Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive327

Theresa Greenfield

• Draft:Theresa Greenfield
• Theresa Greenfield
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theresa Greenfield - redirected to 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 June 4#Theresa Greenfield - endorsed
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 June 15#Theresa Greenfield - no consensus to overturn
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 July 11#Theresa Greenfield - no consensus to overturn

This article has had a rough history. It was nominated for deletion and redirected back in May this year, citing notability concerns. The deletion result was challenged at deletion review three times, as noted above. Meanwhile the article was recreated in place (in good faith) by several editors before the redirect was protected by Muboshgu in June. It was then created as a draft in July, which was submitted to AfC and has been declined three times by two reviewers (Robert McClenon and Bkissin). The draft was significantly reworked since the last decline in August and a third reviewer (UnitedStatesian) decided to accept the draft and made a request at RFPP to unprotect the redirect, which is how I came across the situation.

I declined to unprotect yesterday, suggesting that the draft should pass review first and not realizing that UnitedStatesian's request was an attempt to do so, and because they had already asked Muboshgu and they declined, so I said it should be reviewed one more time. In the midst of that one of the draft's editors pinged Robert McClenon, who again said that he would not accept. While discussing that on the draft's talk page and still not realizing that UnitedStatesian was an AfC reviewer trying to accept, I suggested someone else should review (since Robert McClenon had reviewed twice, or three times if you count the comment today, and was clearly becoming frustrated). Two things happened then more or less simultaneously: UnitedStatesian made a new unprotection request at RFPP explicitly stating they were accepting the draft, and Bkissin chimed in on the talk page that they also would not accept. It's currently marked as "under review".

So basically I've dug this hole as deep as I'd like it to go, and would like someone who hasn't already been involved in this to go get a ladder. Everyone's actions here have been in good faith, but we're clearly stuck. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I am uninvolved, and I do not see any issue. If the article is significantly different from the deleted version (which I have not checked yet) it must be restored (unprotected and moved from the draft); if there are users who doubt notability they can nominate it for AfD. This is how consensus is supposed to work.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Ymblanter, it's in the AFC process, and has been declined a few times. It's under review again now. If it's approved, then you are indeed correct. But what if the draft is declined? Should we move it to mainspace regardless of the AFC review? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I am the reviewer, and I have made the third WP:RPP request, at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Theresa Greenfield, precisely so I can accept the draft. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

UnitedStatesian, is this a good idea? You've been quite vocal about wanting this to be published. I would hope the AFC review was done by someone uninvolved in this process. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

My only involvement has been in the review: only edit to the draft was adding {{draft article}} to it, no participation in the AfD or DRVs. Of course, the review has required discussion on lots of different pages, as is occasionally the case, so I guess that makes me vocal. That said, as in all cases, if my review is stopped by community consensus that continued page protection is warranted, there are plenty of other drafts that need reviewing and I will of course move on to them. UnitedStatesian (talk)

I know that in a situation like this, some editors will say that the answer is clear. I think I see at least two questions where policies and guidelines are not clear, and where perhaps they should be clarified.

The first question is the role of Deletion Review. The redirect has been salted to enforce a Deletion-like decision. The question is: Should it simply be unsalted in response to a request at Requests for Page Unprotection, or should there be a (fourth) appeal to Deletion Review. The instructions for Deletion Review say that it considers situations where the circumstances have changed since the deletion; but some of the DRV regulars get annoyed at such requests and say just to go through AFC without going to DRV.

The second question has to do with the interaction between political notability and general notability. It is usually the rule, including at AFD, that political candidates who do not meet political notability are also not considered to meet general notability solely on the basis of their campaign. This is such a case. Greenfield was not generally notable before she began running for the US Senate. So is this an exceptional case where she is generally notable based solely on her campaign? Questions of general notability are decided at AFD. Since this draft is currently in AFC, the instructions for the AFC reviewers are that a draft should be accepted if it is thought that there is a better than 50% chance of surviving AFD.

