The "no" !votes stated that the sources used to support the current weighting of perspectives were not entirely drawn from WP:RS and that the proposed alternative text was, therefore, not DUE. The "no" !votes also stated that, while "cult" was a contentious label, there was an abundance of RS that used this term to refer to the Mujahedin. In rebuttal, "yes" !voters said that the word "cult" remained in the article but was reduced in redundancy by the proposal which was not inconsistent with the closing decision in a previous RfC on this topic, or the policy aspect of the objection raised by the "no" !votes. Arguments advanced by both "yes" and "no" editors were equally compelling and virtually every comment cited a relevant policy and made a logical argument as to why policy supported their position. In these cases, our SOP (as described in WP:NHC) requires the closer "to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it". There is a consensus to adopt both the shortening proposal, and the specific text advanced in that proposal by Stefka Bulgaria. An alternate proposal by VK did not achieve a consensus, however, a number of persons who registered a "yes" opinion in that proposal did not express any opinion at all in the original proposal. Given that, it would be okay to open a new and more focused discussion as to whether or not the just-adopted shortened form should be modified in the way suggested by VK, however, keeping this entire RfC open for that reason alone isn't justified and would be unnecessarily confusing."

And here is the conversation that followed on the closer's talk page after this close. All concerns were addressed (in the RfC process and after by the closing admin). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Don't bludgeon the process, please. Thanks.--Mhhossein ^talk 05:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, I added the closing admins' evaluation (which was needed after your comment). Please do not edit my comments. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

You could simply put the diff and everyone could see what you are talking about. That's clearly bludgeoning to unnecessarily put the whole text wall here and would like to ask you avoid doing that in future.--Mhhossein ^talk 14:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• Not sure what the specific disagreement is about as I haven't followed the discussion too closely, but I'd be happy to clarify and add more details to my comments in case the RFC was reopened. Apologies for the ambiguity. Jushyosaha604 (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• Neutral as Closer (but no fundamental objection to reopening): I closed the RfC in question and addressed some of the concerns the OP (and others) raised above at my Talk page here. However, as I said there, I think this was an exceptionally close decision. The OP is an outstanding editor who makes strong points in favor of reopening that are based on a GF interpretation of policy. While I don't agree with them and didn't, therefore, believe I could unilaterally reopen the RfC I would have no objection if the community decided to reopen it. Chetsford (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• Re-open Re-close. Jeez, what a mess. This reminds me of what happened when the last RfC on the cult designation was closed/amended back in September (by L235). Same thing now in November (December)? Nothing learned? Yes, there remains a strong consensus to trim. But my sense is that there's only a strong consensus to trim within reason. In the last RfC, the proposal was to trim 800 words down to 40 words. This RfC proposes to trim it down to 80 words. Now, I realize it's double the word count, but whether one is cutting down the material to 1/20th of its former size or to 1/10th of it — either one of these still amounts to an enormous reduction. So, in either case, I would submit that there would need to be a strong consensus to trim that much sourced content. Whereas, if one were to propose trimming much less, a rough consensus ought to do. Anyway, having a cult designation super-trim RfC every 3 months is too much. Had I still been active as an admin in the article (with thanks to Vanamonde93 for picking up the torch), I probably would have barred this latest RfC from even proceeding (as such). It just isn't a sensible way to engage the problem at hand. It seems like a one-sided approach and a timesink. So, Stefka Bulgaria, maybe it's time someone else had go at it...? Because, coupled with your rather perplexing SPI (to word it gently) involving Mhhossein earlier in the week, it doesn't look like it's heading anywhere good. At any rate, maybe a pre-RfC consultation period wouldn't be the worse idea. Instead of submitting one super-trim RfC after another, why not work together toward a proposal that both sides could find palatable. Or am I just howling at the moon? El_C 09:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I strongly support work[-ing] together toward a proposal that is both concise but also contains all the major points. We can use the two proposals in the RfC already (SB's and VR's) as starting points.VR _talk 11:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I strongly oppose re-opening the rfc since it received concensus and was closed properly. If some editors want to shape the final outcome, then they should start a new rfc and see if that receives consensus, so I support working together in a new rfc. Idealigic (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Your use of the word "consensus" is too vague, Idealigic. Because what I am saying above (and have said in the prior RfC), is that one would need a strong consensus to reduce sourced material to 1/20th (prior RfC) to 1/10th (current RfC) of its former size. Rough consensus just isn't good enough for changes of that magnitude. El_C 17:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

The head count was 10 editors in favor of the proposal and 4 against it (and even some of votes that were against the OP’s proposal agreed the text needed shortening so it could be more neutral, so there was an unambiguous consensus that the text needs to be shortened, something also consistent with past discussions).In cases where arguments on both sides are equally compelling citing relevant policies our SOP (as described in WP:NHC) requires the closer "to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it".

The text was requested to be summarized because there a section in the article with the violating title “designation as a cult” (it violates WP:V and WP:OR) with exuberant number of quotes calling the democratic political opposition to Iran’s theocracy a "cult". The OP provided many sources about the Iranian regime running a disinformation campaign to label this political group a “cult” and other discrediting things:

• "A well-funded, highly organized misinformation campaign attempts to demonize the only viable alternative to Tehran’s rulers, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), whose four decades of opposition to one of the world’s most evil regimes apparently equates with being some sort of terrorist cult."

• "disinformation campaign to discredit the opposition, namely the MEK. The objective has been to show that no democratic alternative is available and that dealing with this regime or looking for change within it is the only option for the West. The campaign involves the use of social media, dissemination of fake news, provision of grants for biased and slanderous reports, and even hiring reporters directly or through middlemen. In testimony before the Canadian Parliament on July 5, 2010, John Thompson, who headed the Mackenzie Institute, a security think-tank in Canada, said a man tied to Iran’s mission in Canada offered him $80,000. “They wanted me to publish a piece on the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK). Iran is trying to get other countries to label it as a terrorist cult."

  ”

• "To my knowledge, the regime has not spent a dime on demonizing the elderly remnants of the monarchy, but it does pay journalists abroad to publish fake stories against the MEK. The head of a major Canadian think tank revealed that the Iranian regime embassy offered him up to $80,000 to refer to the MEK as a "cult" in his publications."

• "A 2011 report by the General Intelligence and Security Service stated that the government in Iran continued to coordinate a campaign financed by the Iranian intelligence services to undermine and portray the MEK in a highly negative manner. This campaign also involved the media, politicians, and public servants."

• "Teheran’s efforts to undermine the opposition People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (Mujahedin-e Khalq, MEK) in the Netherlands continued unabated in 2011. In a campaign co-ordinated and financed by the Iranian intelligence services, the media and a number of politicians and other public servants were approached with a view to portraying the MEK in a highly negative light."

• "The intensification of the MOIS research efforts already described for 2015 against the opposition "People's Modjahedin Iran Organization" (MEK) or theirs political arm, the “National Council of Resistance of Iran” (NCRI), was also found in 2016. The Iranian intelligence service continued to adhere to the strategy that the MEK targeted through Discredit propaganda."

• "“The Iranian regime has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to demonize the PMOI and portrayed it as a group without popular support,” Rafizadeh, an Arab News columnist, added."

• "The campaign to suppress and demonize the opposition, most notably the MEK, has been launched since the Islamic regime usurped power in Iran. In fact, the Iranian intelligence and security apparatus has been actively pursuing various activities against the MEK such as monitoring, assassinating and, more importantly during recent years, demonizing the opposition group in media. For instance, in 2015 and 16, the regime produced at least 30 films, TV series and documentaries to spread false allegations and lies against the opposition in Iran’s society. This is apart from hundreds of websites and exhibitions across Iran to pursue the same goal."

These are just some of the reasons mentioned in that discussion why this needed shortening, cleaning that section and preserving the main points. If new information needs to be added, then a proposition can be made explaining why it is needed and how they are in accordance to a summary style editing. That would be a fresh approach of building the article instead of the other way around (which has already proven not to work). Idealigic (talk) 12:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Why do you guys think bludgeoning the discussion with such a text wall can be helpful? As I told you, you did exactly the same thing at the talk page of MEK but it just made the whole talk page into a real mess. As a friendly note, this is not really helpful. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Idealigic's count of "10 vs 4" is wrong. There were two proposals: 10 chose SB's, 7 chose VR's (see collapsed section Vote counts for diffs and details) - this is not consensus.VR _talk 15:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The main problem with a situation like this is that while everyone is in agreement it needed to be changed, there wasnt a particularly strong consensus for one version over another. Usually the argument is 'do we change it to this or not'. The standard wiki response in a non-consensus situation is revert to the status quo, that was clearly not an option here, as no one wanted that. Given the weight of arguments were roughly equal, it then does come to a numbers game. The alternatives are: extending the RFC to gain more input, by advertising a bit more widely, or just reclosing it as no-consensus and taking it back to the default state. The issue with leaving it open is there are not (from reading it) many more decent arguments that could be made on either side. Re-opening a discussion for the purpose of just hoping more people up the numbers on one side or another is just an invitation to canvassing. Just to be clear I Endorse the close as valid given the discussion there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Only in death, you raise an important point about how re-opening the RfC discussion itself is a questionable proposition, though I think you also overlook some of the points I raised about the background behind the cult designation RfCs (plural). Especially, how WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS may be at odds with super-trimming content down to like 1/10th to 1/20th of its former size in an article as fraught as this. Again, I, for one, feel that the two sides giving a go to a collaboration in a pre-RfC brainstorming session could prove to be a worthwhile pursuit. We keep having the same side (and the same editor, in fact) in effect dominating the RfC platform when it comes to this matter. But, as for a mere re-open, it would, indeed, be folly. Procedurally, what I would favour (and I suppose what I originally had in mind) is an immediate re-closing, as opposed to relisting. And if it is re-closed affirming the result of the first closure, then that is what it is. Anyway, I have amended my original comment accordingly. El_C 17:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Only in death and El_C for input. Reason for re-opening was to get responses to two policy issues with SB version:

• SB's version misrepresenting the sources that say MEK is a cult (concern raised during RfC)
• SB's weasel wording equating scholarly sources to newspaper op-eds (raised during RfC[10]). Academic consensus is clear that MEK is a cult. Even SB admitted that no source dismisses the cult claim.