A third question, which is not one of unclear policies and guidelines, is whether the reviewer is neutral.

Those, in my opinion, are three questions that are applicable. I am finished reviewing, but I am not finished expressing an opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The notability question can be decided only by community discussion, and the only applicable mechanism we currently have is AfD. The article has failed AfD and DRs, and therefore should not be reinstated - unless there are significant changes which can make it notable, or unless it has been significantly changes with new sources added so that notability can be reasonably considered on basis of these sources, which have not been presented to AfD. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, the only relevant question is whether significant enough sources have been added as compared with the AfD. If yes, the article should be accepted, and a new AfD can be opened. If not, AfD should not be accepted (with the understanding that if she makes it to the Senate in a month, the draft immediately gets moved to the main space - but this is irrelevant for the current discussion).--Ymblanter (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Since the old version was redirected, not deleted, the history is visible, and any editor, not just an administrator, can see the version at the time the AfD closed: it is here, with 5 references. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ymblanter, I see what you're saying, but I find it kind of ridiculously bureaucratic to accept the article just to nominate it for deletion again. At the same time I imagine the best we'd get from another deletion review is relisting the original AfD, which isn't much better neither in terms of bureaucracy nor in terms of moving forward. For what it's worth, this is the article prior to the deletion discussion, versus the current draft (diff, probably not terribly useful). You can see that the draft is expanded substantially from the deleted/redirected article, but does any of the added info address the notability concern? There was a strong sense in the AfD that US Senate candidates are not inherently notable, but do the 62 sources in the draft suggest she is an exception to that general rule? If the only way we can answer that is through a second AfD then I guess that's where we go from here. Can we simply create a new deletion discussion or relist the original and refer to the draft, rather than doing all the work of moving it around? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, my point is that some community discussion should happen somewhere at some point. It should not be happening here, here at AN at best we can have consensus of random admins whether it is time for that discussion to happen, but we can not seriously be discussing whether Theresa Greenfield is notable. We can only discuss whether enough sources have been added for the article to reasonably stand a chance at AfD. It superficially looks to me that we are ready for this community discussion, though at this point I do not see consensus. But it should not depend on a decision of one person who decides to remove or not to remove protection of a redirect. Administrators do not have any particular say in the content area, and the further process should not depend on whether a user accepting AfC is administrator or not. Concerning the process itself, a new AfD seems to me much better than MfD (for the reasons explained below) and reopening the May AfD (well, if the article is essentially the same, one AfD is enough, and if it is different the old arguments are not relevant anymore), but I am open to better solutions.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

For consistency, perhaps we should treat this the same as Draft:Rishi Kumar, another "local" candidate for a Federal office whose article name redirects to a similar place as Theresa Greenfield. The deletion discussion, as well as AFC comments, determined that the article should reside in draft space until after the election. The same should be applied here. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The current draft for Greenfield's article lists significantly more coverage in both regional and national newspapers than Kumar's draft. To support analysis (because the current draft lists a somewhat daunting number of sources, some of which are fairly minor), I pulled out a list of ten example sources that contribute to notability at Draft talk:Theresa Greenfield#Greenfield draft status, and I added a couple more here: Draft talk:Theresa Greenfield#Two additional sources. To me, this kind of discussion supports Ymblanter and Ivanvector's points that we need to figure the right way to get to an AfD -- I believe that a better venue for a robust and organized discussion about notability thresholds would be AfD. I believe that even though it'd be a bit bureaucratic to create the article just for somebody to nominate it for AfD, it'd at least be a logical process. Dreamyshade (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

There's always Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, which is where Draft:Rishi Kumar was discussed. I have doubts that this candidate was notable before becoming this candidate, and I am concerned that the existing coverage is nothing more than routine for any federal-office candidate. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of MFD. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the draft should be deleted. Draftifying the article until after the election is a possible outcome of an AFD. I don't see the relevance of MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, if I saw this Draft article in mainspace I would AfD it. Lots and lots of sources, but zero coverage of her outside of her political candidacy. Obviously, should she win the election... Black Kite (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I just took a brief foray into the draft and right off the bat removed some citations that seemed to have no point other than to make the reflist look impressive. Such articles, if they appear in mainspace, tend to get moved immediately to draft space. There it should stay until the reflist is cleaned up. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I am involved in the sense that my wife and I have donated to Greenfield's Senate campaign (and about a dozen similar campaigns) recently. But I do not support accepting this draft before the election. We have quite a few years of precedent that we do not accept biographies of otherwise non-notable unelected political candidates, but instead cover these people in neutral articles about the election campaign. In this case, the redirect to 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa is correct. I think that the description of Greenfield in that article could be expanded in the interim. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll add, as an administrator, that I am not comfortable unprotecting the main space title so the draft can be moved there. I am not getting the sense that the other three admins in this discussion (User:Ivanvector, User:Muboshgu, and User:Cullen) are comfortable with that either. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

What about User:Ymblanter? UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

collapse tangential thread

@Cullen328: I think you'll find, as I have, that the precedent you cite is beginning to change: certainly Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marquita Bradshaw and Cori Bush (both of whom, editors asserted, essentially, were "notable because they weren't previously notable," which doesn't make a lot of sense if you think about it) are signs of that. Both show that, instead, Wikipedia is going more consistently wherever reliable sources' significant coverage takes us. Which is a good thing. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC) Marquita Bradshaw was a mistake to not delete, but thank you for reminding me that the closing admin recommended we discuss a merge. I'll get on that shortly. That article has the same reference puffery as Anachronist was finding here. Winning the primary election in Cori Bush's district is tantamount to election. WP:OTHERSTUFF existing doesn't mean that Theresa Greenfield should exist. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC) Just make sure if Marquita Bradshaw is merged, this time you ask a different admin. to protect the resulting redirect. Because you know, WP:INVOLVED. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC) My take on Marquita Blackshaw was that the claim of being the first black woman to win a major party primary in the state of Tennessee was enough to convince enough editors to express keeping the article. Thus, the argument was framed in a way that may pass WP:NPOL as expressed in WP:POLOUTCOMES. --Enos733 (talk) 05:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• This is not nearly as complicated as you are making it out to be. You come across an unprotection request, you check whether you would WP:G4 the draft if it were in mainspace. If you would, you decline to unprotect. If you would not, you unprotect. If you don't know, leave the request alone. If everyone leaves it alone, the filer will start a discussion somewhere to achieve a consensus that admins will be comfortable acting on. It is irrelevant how many admins would AFD it or !vote delete. There is no set>=n, where n is the number of admins that can dictate without a need for community consensus whether or not a topic deserves an article. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• Let me emphasise: if you would not G4 the draft as soon as it got to mainspace but would require an AFD, you have no authority to stop an editor who has the ability to accept drafts from doing so. G4 is more or less an objective measure. You just have to read the AFD and compare the two articles. Everything else is irrelevant. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

This is related to a concern I've expressed earlier in this process: WP:PROTECT describes protection as being appropriate when there is "a specifically identified likelihood of damage resulting if editing is left open". I haven't seen any threat of edit warring or other damage here -- everyone involved in this discussion has been acting in good faith, being civil, and making efforts to interpret WP:GNG and WP:NPOL in constructive ways for an encyclopedia. The draft article can definitely be improved further, but we don't have a requirement for articles to be excellent before they get created. I don't see a policy basis for using full protection in this way. Dreamyshade (talk) 04:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The redirect was repeatedly expanded into full article contra AFD consensus between the AFD and the full protection. So, that's the threat. WP:SALT, which is policy, says in its first sentence, that admins can prevent creation of pages. That is what this full protection does. It keeps the redirect (which doesn't have consensus to delete, and also doesn't need to be edited anyway) and stops the full article from being created. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• I don't see how one AfC reviewer gets to overrule the numerous prior discussions on this. The consensus in the AfD was that the subject isn't independently notable as an unelected candidate for office and should be covered in the article about the election. This is a very common outcome. The issue was taken to DRV three times, each time by someone who had found more news sources which cover her in the context of the election, and each time the discussion declined to reinstate the article. The draft which we now have still doesn't attempt to address this fundamental problem. Yes, there are plenty of news articles, but that's because competitive senate elections always generate news coverage. Essentially all the sources cited still cover her in the context of the election. I suggest we wait until the election, which is just over a month away. If she wins then she will be unambiguously notable, if she loses then I suspect the fuss will die down. Hut 8.5 07:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