Neither concern was responded to during the RfC. I'm fine with a re-close as long as closer evaluates the merits of these two arguments.VR _talk 17:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

A "consensus to reduce but no consensus on exact wording" can be a good thing. This finding on the previous RfC actually spawned proposals and counter-proposals. That is exactly what is needed: less !voting and more WP:NEGOTIATION.VR _talk 18:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• This discussion had been going on for months and a RFC was the only solution left for getting things somewhat fixed in the article, so in spite that there is not an overwhelming majority of votes for one version over another (although I also count 10-4 in favor of Stefka's proposal, and 6-7 in favor of VR's propoal), I agree with editor Onlyindeath that the close is valid considering the alternatives. Alex-h (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

See Vote counts, 10 chose SB's version, 7 chose VR's version.VR _talk 22:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• There is nothing wrong with the first close. Ypatch (talk) 06:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

References
References

• Source restriction is what's needed at People's Mujahedin of Iran (and similar super-contentious articles). The sources being used on all sides (popular press) are not good enough for this topic. If we try to source a topic like MEK to popular press like BBC and arabnews.com, what we'll find is that the sources are all over the map and say all kinds of radically different things, depending entirely on who is publishing, who the journalist is, and who the journalist's sources are. We'll never get to any neutral truth about a complex topic like MEK relying on journalists. There are hundreds of academic sources about MEK. Those should be the only ones considered. The picture becomes much clearer when we rely on political scientists and other types of scholars, instead of journalists and activists, as sources. I think Chet did a fine job closing this complex RFC; sure, a no consensus close would also have been in discretion; sure, it could have run longer; Chet kind of split-the-baby with a close that addressed part of the issue and with no prejudice to further discussion of a remaining part of the issue; but without a source restriction, the MEK content disputes will never, ever be resolved. So I think step 1 is impose a source restriction, and then have whatever RFCs. But everyone's arguments would need to be re-evaluated once the source restriction is in place, and I think that will lead us to seeing that what's in dispute isn't quite as disputed by the sources as we thought it was (scholars agree about much more than journalists do). Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Levivich I fully agree with restricting to scholarly sources - this is exactly what I said above and was repeatedly said during the RfC[11][12] by those who opposed SB version.VR _talk 20:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: I remember months ago El_C said scholarly sources had to be the core part of our discussions (@El C: Do you remember this? I can't find the diff). I want to say that ignoring the journalistic sources may be wrong, instead I suggest to give much more weight to the scholarly works. Btw, I would say inappropriate weighing of the arguments, is the most dominant issue here. Probably I will explain it in details later. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, sorry, nothing comes to mind. I mean, beyond the MEK, I generally favour citations which are grounded in the scholarship rather than in the mainstream media. As a maxim, the greater social-scientific detail a source provides, the better. But you work with whatever sources you got, I suppose... El_C 22:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome El_C. As a user involved in most, if not all, of the core discussions of the MEK page, although I believe sometimes journalistic works may frame a sociopolitical picture of the subject, I completely agree with favoring scholarly works over the ones from the mainstream media. Let's see what Vice regent and Levivich think? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome — what? I think you meant to say "thank you" and I was meant to say "you're welcome." Stop the Steal! Anyway, unless it's news, which is the domain of the media rather than that of academia. But after the fact, it's always a plus to have a reputable scholar emphasize and reaffirm (or qualify or whatever) this or that news piece alongside any other evidence. El_C 16:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

In my view, once serious scholarship becomes available, it should replace news media as a source in our articles. By "serious scholarship" I mean written by bona-fide scholars, published by real, peer-reviewed academic journals or in books (often edited by bona-fide scholars) published by university publishers (like Oxford University Press). Second-tier is non-peer-reviewed but still serious scholarly articles, in academic periodicals like Foreign Affairs, but in that case one must be careful to look at who the author is: an article by a politician in a periodical like Foreign Affairs is probably not going to make a good source; an article by a university professor published in the same magazine would be fine (but still not peer-reviewed, and may need attribution). Third-tier is top-rated news media, like BBC or The Economist or The New York Times. These should only be used when there is nothing available in the first or second tier. That will happen, of course, for any current or recent events. So as events unfold and are written into our articles, they should start with top-rated news media as sources, but then those sources should be gradually replaced as better ones (from scholarly publications) become available.

With a topic like "Is MEK a terrorist cult?", well, we don't need to go to news media. MEK has been around for decades now; a lot of scholarship has been written about it. It's possible to look at the scholarly works (books by university publishers, academic journals) and see if they describe MEK as a terrorist cult. For that question, we shouldn't even bother looking at news media, because news media will pay a lot of attention to, say, what the gov't of Iran or the US said about it recently, without filtering that "recentist" information through the sober lens of scholarship. So I wouldn't consider news media for that question, except I guess if someone is making the argument that "terrorist cult" is a recently-significant viewpoint, too new for scholarship but nevertheless significant enough to include in our article, in which case our article should cover that by making it clear it's recent, and likely by attributing it.

So basically I think I agree with Mhhossein about weight. While I said "source restriction", I certainly think that there is a place for news media to have a limited role (e.g., for recent events), but that scholarly sources should, as Mhhossein said, be favored or weighed stronger than news media sources. Ultimately as time goes on and scholarly sources are written, they should be replacing news media sources as sources in our articles. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

In a sense, it's an approach that aims at drawing a parallel between the natural and social sciences. The mainstream media is fine for news, but beyond the contemporaneous, it is more encyclopedic to refer to the scholarship. Of course, the influence of political ideology tends to be far more pronounced in the social sciences than it is in the natural ones — but the principle is more or less the same. And, indeed, in the case of the MEK, there is no shortage of scholarly input on... pretty much anything. El_C 17:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

El_C: Hahaha, "I'm sorry (you're welcome)". I meant to say sth in response to your "sorry" (which I now see was not an appropriate reaction towards you). Thank you anyway. I think you raised this important issue of using the scholarly sources long ago and the outcome of ignoring that is showing itself just now. Also, thanks for your time Levivich. The explanation was quite comprehensive and reasonable. I agree with your points. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:40, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Looking at that YouTube comment section (in general, a nexus of wisdom and grace), I echo what Clever and Original Username. (full stop in the original!) said 5 years ago: the idea of Gene belcher saying fuckscape still makes me really uncomfortable. Amen to that. El_C 15:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Based on the discussion above, would there be broad agreement between El_C, Levivich, Mhhossein and myself that the RfC should be re-closed (not re-opened), where the closer takes re-evaluates the arguments based on Levivich's proposed "source weighting" (giving scholarly sources more weight than news media sources)?VR _talk 19:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

There are several editors here agreeing that there was nothing wrong with the first close. If the issue is instead "source restriction"/"source weighting" of third-tier media, then that is something that needs to be applied to the whole article and not to one particular section (like Alex pointed out below, which has been completely ignored for some reason). I will start a talk page discussion on the MEK page to see if we can first agree on applying "source restriction" to the article as a whole. If that passes, then that would answer a lot of questions about what should or shouldn't be in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:12, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on the MEK talk page to see if we can first come to an agreement of applying source restriction on the MEK page as a whole. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Why do you think we should STOP everything until YOUR discussion is coming to a desired end? If you have something to say, simply add it here.--Mhhossein ^talk 11:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, I have added it here, as well as on the MEK's talk page. Levivich suggested that one way to make RFCs more straight-forward at the MEK page could be to first implement a source restriction there, AND THEN have whatever RFCs. So if a source restriction is to be implemented to the MEK article, then we first need to evaluate if this should/will come into effect, and if it does, then we need to determine how this will affect the vast number of media sources used in this article (and not only the ones pertaining to this RFC). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Please stop changing Levivich's words. I don't think he meant we should wait and experimentally see if this approach works. My understanding of his words is that the RFCs would have different outcomes with source restriction in place. This stonewalling will not stop this RFC from reaching a conclusion. @Levivich: Would you please elaborate on this?--Mhhossein ^talk 17:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria and Mhhossein: TBH when I wrote my comment, I had in mind a source restriction for the entire article at least, if not the entire topic area (WP:GS/IRANPOL), because I think that will help future content disputes as well as the present one (as Alex-h points out, a source restriction would affect much more content in the article than just what's at issue in this RFC; it could significantly change what we say about the topic in wikivoice). I'll say generally that by "source restriction", I don't mean source removal so much as source replacement, i.e., replace a BBC cite with an academic journal cite when one is available; I don't mean someone should delete everything cited to the BBC. In some cases, something cited to news media can't be replaced with academic sourcing, and in those cases, perhaps removal is the correct choice, but it's really a case-by-case analysis.

With regard to this RFC, I don't think a future source restriction could be applied retroactively. That said, we do have global consensus about WP:RS, WP:V, WP:BLP (where applicable), etc. So whether a closer of this RFC should weigh !votes based on the quality of sources... I think generally yes, it's OK for a closer to discount a !vote based on, for example, a deprecated source. Can a closer weigh !votes based on academic sources heavier than !votes based on non-academic sources? (Which is, I think, what the current disagreement is about?) I have no what the answer to this question is. To be honest I don't think I've ever encountered it before.

If a source restriction is put in place, for the article or the topic area, it will result in changes to articles as it is enforced. And those changes might make this RFC moot anyway, or it might give justification to re-visiting the RFC. I really don't know, it sort of depends on whether there's a source restriction, what kind of restriction exactly, and what the sources that "pass" the restriction say about the topic.

I get Mhhossein's point about not holding up this RFC close while the community discusses a potential source restriction. Maybe the best thing is for a closer to close the RFC now but recognize that the issue may be revisited in the future if, for example, the content changes because of a source restriction being enforced.

But it's probably best to get more outside opinions, esp. from admins, as this is AN and a contentious RFC. Merry Christmas if you celebrate it, or Merry Clausmas if you celebrate a secular Christmas like I do :-) (Non-administrator comment) Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:48, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

There is a lot of third-tier (and fourth-tier) journalism in the MEK article. This for example:

• ”Hersh reported names of former U.S. officials paid to speak in support of MEK, including former CIA directors James Woolsey and Porter Goss; New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani; former Vermont Governor Howard Dean; former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Louis Freeh and former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton.”

• "The Intercept published that Bob Menendez, John McCain, Judy Chu, Dana Rohrabacher and Robert Torricelli received campaign contributions from MEK supporters.

• "According to Hersh, MEK members were trained in intercepting communications, cryptography, weaponry and small unit tactics at the Nevada site up until President Barack Obama took office in 2009."

• "According to the Intercept, one of Alavi's articles published by Forbes was used by the White House to justify Donald Trump Administration's sanctions against Iran."

• "Karim Sadjadpour believes the MEK is a "fringe group with mysterious benefactors that garners scant support in its home country", and that the population of its supporters in Iran "hovers between negligible and nill"."

The list goes on and on... Alex-h (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• Besides El_C and Levivich, 2 other uninvolved users commented here. @S Marshall: and @Only in death: what do you think of the above proposal to re-close (not re-open) the RfC where the closer takes re-evaluates the arguments by giving scholarly sources more weight than news media sources? This was already stated twice during the RfC ([13][14]) by those opposed to SB version but never responded to during the RfC. WP:NEWSORG says Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics.VR _talk 12:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

See this discussion: the news sources are not contradicting the scholarly sources, they are just adding a different POV (that isn't in the article). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Moreover, cherry-picking when source restriction should be implemented is the equivalent of cherry-picking our preferred sources. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

VR, you are overlooking the main argument here. Are we executing source restriction to the entire MEK article? We cannot execute source restriction to one sentence and not the rest of the article. Alex-h (talk) 14:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• In response to Vice regent's ping: No, I don't think there are good grounds to re-close. I should disclose that on 8 February 2019, I closed an RfC about the lede of this article myself, and while I was evaluating that debate, I formed the view that this article is edited by people with a strong and active interest in the topic area who are very motivated to affect what it says. I think that in that environment, a closer needs to exercise a lot of judgment; and I think that because he needs to, he's therefore, necessarily, authorised to. He's within discretion and it ill behoves us to undermine him.—S Marshall T/C 18:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

S Marshall I appreciate your view, thanks for giving it. Do you have any comment on my (and others') view that the RfC proposal violates WP:V by misquoting a source, and violates WP:DUE and WP:NEWSORG by giving news sources similar weight as scholarly sources?VR _talk 04:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent in response to your poins:

1) The RfC proposal does not violate WP:V:

"Over the years, Tehran’s terror campaign at home and abroad has been augmented by a massive, well-orchestrated, well-financed demonization and disinformation campaign to discredit the opposition, namely the MEK. The objective has been to show that no democratic alternative is available and that dealing with this regime or looking for change within it is the only option for the West. The campaign involves the use of social media, dissemination of fake news, provision of grants for biased and slanderous reports, and even hiring reporters directly or through middlemen. In testimony before the Canadian Parliament on July 5, 2010, John Thompson, who headed the Mackenzie Institute, a security think-tank in Canada, said a man tied to Iran’s mission in Canada offered him $80,000. “They wanted me to publish a piece on the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK). Iran is trying to get other countries to label it as a terrorist cult.”

International Policy Digest

"To my knowledge, the regime has not spent a dime on demonizing the elderly remnants of the monarchy, but it does pay journalists abroad to publish fake stories against the MEK. The head of a major Canadian think tank revealed that the Iranian regime embassy offered him up to $80,000 to refer to the MEK as a "cult" in his publications... And yet, over the past several years, Iran’s state-run media has produced a total of nineteen movies, series, and documentaries—some of them consisting of up to twenty-eight segments of thirty to forty-five minutes each—that demonize the MEK. In 2018 alone, eighteen major books were published by the regime against the MEK. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei excoriated the MEK by name at least four times. Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani has directly blamed the MEK for organizing public protests."

National Interest

"Of late, the blather has gone from a wave to a barrage. A well-funded, highly organized misinformation campaign attempts to demonize the only viable alternative to Tehran’s rulers, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), whose four decades of opposition to one of the world’s most evil regimes apparently equates with being some sort of terrorist cult."

Arab News

All three sources support "while other sources say the Iranian regime is running a disinformation campaign to label the MEK a "cult", so WP:V has not been violated. If you think the text could be quoted better, then just provide a suggestion on the article's talk page and we'll get others to weigh in.

2) This does also does not violate neither WP:DUE nor WP:NEWSORG. One POV has 54 characters, and the other has 18 characters, so more weigh has been given to the POV with more sources. Also see the other sources provided here by Idealigic (there are plenty of sources supporting that there is a disinformation campaign by the Iranian regime against the MEK), so this content is clearly WP:DUE. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Advice re: would we need a new admin?

• Syrian Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• عمرو_بن_كلثوم (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who signs as Amr ibn Kulthoum}}
• Fiveby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm trying to stay uninvolved at Talk:Syrian Kurdistan, which is fully protected with a lead that has disputed content. Discussion is stalling out over making any changes whatsoever. I am thinking it might help break the logjam if the lead is stripped of all disputed content, then consensus formed to add stuff back in per ONUS. If I suggest this and delete from the lead everything at least X# editors object to, have I made myself involved? I'm the only admin working there, so unless someone else is willing to come in as an admin, I don't want to become involved. —valereee (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, That is an unusual approach, and its a pretty short lead anyway, I think if you removed the controversial content you'd have no lead. Your course of action could work, but you would need to get consensus to do so, otherwise that's clearly making you involved. I've put the article on my watchlist, and take a look to see what can be done. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, hi there - sorry, I started trying to moderate that talk page, then work got too full on. Thanks for picking up the baton. I think that Ed Johnston has some familiarity with the dispute. FWIW, I agree that a stripped back, basic, uncontroversial lead might be a good starting point. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Bollocks - misfired my ping to EdJohnston, sorry. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I would encourage User:Valereee to keep trying to mediate at Talk:Syrian Kurdistan. If possible they should try to avoid editing the article directly. If you think the lead ought to be shortened, offer the 'before' and 'after' versions for review on the talk page and ask for editors to vote. If you want an outside admin to take a look at a specific question you could ping me. EdJohnston (talk) 04:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Aye, thanks, all. I'll hang in as long as Levivich hangs in. :) —valereee (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the sales pitch needs work, val. Maybe something like this:

HEY! ADMIN AND EXPERIENCED EDITORS! You've been working hard, you deserve a break! Come and relax at sunny Syrian Kurdistan, where the conversation is ample and you're sure to make new friends. You can read a book (or twenty, there's quite a few to get through), have a drink (or twenty), or, for those seeking something more adventurous, explore the Holy Walls of Text in the ancient Talk Page Archives. There's something for everyone at Syrian Kurdistan! Visit today! Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Sold! El_C 17:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, CaptainEek, Girth Summit, EdJohnston, ANYONE. I've already p-blocked two editors from this talk who were POV-pushing. There's one left making the same stale POV-pushing arguments. I am a bit loathe to myself block the last editor who is arguing that side because frankly it feels like one admin throwing too much weight around. Could someone else please take a look in hopes that we can finally make incremental progress here? Or could someone else please come in as an editor and weigh in on the sourcing/content dispute? Or tell me to turn into an editor, and you can become the admin? Tag, you're it! Also someone should give Levivich a goddamn knighthood. —valereee (talk) 03:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I've added pagelinks for Syrian Kurdistan at the top of this thread. I've also included userlinks for the two people that got partial blocks from the talk page, as well as User:Supreme Deliciousness who I guess may be the person that Valereee thinks is making 'stale POV-pushing arguments'. The dispute at Syrian Kurdistan has been running for a long time, and at some point, I think the interested editors ought to organize their own dispute resolution. When this doesn't happen and the matter falls to the admins to resolve, there is a risk of a random or quirky outcome, since they usually don't know the content. The use of partial blocks from talk is an idea I haven't seen before though I see the logic of it. If you want a more 'classic' way of handling the situation from an admin standpoint you could issue restrictions under WP:GS/SCW to the editors you believe aren't being cooperative and then those bans could get reviewed at WP:AN. But personally I don't object to the partial blocks from Talk. In the past, messy cases like this have sometimes gone to Arbcom, but I see that outcome as a failure by admins collectively to use strong enough measures to deal with things that have run for a long time without resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 04:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I don't care about classic but I'd love any approach that works better! :) I really wanted to avoid issuing topic bans. I dislike them and I think they're traps. But the recent RMs make me think that's probably what's going to end up being needed. The two editors I p-blocked just moved on to other contentious articles about the Syrian civil war. —valereee (talk) 13:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: I'm new to this topic area and don't have all the (many, probably hundreds) of pages watchlisted but after doing some digging I have concerns about editing on articles well beyond Syrian Kurdistan and even those recent SK-related RMs, into other (non-Syrian) Kurdish-related articles. I think we need to extend the WP:GS/SCW to include all of "Kurdistan" and anything related to Kurds (I believe El C presciently suggested this some time ago). In addition, let's have the community look again at some of the editing that's been going on, particularly since the last ANI reports. We haven't really had a "clean" presentation of the POV-pushing evidence, separate from incivility/bludgeoning issues. Now that the latter is actually under control, the former becomes clearer. I don't like TBANs either, and originally I was thinking someone should file an arbcom case after the new year, but this won't keep until then. There is ongoing removal of Kurdish-related content from so many articles (happening today, yesterday, the day before) that I think we need some kind of "emergency injunction". So I think I'm going to collect some recent diffs and open a thread here and see where that gets us. At least the community can take one more crack at it and if that doesn't resolve the disruption, then I guess Arbcom? Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, the GS are so rarely used for actual problems that I doubt it’d make a difference. From what I remember of the logs, most usage of GS is spammers / trolls / obvious disputes, or your typical page protection. I doubt it would help with disputes like this. GS is barely effective as it is. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

No idea what's happening right now as I've yet to review this thread's contents beyond the comment directly above where I was pinged, so this is a general statement only: expanding the SCW GS is problematic because of the narrow timeframe and geography — Kurds in Iran, for example, wouldn't really fit. The reason GS is less effective than DS is because its operation is more diffused. DS has AE, which is a superior forum to here (AN). Also, the final authority for DS is the Arbitration Committee, which as far review mechanisms go, is a more stable proposition than that of the community for GS. Anyway, however we are able to turn the tide, I'm all for that. Please notify me whenever this is attempted so that I could contribute. El_C 17:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

OK I will post some recent diffs to a subpage and we can go from there. Levivich ^harass/_hound 23:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee, El C, EdJohnston, and Girth Summit: Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Kurds. I looked for diffs in Dec 2020, then after a bit, I stopped looking for more. The list does not include all relevant editors, articles, or diffs, but it's enough to get the idea. All editors named have been notified. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I very strongly object to valereees comment about "There's one left making the same stale POV-pushing arguments" I'm discussing in a calm way at the talkpage, everything I have said is backed up by reliable sources and I am not going to edit war with anyone at that article. The article/talkpage is calm now. I also strongly object to the incorrect blocks of عمرو_بن_كلثوم and Fiveby which were both unfounded.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness, I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish here. An unfounded claim about an action you claim is unfounded (word salad!) seems like a bit of a non-starter. Just seems a bit silly for you to even bother expressing such a stark disagreement with valereee's blocks when you provide zero substance. Maybe it's a sign of the times that I need to spell this out, but: zero substance → zero traction. El_C 01:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Please keep discussions on content to the article's talk page.

Supreme Deliciousness, you literally have just argued for the nth time that the current lead sentence, which contains disputed material that editors have would have every right remove except the article is fully protected, is "more neutral" than the proposed one. For comparison, the current lead sentence is Syrian Kurdistan or Western Kurdistan (Kurdish: Rojavayê Kurdistanê‎), often shortened to Rojava, is regarded by some Kurds and some regional experts as the part of Kurdistan in Syria. The proposed lead sentence is Syrian Kurdistan is a Kurdish-inhabited area in northern Syria surrounding three noncontiguous enclaves along the Turkish and Iraqi borders: Afrin in the northwest, Kobani in the north, and Jazira in the northeast. Syrian Kurdistan is sometimes called Western Kurdistan (Kurdish: Rojava Kurdistanê‎, lit. 'Kurdistan where the sun sets'), one of the four "Lesser Kurdistans" that comprise "Greater Kurdistan", alongside Iranian Kurdistan (Kurdish: Rojhilatê Kurdistanê‎‎, lit. 'Kurdistan where the sun rises'), Turkish Kurdistan (Kurdish: Bakurê Kurdistanê‎, lit. 'Northern Kurdistan'), and Iraqi Kurdistan (Kurdish: Başûrê Kurdistanê‎, lit. 'Southern Kurdistan'). You have literally been arguing for weeks now that Syrian Kurdistan "isn't a place", that "all sides and all views" must be present in the lead sentence. You haven't budged from that, even when policy and scholarship have been presented to you, and I believe that while you're working in good faith, you believe what you believe and can't accept what the scholars say, and the result is well-intentioned POV-pushing. It is not an unfair description of what you've been doing at that article. —valereee (talk) 13:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC) Why are only scholarship mentioning "Syrian Kurdistan" relevant to you? Why are scholars using other terms for the area not relevant to you? The talkpage is to discuss disputes, and as long as the discussion is civil, then there isn't any problem. I already said that I'm not going to engage in any edit war over the issue. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC) Supreme Deliciousness, no, there's also WP:CIVILPOV, which is still disruptive. To be clear, it's nothing to do with what's relevant to me. I am not arguing with you about sourcing or content. I am telling you what I am seeing: one editor, when presented with a preponderance of sources using the same term for an area, listing other phrases used to refer to it in various contexts and using that to insist that until all authors refer to it in all contexts in a single way, Wikipedia must continue to present it as "some people say" instead of "is". What I'm telling you is from the point of view of someone who really doesn't care what the lead says, this isn't a reasonable standard. —valereee (talk) 13:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC) If you google "Syrian Kurdistan" then obviously that's what your going to find, so you need to google something else to find other names for the area. Who recognizes a "Syrian Kurdistan" ? Which country? Which international organ? We have scholary sources that say that the term "Syrian Kurdistan" is "mythology" and "imagined community" and was rarely used before 2012, so why should "Syrian Kurdistan" be presented as an undisputed official name for the area? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

More eyes needed at Christine Fang

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

---

• Christine Fang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• WP:Articles for deletion/Christine Fang