  This is probably the best outcome we can now come up with.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

  I don't see "competitive senate elections always generate news coverage" as a counter-argument by itself for WP:GNG - a campaign like this generates significant news coverage because it's "worthy of notice" to a lot of people, because it's important and of interest to a lot of people. I believe a person primarily covered in the context of an election can still meet the notability standards, especially if there's a lot of national reporting and in-depth reporting over a couple years or more. The question to me is whether the current draft Greenfield is there, and AN still doesn't seem to be the right venue for that -- there are a lot of comments here that are essentially AfD-style comments, without being at AfD (including mine). Dreamyshade (talk) 22:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• One key point I feel that I should note is that AfC reviewers don't (and aren't supposed to) act off a "guaranteed to be notable" standard. Instead, if something is likely to pass, we should accept it, and then let the Community review it. Likewise, unprotection requests should work off that basis. Now whether people think it should wait until after the election, I discourage that, but it's viable as a second choice. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• I will restate a few policy and procedure issues that I think are touched on by this case:

Here are three issues that are involved in the question about Theresa Greenfield:

• Should candidates for politically notable offices be considered to meet general notability on the basis of significant coverage of the campaign, if the candidate was not previously considered notable? It has in general been the practice of Wikipedia that candidates are not considered to satisfy general notability on the basis of election coverage, and therefore do not qualify for articles before the election if they did not have them before the campaign. This question arises frequently, and it would be a good idea either to address it on a general basis or to decide that it is always addressed on a case-by-case basis.

• When should a single AFC reviewer be allowed to accept a draft if the same title was previously deleted by AFD? When should Deletion Review be required? The instructions for DRV say that DRV can review deletions when the circumstances have changed, such as new sources or new activities. However, the DRV regulars normally tell applicants not to go to DRV but simply to submit the new draft for review.

• When should a single AFC reviewer be allowed to request that a title be unsalted if the same title was previously create-protected? This question is related to the above, but is not the same.

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• *Gets up on soapbox* I think Wikipedia is grossly irresponsible in our election coverage for the role we play in promoting incumbents over challengers. We should have some level of information about candidates for people seeking information about an election. This doesn't need to be done through a full article but could happen through reasonable coverage in an election article. The incumbent will still get a full article as opposed to say a paragraph (or two, maybe three) but our readers deserve to know more about Greenfield than Theresa Greenfield, businesswoman, candidate for Iowa's 3rd congressional district in 2018 which is what we're saying now.*Gets off soapbox*
  Why do we create protect articles (SALT)? Because repeated discussions are a drain on the community's time and attention. DRV has said three times that this isn't ready for mainspace. Robert is right that DRV also frequently says "don't bother us go to AfC or just recreate it" but that's after substantially new information or reasonable time has passed. Neither is true in this case. I am all for consensus changing but repeating the same discussion regularly is a form of disruption. This salting should hold. I am thankful that I got the chance to levy one of my biggest systemic criticism of our content in a public forum but other than that don't think repeated discussions are helpful. Waiting until after the election is not so cop-out or thwarting of our process. It is being respectful of the time, energy, thought, and collaboration that has already occurred about this topic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
• The rule should be that challengers who receive significant national or international coverage (that is, non-local coverage, or coverage outside of the area where they are running) are notable enough for a page. Greenfield would meet that test (most general election US Senate candidates would), but not every candidate for every office would. Lev!vich 01:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
• I have some thoughts about this. If we were looking at an open seat, with both candidates not previously having held elected office, we would not advantage any incumbent. Furthermore, the idea that we are giving an advantage to the incumbent because they have an article disregards to an extent the possibility that their article itself may prove less-than-flattering (as people with opposing views often try to insert as much negativity as they can, while those with supporting views try to keep that sort of thing out). We have articles for all U.S. Senators because that is a reasonable barometer of notability, given the power and influence they wield. This includes articles for senators who or elected for a single term and did not run for re-election, so incumbency over an opponent was never an issue at all. We can't treat articles on U.S. senators any differently based on their possibly being challenged by somebody who does not fall into any other bucket for notability. That said, I do think there is inherent notability in a major party nominee for a U.S. Senate seat garnering national attention due to their perceived possibility of winning that seat (or, sometimes, due to other behaviour in the course of the campaign). This, of course, raises a question that has not yet been addressed, which is whether we should then create articles generally on historical losing major-party U.S. Senate candidates who garnered such attention during their candidacy. This is a discussion perhaps best left until the current silly season passes. If we do enact such a standard in the future, than Theresa Greenfield will merit an article at that point even if she has lost her Senate bid. BD2412 T 03:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