A BLP, Christine Fang is attracting a lot of POV editing. More eyes are needed there and on its talk page. Abductive (reasoning) 10:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I second this given the amount of attention the page has been receiving over the past couple of days. That said, admins might be interested to note the filing editor himself has edit warred on the page despite my informing him that what he was doing was in violation of BRD [15] and he's made the less-than-good-faith accusations against me [16] that I might be guilty of WP:OWNERSHIP, WP:POV warrior, and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Forevertruthsayer (talk) 10:57, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: Forevertruthsayer is one of many socks of Waskerton. -- GoodDay (talk) 00:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I checked out the AfD and found a number of sockpuppets there. ST47 (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

What essay states that we should be suspicious of editors who have TRUTH in their username? I swear we just had another Truth account last week that was blocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:OWB #72. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The other Truth account blocked last week was OnlyTruthShallPrevail. Watch out for the Truths. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

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

RPP

Is there actually any point requesting page protection for BLPs? It seems like a waste of time in my experience. DuncanHill (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

DuncanHill, I've done it a number of times. It's useful when some idea gets going on twitter and multiple IP/new editors start all trying to insert the same nonsense (like right now with Alexander Myres which I just requested protection for). Schazjmd (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

DuncanHill, in what way is it a waste of time? That it doesn't happen fast enough, or doesn't fix the problem or what? —valereee (talk) 04:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that DuncanHill was frustrated that he requested page protection at Xisco (footballer, born 1980) yesterday at 19:45, the disruption continued, and the page wasn't protected until 00:09 this morning. What can I say DH - there is a limited number of admins, we're all volunteers, yada yada. I'm guessing you know the way to WP:RfA, if you want to offer to help out with the backlogs. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

If there is ongoing intensive disruption (such as rapidly reverted and restored vandalism) it makes sense to ask some of recently active admins at their talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh yeah, there was a load of disruption, I can see why DH was frustrated, and I have no objection to pinging or directly contacting active admins to ask for a speedy response. I'm just saying that complaining about the whole process isn't really helpful - if he was going to go to the effort of posting here, something along the lines of 'Xisco (footballer, born 1980) is getting hammered by IPs, I've posted at RfPP but could someone protect urgently?' would probably have been more useful. DH, if you see something like that again and I'm active at the time, feel free to ping me. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah whatever. See the thread above for the response to raising a backlog and pinging admins. Seriously - if the way to get a BLP protected is to post here rather than at RPP then we should say so in bloody big red letters at the top of RPP. DuncanHill (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

DuncanHill, I think what happens is that admins have different places they patrol and have some expertise. A month or so ago, I was asked to enforce a complaint at ANEW but the admins who frequent that board have a better sense of evaluating reverts and what an appropriate sanction is for them than I would, going in for the first time. So, there are some admins (could be just a handful) who patrol RPP and if they are otherwise occupied, things can back up. But more admins have AN & ANI on their Watchlists so a post here is more likely to get some attention which is appropriate if it is an urgent situation. But if you started to regularly post all protection requests to this noticeboard as an alternative to RPP, you'd get a lot of pushback pretty quickly. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that it's a busy time of year, so admins get tied up with holiday stuff. I like to patrol RfPP but have been busy with other things the last few weeks, and I noticed some other familiar faces absent from my watchlist so I think it's a short-lived trend. I hope to get back there soon, but if anyone wants a primer on how to handle RfPP requests, MelanieN has done a wonderful job documenting her workflow at User:MelanieN/Page protection. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

DuncanHill, I'd echo the advice about anything of an urgent nature of a BLP. Most reports to RfPP aren't urgent and can wait a few hours, but for a BLP no one reasonable is going to object to a post here also, about a clearly urgent issue, as redundant. —valereee (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Multiple failed logins

I got a notice about multiple failed logins to my account with a new device. Is there a way to find out where these attempts to break into my account came from? Are IPs which make these attempts automatically blocked? (If not, they should be.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think finding that information out is a thing. Possibly, those attempts get throttled after a while...? I dunno. I get this notice once every few months. Best thing to do is just ignore it and move on. El_C 02:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

For some reason, I get these notices all of the time, probably 3 or 4 times a month. If it is a solitary attempt to log in, the email message should give you the IP account. If it is "multiple attempts", then the message typically doesn't. And, for me, they aren't always trying to log in from the English Wikipedia, sometimes it is from the Spanish Wikipedia or Mediawiki or other projects. I might be targeted because I have a short username. I always think that if I'm getting sent these messages, then the system is working. If the someone managed to access my user account and switch it to a different email account that they controlled, I wouldn't be getting the messages at all. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it's a good thing that the system is working to protect me, but it's odd that an IP would be identified for a single failed log-in, but not the IP(s) responsible for multiple failed log-ins. I wonder what the rationale for that is? In any case, my feeling is that if someone is trying to break in to my account, it's not far-fetched to think that they would do so for someone else's account, perhaps someone whose password is not as secure -- and then they're in, free to damage the encyclopedia. That's why I feel that any failed log-in should be followed-up with a message to the account holder asking "Was this you?", and if the answer is no, the IPs involved should be blocked for a reasonable period of time, not only from editing, but from attempting to sign-in. That, to my mind, would provide an additional amount of security, and perhaps prevent some accounts from being harassed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

That would be dependent on having an email account attached to 100% of registered accounts, and a mandatory requirement that all accounts receive "system" emails. Not seeing that as a likely occurrence, given the current privacy policy. Risker (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I was think more an on-wiki message & response, as opposed to e-mail. If e-mail was required to have such a feature, then I see nothing wrong with saying "We have this increased security feature available, but you need a confirmed e-mail address to use it," just as you have to have one to use the Wikipedia e-mail feature. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, I could see that being used for a Denial of service attack if there wasn't a human in the loop. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

MediaWiki does actually have a throttle, which walks this balance between unlimited attempts and DoS. It was hopefully reviewed last year (IIRC) after some of us were getting tens of thousands of login attempts at a time. If you're only getting a few, just review your password security then ignore it. And by the way, I believe there's already a bug report somewhere requesting that the IP is shown. Unfortunately I don't know its status, but WP:VPT is probably the place to ask about it and filing any future feature requests. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Liz is a common name. Login attempts are probably from people who think they may have created an account by that name. wikiquote:User:Liz~enwikiquote, de:User:Liz~dewiki, als:Liz (usurped), mw:Liz (usurped)~mediawikiwiki and maybe others actually did create that account name before being renamed due to usurpation or single unified login. mw:Liz (usurped)~mediawikiwiki was renamed twice, first from "Liz" to "Liz (usurped)" and then to "Liz (usurped)~mediawikiwiki" when als:Liz (usurped) got the unified login. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Login attempts are probably from people who think they may have created an account by that name. As ridiculous as this may initially sound, this seems a sensible assumption. My bank account login regularly gets locked by people logging in with their first name, thinking that's their banking login (when it's actually mine). Results in many painful trips to a bank branch to reset the login password, even though I never failed any login attempts. Never set a common name as a username. And yes, I need a better bank. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Yep, I'm a usurped account. Otherwise a 3 letter username would probably be a sign that I created this account in 2002...which is not the case. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:27, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

A better bank, and a bigger boat. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

2021 Arbitration Committee

The Arbitration Committee welcomes the following new and returning arbitrators following their election by the community. The two-year terms of these arbitrators formally begin on 01 January 2021:

• Barkeep49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BDD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bradv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• CaptainEek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• L235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Maxim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Primefac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All incoming arbitrators have elected to receive (or retain, where applicable) the CheckUser and Oversight permissions.

We also thank our outgoing colleagues whose terms end on 31 December 2020:

• DGG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Joe Roe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mkdw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to retain the CheckUser and Oversight permissions, remain active on cases accepted before their term ended, and to remain subscribed to the functionaries' and arbitration clerks' mailing lists following their term on the committee. To that effect:

• Stewards are requested to remove the permission(s) noted from the following outgoing arbitrators after 31 December 2020 at their own request:

  Oversight: Joe Roe

• Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to remain active on cases opened before their term ended if they wish. Whether or not outgoing arbitrators will remain active on any ongoing case(s) will be noted on the proposed decision talk page of affected case(s).
• All outgoing arbitrators will remain subscribed to the functionaries' mailing list
• DGG, Joe Roe, and Mkdw will be unsubscribed from the arbitration clerks' mailing list at their request.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katie^talk 01:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § 2021 Arbitration Committee

"Section edit"ing is behaving in a buggy manner, at least for me

So whenever I try to edit a section, the editor glitches out really badly, and whenever I try to reload the page, it logs me out.

This only happens when I try to edit a section.

Can somebody please explain what is happening? Foxnpichu (talk) 11:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

It works for me. Try to restart the computer. Does it glitch if you are logged out? Does it happen in safemode? Does it happen at meta:Help Forum? What is your browser? PrimeHunter (talk) 12:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter - I use an iPad to edit Wikipedia. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, I have just tried, and it is randomly working again. Thanks regardless. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Unblock request from Kolya Butternut

Copied over from their talk at their request —valereee (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I am appealing the block[17] which I received from Seraphimblade for "violating an arbitration decision" (a one-way IBAN). The block was given after I made the following post on my talk page:

Seraphimblade, are you willing to discuss this?

[18]

What I hoped to discuss was an email which I had sent to admin Sandstein which they had posted on my talk page.[19] I wanted to ask Seriphimblade if what I inferred that Sandstein meant in the email was true: that I am only permitted to discuss replacement of my IBAN with the blocking administrator. I wanted to ask Seriphimblade questions about 1-way IBANS which are unclear under WP:BANEX, specifically, how would I make a new report within the scope of my IBAN?

As for the email to Sandstein itself, I was surprised it was posted on my talk page as I felt it was clearly intended to be confidential, but I should have made that clear to Sandstein. Regardless, discussing the case through email was specifically permitted by Seraphimblade. Following my IBAN I had previously asked him, "Is discussion through Wikipedia email ok?" and "Am I permitted to neutrally ask an uninvolved party to investigate the case?",[20] to which he replied, "I can't realistically stop you from emailing anyone you want to. I suppose you can ask anyone you want to 'investigate' the case...."[21]

I believe both my email and talk page post were exceptions under WP:BANEX because I was "Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, e.g. addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum." Email was specifically identified as an appropriate forum to ask someone to "investigate" the case.

I should have made it more clear to Seraphimblade what specifically I was asking and how I felt that was an exception under BANEX, but I was caught quite by surprise by the email post, and I thought the appropriate thing to do was to notify Seraphimblade and first just ask him if he was willing to discuss anything about this. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• Bad block, overturn per the last time this exact thing happened. Inquiring about clarifications and appeals of a ban are explicitly allowed by WP:BANEX, and furthermore, KB was specifically directed to make this inquiry by another administrator, and doing what was suggested by a person with authority got them a block in place of any kind of constructive response. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

  From discussion on KB's talk page, it appears that Seraphimblade blocked because they assumed that KB was discussing an editor via emails with Sandstein in violation of their interaction ban. I have to assume that had Sandstein, an active AE admin, viewed the emails as a violation of the iban that they would have blocked themselves, rather than post an excerpt of the message and refer it off to someone else. KB has a recent history of harassment and other poor behaviour which seems to have rightly earned them a sanction, but I'm really struggling to see how any of this should earn a block. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• To be fair, it seems this is a continuation of User_talk:Kolya_Butternut#Appeal_argument, particularly (from Liz): an appeal should demonstrate that the I-Ban is no longer necessary, that you no longer are monitoring SPECIFICO's behavior and are no longer bringing complaints against them, it is not an invitation to relitigate your AE complaint to show how you were right. Your detailing problems with SPECIFICO's behavior is a violation of your I-Ban and you are lucky that Seraphimblade issued a warning instead of a block. You need to stop discussing SPECIFICO in every space of Wikipedia including your own talk page. and pinging Seraphimblade after Special:Diff/987917192/987933412 seems like a bad idea. Still, I generally expect emails to be a confidential form of communication / seeking advice and, notwithstanding Sandstein's email disclaimer, would not expect editors to be sanctioned for someone reproducing the contents onwiki. It kinda defeats the point if you're trying to get advice on a way forward without starting drama when you genuinely feel stuck and don't know what to do. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

  However, 1 way IBANs, especially if interpreted to prohibit discussion on turning it into a 2 way IBAN, seem kinda strange. I mean, if the other editor starts aggravating you, and either nobody else notices or cares enough, are you meant to do absolutely nothing about it because if you say anything it's a block? What are the methods of recourse for an editor with a 1 way IBAN? Presumably they can't go to ANI either, can't discuss anywhere onwiki, and (if this is upheld) can't discuss offwiki either. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

After the very negative reaction I received from Kolya Butternut for my general advice (that I'd give to any editor with an IBan), I think I'll stay clear of weighing in here, either for or against this block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• Bad block The background seems to be that KB requested Draft:Public image of Donald Trump be restored so they could work on it, and SPECIFICO then jumped in to make edits on that page as well. KB abandoned editing that page (in favor of User:Kolya Butternut/Public image of Donald Trump) to avoid IBAN issues and seems to want to get back to the draft. It's a Catch-22 to expect them to ask how to do so without inadvertently violating the ban. Sandstein said he needed to discuss with Seraphimblade, who immediately blocked KB for asking "are you willing to discuss this". There's some excess heat from KB regarding discussion of the IBAN, but I don't see anything actionable here to block. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
• Bad block, overturn, and adjust the IBAN due to Specifico following KB to Draft:Public image of Donald Trump:
  • For background: this fall, there were 5 AEs involving Specifico as a party, 3 of which involved Kolya Butternut (KB) as a party: AE #1, AE #2, AE #3, AE #4, AE #5. #1 was Specifico v. KB; #3 and #4 were KB v. Specifico, and KB was 1-way IBAN'd v. Specifico by Seraphimblade; #5 resulted in Specifico being TBANed for two weeks.
  • Additional background: Public image of Donald Trump was deleted following AFD in 2017 by Sandstein. On Nov 29, at KB's request, Sandstein draftified it.
  • KB edited Draft:Public image of Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) on Nov 30 and Dec 1.
  • Specifico edited the draft, including reverting some of KB's edits, on Dec 1 and Dec 2. See draft page history.
  • Specifico admitted that she started editing the draft because she saw KB's message on Sandstein's talk page.
  • KB didn't edit war and instead copied the draft to their userspace and worked on it there. User:Kolya Butternut/Public image of Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Hats off to KB for that choice.
  • Later, KB emailed Sandstein about the draft and IBAN. Sandstein posted the email to KB's talk page and said to ask the admin who issued the IBAN. KB pinged Seraphim. Seraphim blocked KB.
  • This was a bad block. KB should be unblocked.
  • The 1-way IBAN should be reversed or turned into a 2-way or dropped altogether.
  • Seraphim should not use admin tools with respect to KB in the future. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn. I have not read the discussion that led to interaction ban and I'm not privy to details about Kolya Butternut's emails, except for what KB and Sandstein have publicly written on KB's user talk page. My understanding is that KB emailed Sandstein, who told KB to discuss the interaction ban with Seraphimblade, which is exactly what KB did: they asked politely whether Seraphimblade is "willing to discuss this". It wasn't clear what KB was referring to with "this".
  Let's assume that KB was asking Seraphimblade whether they could discuss converting the one-way ban to two-way ban. Can a reasonable person assume that asking the question falls under ban exemptions? I think so. Had Sandstein or Seraphimblade simply mentioned that asking the question on Wikipedia would be a violation the ban, I think Kolya Butternut would have received the message. Seraphimblade gave their negative answer a minute after blocking KB. Judging by Seraphimblade's reply here, KB was specifically blocked for making one comment, asking Seraphimblade whether they would be "willing to discuss this". Should Kolya Butternut be punished for following Sandstein's instructions? I don't think so. Politrukki (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
• The appeal should be granted and the block undone. I would advise Seraphimblade to be more careful in the future. In my view, Kolya Butternut did not violate any interaction ban with their talk page messages because they did not refer to the user which the ban concerns. Even if this had been an interaction subject to the ban, it would have been allowed per WP:BANEX as an appeal of the ban. Sandstein 20:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
• So, I'd like to be clear here. KB was not blocked for emailing Sandstein, or because Sandstein then posted the email on-wiki. It was not KB's idea that that should be mentioned on-wiki, so they can't be held accountable for that. However, I have explicitly warned KB in the past that the interaction ban (as do all interaction bans) covers continuing to make on-wiki complaints about, and requests for sanctions against, the party against whom the interaction ban applies. When KB asked to discuss sanctions against SPECIFICO on-wiki (and I cannot imagine to what else the "this" referred to), that violated the ban, after having already been warned for it once. If interaction bans don't cover requesting sanctions against the editor it applies to, we may as well not have them at all; that would constantly be used to end-run them. And that is exactly what happened here—an end run, attempting to cover it with BANEX. BANEX does not cover requesting sanctions against the editor from whom one is interaction banned. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:40, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• You are right that Kolya Butternut's request was not an appeal of their own ban but a request to extend the ban to the other user. This does make the block defensible. That I advised Kolya Butternut to discuss the matter with you does not change this, because I lack the authority to make an exception from your sanction. Nonetheless, I think that the request (while borderline) is still within the sphere of "legitimate and necessary dispute resolution" as allowed by WP:BANEX, and I would advise you to undo the block for this reason. Sandstein 20:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• I disagree, it doesn't seem that defensible to me. To be blocked over a question which reads (in full): "are you willing to discuss this?" That doesn't sit right with me. Not to mention seeing as you, yourself, as the admin consulted directed them to make that query. I mean, if the answer on the part of the enforcing admin is: "as I already told you, the answer is no due to X, etc.," then that's what it is. But to block over it? Seems rather excessive. Finally, a word on one-way IBANS: whenever I impose these, I always tell the party deemed to be not at fault to treat it as if it were 2-way. And that if they fail to do so, it will just formally become that. Now that makes sense to me. El_C 00:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn block - we should give some latitude here. Given Sandstein's comment That is something you need to discuss with whoever imposed the interaction ban, I think virtually any editor could have continued like KB did. starship.paint (talk) 09:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn block and Extend to 2-Way IBAN. There's no good faith way, especially given their history, to understand why SPECIFICO would see a post by KB on Sandstein's talk page and go and revert KB on a draft article page, effectively locking out KB because of a 1 way IBAN. SPECIFICO further going into details about how KB can generate consensus on a draft article talk page to restore those reverts is a continuance of a long running discussion involving those editors about differing views on consensus required and ONUS. Finally, this is now the second time (here is the first) in a few weeks that Seraphimblade has blocked KB without bothering to understand or look into the details. Admins should be sure they are aware of what is going on before resorting to blocks. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• 2-way clearly necessary based on SPECIFICO's history of baiting KB, as by misgendering them as “it” at AE, and the incident with the draftified article; SPECIFICO literally followed KB into a draft they'd just started working on and made a flurry of edits that muddied the waters on whether KB could safely continue there. KB wisely retreated to their userspace to work on a copy there, but no one should be expected to have to do that because of a 1-way. When I asked SPECIFICO about the incident, they asked me why I was asking about it. Which is kind of jaw-dropping. —valereee (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Speaking just as an admin, I would extend this to a 2-way iBan. One way ibans can cause these sort of dilemma for the users. DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• I already commented on the block above, just adding that I agree with my colleagues that this sanction should be replaced by a 2-way interaction ban, as SPECIFICO is clearly following KB's edits to disruptively gain first mover advantage to shut KB out of topics where there is no prior dispute. Also, there's clearly consensus here that the block is improper, but Arbcom procedure requires either that the blocking admin vacate the block, or for there to be a formal close. @Seraphimblade: do the right thing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

  Ivanvector, KB cut-and-pasted nearly 100,000 bytes to a draft from an AfD'd article. I copy-edited, reverted, and reference checked +/-3000 bytes. There is nothing in KB's IBAN that precludes discussion of the content and sources or wording related to my edits. Trump happens to be a subject with which I'm highly familiar and active. Far from being disruptive or hostile edits -- or in any way personal or adverse to KB's participation -- I think most editors would welcome another editor suggesting changes to a tiny fraction of a cut-and-past presumably intended to jump-start such editing, reshaping and culling relevant content. If there is to be an appeal of the IBAN or a request for a sanction against me, e.g. making it 2-way, that should be done in a fully documented and orderly discussion on the merits, not as a general disaproval of 1-ways or casual aspersions about me in this unrelated context. As I said to Valereee on my talk page, there is nothing in KB's IBAN that would prohibit talk page discussion of article text, seeking consensus against my edits, or raising any of them at an RfC. SPECIFICO talk 19:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

  SPECIFICO, with apologies, I find that a bit disingenuous. Admins can interpret violations of any ban narrowly or broadly, and can act with or without warning. We literally have seen both a broad interpretation and acting without warning in this incident. For someone with a 1-way IBAN who wants to be sure they're in the safe zone, this means retreating from any article where the person they're IBANned from has edited recently. I am dismayed that you are still arguing this. —valereee (talk) 19:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

  Valeree, please participate with evidence and diffs rather than repeating your personal distaste for me here and on my talk page. FYI, KB and I have edited constructively on several pages within hours of one another on Village Pump threads, essays, guideline pages and at least one policy page. I do not comment on KB personally. I comment, where appropriate on the content under discussion regardless of who has introduced it, and the idea that a few tweaks on this massive cut and paste -- which I presume KB intended simply as a first approximation to set out some of the topics, sources, and content that might ultimately comprise a valid non-deleted article -- was personal or hostile or provocative? Sometimes edits are reworded, removed, or checked for verification. We don't IBAN for small well-reasoned edits. SPECIFICO talk 19:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

  SPECIFICO, not sure what you mean by 'personal distaste for you'. Up until the exchange we had yesterday I had no opinion of you whatsoever as far as I can recall, but here are a couple of diffs of you inserting comments above KB's: 1 2, which could on first glance make it look like they'd vio'd their iban. Not that this would fool anyone who bothered to investigate, but it could make KB a bit anxious since they couldn't object to the placement without violating their ban. To me this is the kind of thing that demands a 2-way. —valereee (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

  Those two diffs are examples of the two of us editing a talk page thread with no problems. The placement, (which is the same as the placement of this comment now) clarified to whom I was responding and an obviated any concern that I might have been responding to KB. It's not reasonble to think that I placed the comment there to create an appearance KB had violated the IBAN when 1) the comments are all timestamped, and 2) Nobody expressed any concern about that. The "Consensus Required" page has long been on my watchlist and has long been a matter I've discussed on many pages due to the ongoing discussion and controversy about its effectiveness. I had just received a brief topic block under that sanction and it was then and is now a matter of interest to me. Again, there was nothing contentious or IBAN provocative about my participation there. Indeed every example you will find of the two of us on the same thread shows that I took care not to address KB, to refer to KB or to provoke any violation. You may as well search the Village Pump Policy and Verifiability/ONUS discussions as well, if you would like further data. SPECIFICO talk 22:25, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

  And here's another: [22]. This is a page with 15 watchers. KB came in and edited, and a little while later, you started editing there also. This is really concerning. —valereee (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) That's not accurate at all. KB requested that the article be restored as a draft so they could work on it, and then copied some relevant content they likely intended to spin out to a new article. It took you less than 48 hours from the restoration to jump on the draft (reverting KB no less) and less than a day following that to edit enough of the draft that KB couldn't safely work on any part of it without risking a block. You say "most editors would welcome another editor suggesting changes", but I disagree: most editors would not "welcome" an editor they're prohibited from contact with descending on and taking over a topic they're interested in and have already invested significant effort in developing. Whether or not you intended to disrupt KB's participation in that topic, you did, and from the timing of everything it does look very much like you did so deliberately. If that's what you think is helpful then absolutely a 2-way IBAN is warranted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Ivanvector 100% here. Nsk92 (talk) 19:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn block and replace the one-way iBan by a 2-way iBan, per the comments of others above. Also, in view of Mr Ernie's comments, it'be preferable if a different admin, and not Seraphimblade, imposed the 2-way iBan in this case. Nsk92 (talk) 19:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

The only thing that the IBAN would have prohibited would have been for KB to edit-war by undoing my copyedits and reverts. As you know, those were less than 5% of the content KB added. At any rate, to keep some orderly process and evidence-based discussion, the matter of a 2-way IBAN is distinct from the block appeal in this thread. SPECIFICO talk 19:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

How exactly are they distinct? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• Valeree, please participate with evidence and diffs rather than repeating your personal distaste for me here and on my talk page (bold is my emphasis) — SPECIFICO, this is not a good look. I'm not sure what prompted you to go that route, but you should know that it is serving you poorly. El_C 19:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn block and make the IBAN two-way. In September I had to ask Specifico not to call Kolya "it", as he did in an AE report: "This editor has recently begun to disregard its AP2 topic ban." Following her to the Trump draft meant she couldn't continue to work on it comfortably. A one-way ban means the other person should stay away too, to avoid appearing to bait. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

  As I said above, I see no restriction that prevents KB from editing that draft subsequent to my edits there. Could you provide an example other than how KB feels? Also, the 1-way was enacted after thoroughly litigating everything up to that time. SPECIFICO talk 20:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

  That very question—"other than how KB feels"—as if how she feels is of no importance. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

  I did not say anything of the kind. But editors have a wide range of personal reactions to a wide range of circumstances, which is why we rely on policy, evidence, etc. Your comment, like Valereee's about "take my breath away" are valid personal reactions but not what I'd expect for evidence or argument. SPECIFICO talk 20:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

  "jaw-dropping", not breathtaking. Easy mistake, but watch the quotes. —valereee (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn block and make the IBAN two-way pretty much per SarahSV.--MONGO (talk) 20:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• So at this point I do not think I see anyone saying the ban should not be overturned, same with everyone pretty much in agreement that the IBAN should be converted to two way. Is it about time to close this then? PackMecEng (talk) 01:52, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

  The block should be lifted immediately. starship.paint (talk)

05:36, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

• replace one-way iBan by a 2-way iBan These edits by Specifico show the necessity of changing the one way Iban to a two way one.1 2 Specifico's reasoning for placing their comments above KB's, and why it was acceptable, is not internally consistent. They say they did it to remove any concern that they were replying to KB and it was not a problem because time stamps mean no one would think KB was replying to them. Either timestamps are enough to assuage reply concerns, in which case there was no reason to put the later comment above the earlier one, or they are not and therefore Specifico was willing to let it appear KB's comment was a reply. I don't know Specifico's real reason, but since their professed one is not believable, I doubt it was respectable.AlmostFrancis (talk) 17:58, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
• Bad block, endorse overturning of KB's block, replace one-way IBAN by two-way IBAN and Seraphimblade is now involved in KB blocks and should not sanction KB in future. KB should not have been blocked for understandable actions permitted by BANEX which caused no disruption (though the response to them has). Seraphimblade's actions contain mistakes that were avoidable in the cases of both blocks of KB, and a lack of a constructive attitude in response to good faith criticism. This pattern means the user is now involved and should avoid any further sanctions against KB, which will not be seen in the same light no matter how appropriate they are. Without alleging improper behaviour by SPECIFICO, their editing patterns since the one-way IBAN show the potential for serious conflict escalation between SPECIFICO and KB in the near future, and the only purpose of an IBAN is to avoid such conflict. — Bilorv (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. I left a note at the talk page of Drmies asking to consider a full (rather than a partial close) to include the issue of a 2-way I-ban. However, in the meantime, I believe that the topic of replacing a 1-way I-ban by a 2-way i-ban can and should continue in this thread, and that editors wishing to comment further on this topic should do that just as Bilorv has done just above. Nsk92 (talk) 01:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
• BANEX clarified — I added including requesting 1-way IBANs be converted into 2-way IBANs (or vice-versa) to WP:BANEX, as this is the second time I'm aware of this year where an admin blocked an editor for this and it was overturned on appeal, so I think an explicit statement in BANEX would be helpful. We'll see if it's reverted. Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by SPECIFICO

I have reviewed various pages related to this and will post a final summary statement and evidence within the next 9 hours. I'd request any close be done after that. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Per Drmies close, I will wait to see whether anyone wishes to continue discussion. I'll reserve my comment on the matter of Seraphimblade's handling of the block, which is now moot. While I understand that some editors advocated for a 2-way IBAN, I urge you to consider whether it is worth having that discussion, assembling diffs and pings, at this point. As I have told Drmies on his talk page, I will not revert any edits of KB while the current IBAN is in effect. In light of neither KB nor myself having any complaint except concerning my revert, I hope that will address the immediate concern. SPECIFICO talk 01:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

A person who isn't allowed to complain can't be assumed to have no complaints. I'm not seeing the summary statement and evidence that you delayed the unblock for. This was a request that delayed the other editor from being able to participate in another discussion, which they'd requested to be allowed to do just a couple hours before you made the request to wait for your statement. —valereee (talk) 01:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

KB requesting a partial close?

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

---

A few hours before SPECIFICO's request for a delay in the close to allow them to prepare a statement, KB asked if the discussion could be closed so they could participate in a discussion. They're now asking if a partial close w/re only the unblock request would be possible. —valereee (talk) 17:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• I agree KB should be unblocked now. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, KB should have been unblocked two days ago, but since the blocking admin doesn't seem to be around we need a formal close to enact consensus (arbcom rules). If SPECIFICO wants time to mount a response to the iban suggestion that's fine but there's no reason at all that KB should remain blocked while that happens. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

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

1-way > 2-way

Kolya Butternut has a 1-way i-ban from interacting with SPECIFICO. SPECIFICO has a history of trying to bait KB, such as by misgendering them as “it” in an AE complaint. Recently SPECIFICO noticed KB had asked for an AfD’d article to be draftified and had started to work on it. SPECIFICO came in behind KB and made edits that made it unclear whether KB could continue to edit there. KB wisely retreated to a copy in their userspace, where they continued to work, but this should not be required of editors under a 1-way i-ban. I am proposing making the 1-way i-ban a 2-way i-ban.

With apologies, pings to Ivanvector, Power~enwiki, Politrukki, Sandstein, El_C, Starship.paint, who (I believe, sorry if I got it wrong) commented on the block but did not comment on changing the 1-way to a 2-way. No need to comment if you don't want to, but in their close of the unblock portion of this, Drmies noted that they weren't sure there was consensus to change to a 2-way. —valereee (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• Good grief. I would have thought that a consensus for a 2-way iBan is already abundantly clear in the thread above. By my count, 10 users (Levivich, Mr Ernie, valereee, DGG, Ivanvector, myself, SarahSV, MONGO, AlmostFrancis and Bilorv) already spoke in favor of a 2-way iBan there, and only 1 (SPECIFICO), spoke against. For the record, I still support a 2-way i-Ban between KB and SPECIFICO. SPECIFICO's explanations for following KB to a draft are disingenous and unconvincing. Since SPECIFICO doesn't have the good sense to stay away from KB on their own, a 2-way i-Ban is in order. Nsk92 (talk) 02:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
• FTR, I agree with the entire position of Bilorv above, including the 2 way IBAN. I disagree with this comment, given the evidence later presented by power and Levivich. It seems quite eh to now commit to a narrow "not reverting" the other person's contribs. 1 way IBANs seem to be a privilege; if one can't show some self-awareness and sensitivity regarding that (which I'm not seeing here) the ban should probably be converted to 2 way. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
• Suggestion to closer Speaking as an individual (in other words not as an arb-elect), if there is consensus to convert this to a 2 way IBAN, the the closer formally deal with the fact that the 1 way was a DS imposed ban. As there are slightly differences between a community imposed ban and one by DS it could potentially save confusion/aggrevation down the road if it was made clear that the 1 way DS iBAN was rescinded and replaced with a 2 way community iBan (again assuming that the close finds that consensus). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Unban

They banned me more than 3 months ago because I posted some info from The Lancet about studies related to Gam-COVID-Vac. I started that article on 12 August 2020. But I noticed that similar information was added to the article about Moderna's vaccine here, and the editors who made those contributions were not topic banned and the added text was not removed. Here is the text fragment that I was banned for by Salvio giuliano:

On 4 September 2020, in The Lancet, findings from two phase 1/2 of the vaccine were presented. The researchers enrolled 76 healthy adult volunteers (aged 18–60 years) into the two studies (38 people in each study). The primary outcome measures of the studies were safety and immunogenicity.

And this is the text about Moderna's vaccine:

On November 16, 2020, Moderna announced preliminary data from its Phase III clinical trial, indicating 94% efficacy in preventing COVID-19 infection

And as no one was blocked for the similar text about Moderna's vaccine (even without any WP:MEDRS as it was substantiated by RexxS regarding my topic ban), then my topic ban should be reviewed because it seems to be erroneous. Moreover, my edits, for which I was blocked, did not violate WP:MEDRS. I am ready to conduct constructive work on the expansion and development of the article I started. --Александр Мотин (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, the obvious difference is that one vaccine's results were given from phase III trials, which is designed to determine clinical effectiveness, and you gave the other from phase 1/2 (I'm not sure what you mean by that), which are not, and only involved a few dozen people rather than the tens of thousands involved in a phase III trial. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: "Moderna announced [...] indicating 94% efficacy in preventing COVID-19 infection"... Why in my case when I cited The Lancet it is not good and "Moderna announced" is good? What specific WP rule do you have in mind?

On July 14, 2020, Moderna scientists published preliminary results of the Phase I dose escalation clinical trial of mRNA-1273, showing dose-dependent induction of neutralizing antibodies against S1/S2 as early as 15 days post-injection. [...] The vaccine in low doses was deemed safe and effective

--Александр Мотин (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

How about talking about trial phases in any further response that make? That was obviously the point of my comment, but you have completely ignored it in your goalpost-moving reply. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Note that this message itself is a topic ban violation, and the user must be blocked. Note also that he was recently unblocked by the Russian Wikipedia Arbcom and managed to survive4 only a few days before being indefinitely blocked (effectively site-banned) for wikilawyering and per NOTHERE.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

What happens or does not happen in Russian Wikipedia doesn't seem relevant for discussing Александр Мотин's en-wiki sanctions. BANEX gives much leeway for appealing the ban. That said, their argument for unblocking is weak. It's basically a NOTTHEM argument that does not address how they would avoid making edits that are considered disruptive. If Александр Мотин fails to explain how they would avoid getting into trouble again, I would oppose lifting the ban. Politrukki (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

He may indeed appeal the ban at AN, but what he is doing is not really appealing the ban. He does not accept that the edits were disruptive in the first place (which he will continue doing until he is blocked with TPA removed, as he has already proven on many previous occasions), and, in addition, he is discussing the content of the topic he is still banned from.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: The full story is that my indef site-wide block by some RuWP admin was cancelled by the Russian ArbCom and his adminship was revoked. Then, another RuWP admin, that seemed to be angry because of this, indef blocked me again for a far-fetched reason contrary to the Russian ArbCom's decision. The issue is being resolved. And I totally agree with Politrukki that your reply is irrelevant. --Александр Мотин (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The adminship was revoked because he asked for it, and it was not revoked by the ArbCom but as a voluntary request. The issue has been resolved indeed - you are indefinitely blocked from editing the Russian Wikipedia. This is why you are here.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

That is not true: "Paragraph 3.1 The Arbitration Committee revokes user's adminship / Арбитражный комитет снимает с участника флаг администратора (с одновременным присвоением флага подводящего итоги)". I don't see any admin's "voluntary request" in this decision. And I draw your attention to the fact that you are not familiar with the rules of Wikipedia once you call to block me upon ban appealing. The similar story is on the Russian WP regarding another indef block. --Александр Мотин (talk) 20:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I have striken out this part of my comment. Concerning your opinion that I am unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies - well, when I ask for my unban you will be welcome to make this point (assuming you are not site-banned by then). Now we are discussing your unban, and I just do not see it happening. In fact it would save a lot of time for everybody if you get an indefinite block (which I also said last time and you have just proven me right), but if people are willing to give you more and more rope, fine with me.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, that RuWP admin said almost the same and his adminship was later revoked. I mean, you're not the first admin who is trying to demonize me in this way. At the same time, I do not understand at all what I have done to you, that you are constantly hounding me and turning other editors and admins against. --Александр Мотин (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• In the light of Ymblanter's comment and Alexander Motin's edits above I would support an indefinite block. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose unban - user clearly still has problems with MEDRS and this topic specifically. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @Ivanvector: Why was nobody banned for the similar text about Moderna's vaccine if you think that I "have problems with MEDRS"? My position is fully justified. What am I wrong about? --Александр Мотин (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
    • You still don't seem to see the difference between a phase 1/2 trial, with a few dozen participants and not designed to show whether a vaccine actually works, and a phase 3 trial with tens of thousands participants which is designed to show that. Why do you carry on ignorantly making comments as if I hadn't pointed that out above? You can't avoid bans/blocks by simply ignoring statements based on scientific evidence that go against your preconceived ideas. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
      • @Phil Bridger: On your part, this is an attempt to steer the discussion into the scientific field. And, in this appeal, I write about bias and double standards in relation to my constructive contributions. I gave the examples above and this is enough to understand the situation. --Александр Мотин (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
        • My comment is totally valid. You said that you should be unblocked because edits by another editor to another article were allowed, but I pointed out that those edits are not comparable. There is a single standard here, which is to base edits on science, not politics. And please realise that you were not just blocked for one edit: that edit was simply the last straw. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
          • Of course, I was banned for that edit. Moreover, the ANI request by RexxS was a clear demonstration of WP:ADMINSHOP. This can be seen here.--Александр Мотин (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

            No, you were banned for long-term pro-Russian POV pushing (going well into propaganda territory) in articles related to politics and, well, complete inability to understand what was wrong with your edits. Obviously, you still have not understood it.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:44, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

            Well, why was nobody blocked for this so called "long-term propaganda" and "pro-(pick any country here) POV pushing" if you think my edit is pro-Russian POV pushing:

On July 14, 2020, Moderna scientists published preliminary results of the Phase I dose escalation clinical trial of mRNA-1273, showing dose-dependent induction of neutralizing antibodies against S1/S2 as early as 15 days post-injection. [...] The vaccine in low doses was deemed safe and effective

I'd be very interested to know.--Александр Мотин (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• • • • • • Both of your points are, quite obviously to anyone who looks at the situation, bollocks. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:50, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• Decline appeal. This is not a topic ban violation because it is an attempt at an appeal of the topic ban (WP:BANEX). However, I would decline it because it does not convince me that the decision to ban Александр Мотин was wrong. Sandstein 20:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
• I agree that this is not a violation of the topic ban; appealing a topic ban explicitly doesn't count. I have no opinion on whether to grant the appeal. Reyk _YO! 10:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Speaking as an admin, not an arb (only 7 more days , thank goodness), I would grant the appeal . The violation is borderline at most. The ruWP is thankfully not our concern. We can always reblock. DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Handing out a topic ban for one edit would be excessive, but that's not what happened here. The topic ban was imposed for a pattern of behaviour. I suggest we decline this, a topic ban appeal does need to address the actual reasons for the topic ban and not focus on asking for other people to be punished. Hut 8.5 18:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Appealing a topic ban does not violate that ban, but commenting on other editors' contributions in the area subject to restrictions does. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Decline appeal. (However, on the procedural point, I think that Александр Мотин's posts in this thread, at least thus far, are covered by WP:BANEX.) I have read through the discussion in the original September WP:AN thread that lead to the Covid+Russian politics topic ban imposition, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive324#Александр Мотин and I find that the topic ban was fully justified. Александр Мотин's posts in this thread thus far clearly demonstrate why the topic ban is still needed. Nor was that September episode an isolated incident.There were earlier problems related to COVID-19, e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1044#Александр Мотин reported by Zefr. Also, Александр Мотин had earlier, this June, been indefinitely topic banned from Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 for disruptive editing and POV pushing there. I am neutral on the suggestion for a NOTHERE indef block. On one hand, there has been significant recent history of disruptive editing in several areas. On the other hand, the user is still contibuting, seemingly productively, on some other topics, particularly railway and subway stations. If there are problems present with Александр Мотин's editing even on those subjects, then, yes, a NOTHERE indef block would be appropriate. Nsk92 (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism

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

---

User:Ekdalian doing Vandalism in Vaidyabrahmin page.I'm requesting administrators to take step Against this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.SunBD (talk • contribs) 20:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Sockpuppetry

Hello friends. User:Luckie Luke Sockpuppetry is a user of User:Modern Sciences. If you look at the Persian Wikipedia, https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/کاربر:Luckie_Luke , Luckie Luke has introduced himself as Lulu's Sockpuppetry. This is an illegal account because User:Modern Sciences is blocked.--Kurdsikən (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Request to have my test account blocked

Hello. Can somebody block my test account for an hour? We seem to be having an issue, documented at ANI and VPT, where the iOS app for Wikipedia can’t seem to notify a user about messages they receive on their talk page. Consequently this user does not seem to be aware of talk pages existing and are unable to discuss with other editors. I want to see how block messages display on the iOS app to see if there’s another way to get in contact with them. I can’t use email because they don’t have one set up. Thank you! GMXping! 03:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Kinu ^t/_c 03:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Ongoing Caliph issues at two talk pages

Would it be possible to get big edit notices (or semi-protection again, if that's a preferred option) at Talk:Mirza Masroor Ahmad and Talk:Ahmadiyya Caliphate due to non-stop WP:CALIPH issues please? The recent history of both is full of non-stop complaints and/or BLP violations. FDW777 (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I am afraid if the users are incapable of reading the sentence directly below which they are posting (in the same topic), they will not read notices. A semi-protection for a few days looks to me the only reasonable option.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I've added an editnotice to Talk:Mirza Masroor Ahmad and replaced the one at Talk:Ahmadiyya Caliphate with stronger wording. I suggest if you see any more posts of this type, you should simply revert them. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:25, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

This is the same kinda thing that happened at Sushant Singh Rajput earlier this year. The editnotice does not help as they cannot be seen on mobile. The community wishlist item to implement this did not get enough support, unfortunately, and the phab task is otherwise stuck. Looking at history, many of these driveby requests were submitted on mobile. My experience at SSR’s talk was that these people often don’t come back to read the response. Just revert imo, and stop the archives being clogged up with nonsense. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:23, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the help/advice. FDW777 (talk) 10:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

We could always repurpose Special:AbuseFilter/1106 for this. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Now it's blowing up [23]. Be interesting to see the WMF response. Nthep (talk) 10:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Help needed with complex move situation

Ashfaq nezamani moved Hina Altaf to Book:Jjlkhh for unexplained reasons, after which it was moved again to Hina Aagha by IdreamofJeanie against WP:COMMONNAME. Normally, I would have just undone this and asked the editors involved to discuss per WP:BRD, but due to the situation created by the double-move, this is no longer possible.

Could an admin please restore the page to its original location, after which any issues with the title can be discussed in an RM? Best, M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 15:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Looking at it.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Aah, sorry, I moved it to the name given in bold at beginninvg of the article, i hadn't noted that it was different to the previous title, sorry. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 15:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done, also protected for three months.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both, Ymblanter for the quick action here, and IdreamofJeanie for handling the initial vandalism. Much appreciated. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 15:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

And can we also fix the talk pages? Talk:Hina_Altaf incorrectly has {{Talk page of a redirect}} and Talk:Hina Aagha has the real talk page content and history. Chris857 (talk) 18:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done, apparently I have not noticed the warning while moving the page--Ymblanter (talk) 18:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Email abuse

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

---

I should already know this. I'm angry right now and tired and judgment impaired. Also, in my many tears here, have not received such emails till now. Can/should I forward them to ArbCom? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't wish to engage the editor directly so as not to further the abuse. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: Yes, forward to Arbcom. There is also WP:EMERGENCY if relevant. Also, I don't know what hours Arbcom keeps over Christmas, but if you want to forward to a functionary I will be online for a while. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess I will. The user apparently posted the same attack on a Wikipedia page and are no longer editing. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, not Jewish. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I know the user you mean, and I suspect they will abuse the UTRS system soon too. Agent00x (talk) 00:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Unless they show some maturity, I will ask that they be banned there. They cannot email me anymore. Maybe they'll email the blocking admin. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:48, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, I am just a plain vanilla administrator, but if you are getting harassed, I will do whatever I can. I willl be checking in over the next couple of hours. Just reach out by email or my talk page. Having dinner now and then will be back. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Thanks. I think they are sorted, but good. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Has the 'test' editor, returned?

A few years ago, I seem to recall that an IP(s) were blocked for making daily 'test edits' to a few articles, in short spurts. This seems to be re-ocurring with 'possibly' the same individual, at List of longest-living members of the British royal family & List of longest-reigning monarchs. Can this be tracked down? GoodDay (talk) 05:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done: Pages semi-protected, 103.108.20.0/23 rangeblocked. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Sobbiebawa

I know I should have posted this on IRC, but (Redacted).

A promotional editor named Sobbiebawa (talk · contribs) appeared on Wikipedia last night. He quickly created three pages: his user page, User:Sobbiebawa/sandbox, and Draft:Neetu Shatran Wala. All of them had the same content, creating a musical "hero" named Neetu Shatran Wala. Materialscientist saw this and blocked him. The user page was quickly deleted (U5), but the drafts remain. He did not submit either of them, therefore preventing them from being reviewed. Would someone please delete the pages? 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 13:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 15:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Ymblanter, Draft still seems to exist? Merry Christmas! Asartea ^{Talk Contribs!} 15:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@Asartea and Ymblanter:, Ugh, I just moved the sandbox to the draft title to avoid the duplication, we must have crossed paths. I wondered why I didn't get a warning that the page already existed :-) I didn't think this was so far beyond the pale (considering our pathetically low standards for biographies) that G11 applied, but whatever. Feel free to do whatever you feel is appropriate with what's there now. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:16, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I deleted the draft again in the meanwhile, but now have restored it. It is unlikely to be accepted, but if not the draft would disappear in a year anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:19, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Request for closure of a discussion on requests for closure

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

---

I decided to make a formal request here, but please close this FfD discussion, as the AN/RfC request hasn't been acknowledged. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 16:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Mainpage frustration

Apologies if this isn't the right place to put this, but starting a discussion on the main page seem to lead nowhere. I went to the main page to "report an error" and was met with a rather annoying conversation about users complaining that we didn't "do enough for Beethoven's 250th". I had spent many hours working on List of monuments to Ludwig van Beethoven (including staying up way to late to get the DYK in time) for the lead DYK on his baptism day; and of course, all of the users discussing made no effort to do anything "for Beethoven" themselves but complained about others' apparent "failure" – even though my DYK was accompanied by 6–7 others by Gerda, who did a terrific job. Anyways, this is beside the main point, but suffice it to say, it didn't really put me in a great mood. The reason I had come to the main page was to ask why "Quaid-e-Azam Day" in OTD redirected to Muhammad Ali Jinnah rather than... uh... Quaid-e-Azam Day. I am confident that no reader will have any idea what "Quaid-e-Azam Day" is when sent to Jinnah's page, which doesn't explain it until the legacy section. Nothing seems to be done about this, and no convincing reasons have been given for this supposed error (to be clear, there has only been a response from one user). I can't help but be frustrated; I am sure that if Thanksgiving, Christmas, Easter etc. linked to anything but Thanksgiving, Christmas, Easter there would be mass confusion and the mistake would be fixed instantly, why is it suddenly different for this Pakistani holiday? I don't mean to make unfounded accusations of Western ignorance/bias, but I also can't help but feel such a way. (Happy holidays to all...) Aza24 (talk) 18:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

The one response seems convincing enough to me. The "Quaid-e-Azam Day" article isn't fit for the main page and the "Muhammad Ali Jinnah" article is. The option then was to remove the entry completely or use the biography article. Quaid-e-Azam Day seems analogous to Washington's Birthday which was so unimportant to Americans that first we started calling it Presidents day and then mostly moved to MLK day, which is a much better holiday anyway. "Quaid-e-Azam Day" will be on the homepage once someone cares enough to upgrade it to homepage worthy. AlmostFrancis (talk) 19:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

There is no relationship between Washington's Birthday and Martin Luther King Jr. Day. They both remain Federal holidays, and nothing was "mostly moved" from one to the other. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken:, I'm assuming AlmostFrancis meant Lincoln's Birthday, with which Washington's was merged to create Presidents' Day. StarM 01:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Only in certain states. Washington's Birthday remains the federal holiday, and the creation of MLK Day did not "move" anything from Washington's Birthday. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Washington's_Birthday#Official_state_holidays is utterly fascinated. It's technically a state holiday where I am, yet I've only heard it called Presidents' Day. Agree re: MLK, I thought AF was conflating that with Lincoln. StarM 03:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Request for an editnotice

Please consider adding an editnotice to WP:VP and WP:VPA that states that you should not edit the page to add a proposal, in case someone, for instance, didn't see the "do not post to this page directly". JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 00:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi JJPMaster, VPA is full-protected indefinitely and VP had no such edits since 2014. Am I overlooking something? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Is discussion of T. D. Adler editorials permitted on article talk pages?

I started a discussion at User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof#Repeatedly_reverting_me_on_talk_pages. The editor thinks that my talk page comments referring to T. D. Adler should be reverted or archived because T. D. Adler was banned from Wikipedia and Breitbart (his primary publishing outlet) is deprecated. I disagree, and have had no contact or coordination with T. D. Adler on or off-wiki. A somewhat similar conversation that I started with another editor is ongoing and appears to be at least somewhat conciliatory. This particular user though is digging in his heals.

I am looking for informed persons here to weigh in about this.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

IIRC, Adler was banned from WP for off-wiki harassment of other editors. They have continued this with around 60 “editorials” enabled by Breitbart. (Can't link to the list as the site is blacklisted.) I don’t know your purpose – but, knowingly or not, linking to posts like this on multiple article TPs [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31] contributes to harassment and is not helpful to the project as Adler’s posts look like a year-long rant. Perhaps you should just explain your purpose. O3000 (talk) 20:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

A large number of Epiphyllumlover's recent edits have involved inserting and reinserting links on article talk pages to material written in various places by The Devil's Advocate, who has been permanently banned from the English Wikipedia by the Arbitration Committee for a number of reasons. Kamala Harris, Mark Levin, CNN controversies, Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory, Lauren Southern, Sarah Jeong, Ilhan Omar, and The Epoch Times. This material, posted on right-wing extremist sites such as Breitbart or even what amounts to a personal blog, includes personal attacks, false claims, and bad-faith accusations against a number of named Wikipedians. The links to Breitbart are even blacklisted, so they've had to intentionally evade the blacklist to post them.

Myself and several other editors, including Philip Cross, Binksternet, and JayBeeEll, have objected and reverted the links, and attempted to explain to them why they are objectionable. Epiphyllumlover frames their posts as just asking questions, but I view the wholesale and widespread posting of links to material carrying out the obvious retaliatory vendetta of a banned user to be dangerously close to proxying for said banned editor. There is no reason for this material to be linked on Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping; I do not think I have anything to add to your comments or to O3000's, both of which seem to accurately describe the situation. --JBL (talk) 20:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• I admit I haven't read most of them but I'm surprised to see TDA's articles at Breitbart referred to as "harassment". Maybe this is my American bias speaking but I feel like freedom of the press and freedom of speech are important even if we disagree with what people say. What's the difference between TDA's articles at Breitbart and someone else's blog post at Wikipediocracy, or any of the many other websites where people write about Wikipedia (some of whom are also banned editors)? Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

  Well, in this instance the difference is that someone tried to spam them across a large number of articles without articulating a plausible story about how that might be related to improving the encyclopedia. --JBL (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

  I brought up off-wiki harassment as I think that’s a part of his block. I suppose continuing it at Breitbart with 60 “editorials”, after an indef, is not harassment. But, sprinkling links to them in ATPs seems questionable, particularly when some out editor names. O3000 (talk) 20:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

  You should probably read them, then, because they basically consist of a slew of false accusations, personal attacks, and axe-grinding against long-term editors. For example, there is a claim in one article that Snooganssnoogans "smeared" The Gateway Pundit by (accurately, and with a slew of sources) describing the site as "known for publishing falsehoods and spreading hoaxes." That this statement is impeccably sourced and factually true is irrelevant to TDA - they describe it as "smears of conservatives" because... well, because their feelings are hurt by the facts, I suppose. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

  I'm not perceiving a difference between someone writing that someone "smeared" an organization, and you writing just now about someone that "their feelings are hurt by the facts". In both instances, someone is saying something unkind about someone on the internet. Spamming links (to anything) is a different story; talk pages should be used for talking about improving articles. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

  If there was any conversation at all about improving articles, this thread probably wouldn't have been started. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think there should be a ban on discussing them, if it's relevant to improving an article. However, simply spamming "what do you think about this" for many of his editorials is inappropriate, especially when the articles are a banned editor posting on a blacklisted site. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:31, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

This is a situation where no amount of disingenuous posturing is going to cover the fact that these are links to content from banned users with a history of attacking and harassing Wikipedians. There is no justification for posting links to such material here. If you continue to attempt to sneak in such content, you can be blocked as clearly not here to improve this encyclopedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• To be honest, I am not quite sure what we are discussing here. Apparently, there is consensus that Breitbart must be deprecated, and the site have been blacklisted. This means that any information published there is not considered by the community to be useful for improving Wikipedia, with a possible exception of information of Breitbart itself. If someone wants to change this consensus, they must open an RfC and explain why Breitbart should be removed from the blacklit, or why certain aspects of its publications can improve Wiokipedia. Technically speaking (though IMO exremely unlikely) an outcome of this discussion could even be that Adler's editorials are reliable sources and thus can be cited.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Technically they can still be used under opinion type stuff. Per the RFC and RSP This does not mean Breitbart News can no longer be used, but it should not be used, ever, as a reference for facts, due to its unreliability. It can still be used as a primary source when attributing opinions, viewpoints, and commentary. No idea what that situation would be but there ya go. PackMecEng (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
• @Epiphyllumlover: Checking those links would be boring so let me say that from now, anyone who amplifies the thoughts of a banned user will be blocked. Sure, if there were a chance that material might be useful for improving an article, it might mentioned. However, breitbart.com is not a reliable source so mentioning that site would be misguided. In particular, mentioning it in multiple places would indicate a disinterest in improving the encyclopedia. Wikipedia has fans and haters—neither have a right to be amplified on talk pages. Free speech is great but this is not the website for that. An amusing feature of this issue is that whereas Wikipediocracy would normally be the right place to discuss such opinions, they might not allow amplification of TDA's thoughts either. Johnuniq (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
• Echoing some of the above: linking a TDA "editorial" or Breitbart article on a talkpage as a possible source might be an innocent suggestion from someone unaware of the spam blacklist. Linking TDA editorials and Breitbart articles on multiple pages, including spacing in the url to get around the blacklist restriction, is bordering on disingenuous. Please stop doing this. These editorials are not reliable sources and your continued posting of them is a misuse of article talkpages. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
• We have consensus that posting references to Adler's content en masse is disruption, from how I read the above. But discussion of the articles is not prohibited, so far as I am aware. My user page contains (right at the bottom) quotes and my summaries of two of Adler's articles, as I'm rather proud of my mentions in them (I'm portrayed negatively, of course). So far I've seen nobody object but I would remove it if I saw it causing significant controversy. It seems to me that referencing the articles is only disruptive if such actions would be disruptive whether or not it was specifically Adler and Breitbart (i.e. spam posting of links to a particular website is not helpful on talk pages unless it relates to something immediately and uncontroversially actionable). — Bilorv (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't suggest that WP:DENY would be effective with someone as dedicated as TDA but the more we say about him and his predictable opinions, the more trouble we bring for the encyclopedia. If you really want to publicize his achievements on your user page, I guess that's ok, but using an article talk page to chat about a blacklisted, guaranteed unreliable opinion would not be productive. Johnuniq (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

  I agree with Bilorv's summary. Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining this. I suspect Adler is a crypto-Wikipedian, given his manner of writing and strong attachment to the subject. He may reconcile with you someday, but it won't be tomorrow.

I intend to post Adler links to talk pages only if there is a particular & relevant topic to discuss that is described in the links. Because he is banned I will not post the general "I don't endorse this, but you might find it helpful" type message.

My response to the "large number of articles" type comments is that they are exaggerations. Moreover, I don't have any other such article up my sleeve to add in even if you gave me a green light.

My response about the "If you continue to attempt to sneak in such content" is that it ignores the good-faith which I have repeatedly demonstrated. As for the blacklisting aspect and using a space to break the link; as I understand it the software cannot differentiate between links to articles and links to talk pages. So there is nothing disingenuous about getting around a software defect.

My response to the "not here" comment is that even if 70% of an editorial is trash, it is possible that something else might be helpful. (Not in the article--but for editors trying to understand where the article came from and where it is going.) Specifically that he summarizes the edit history of highly contested articles is helpful. As an analogy, some Catholic libraries keep a copy of the Examination of the Council of Trent even though it is Lutheran and highly critical of the Council of Trent. The reason for this is that they find some value in the dialectic nature of the dispute and because he quotes and summarizes a great deal of sources on interesting topics. So it is helpful for understanding what went on at Trent, even though it is a critical source that was on the Index of Forbidden Books sort of like Breitbart is today.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)