A problem with this suggestion is the phrase "major party candidate," which inserts a bit of political favoritism into which candidates may receive articles, and does not account for the fact that the relative strength of a party (or its nominee) varies from state to State. Even if we defer to the political jurisdictions themselves of who is a major party nominee, the Legal Marijuana Now Party is a major party in the State of Minnesota and I don't think that its nominee is notable. --Enos733 (talk) 04:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Major party candidate here is basically shorthand for someone coming from a political party that is able to provide the resources to make a U.S. Senate race competitive, which is what leads to the national press coverage of the subject. BD2412 T 15:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• Let me throw these two things into the existing discussion. A 2019 Centralized Discussion on candidate notability was closed with No Consensus, so this is an issue that we have been contending with for years now. Additionally, a candidate not having an article is not shutting out that candidate. In the United States context, we have articles for each state's congressional and state elections. Information about the candidate can easily be added there without creating a separate article. In Parliamentary contexts (Canada more specifically), we have created list articles with basic information about a party's candidates. How many of these losing candidates pass the ten year test in terms of their long-term relevance? Bkissin (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
• This is trivial. Does the topic meet the GNG? Yes? Have article. We don't expect coverage of baseball players outside of baseball, why does anyone expect coverage of a politician outside of politics? Hobit (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • What he said. The existing policy to routinely reject articles on as-yet unelected politicians seems absurd to me. If a person gets coverage, I don't care who they friggin' are, or what the context is, if they get stuff like national coverage, then my God shouldn't we have an article on them? Why do politicians get assigned a different standard than other people? You pass GNG, you get an article. End of discussion. You don't pass GNG but you do pass a subject-specific guideline, boom, you get an article. That's how it works for everything else on Wikipedia. That is exactly how it should work for politicians. Anything else is following a rule because it's a rule. WP:IAR is a POLICY! A loose necktie (talk) 02:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Just to respond to the above comment from an WP:AFC perspective (and not as a response to this particular draft), we tend to view such things like "running for a political office" as akin to WP:BLP1E; i.e. if the only coverage of a person is because they ran/are running for office, then they could have dozens of references but it's all about the same event (and is somewhat reflected in WP:NPOL). A notable example I can think of is from earlier this year, where there was a trans politician who (if they won) would have been the first trans politician from somewhere like Maine (or the USA, can't honestly remember); they didn't even make it past the primaries, so despite the relatively large body of coverage the article was deleted ("they ran for office that one time" isn't something that makes notability). You might think we hold this ridiculous standard for aspiring politicians, but we have tons of special exemptions (going in both directions) to either raise up "hidden" groups like educators or keep the veritable flood of bit-playing actors or potential-politicians who never get elected from having one-paragraph permastubs. Primefac (talk) 09:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
    • I would agree in the case of a candidate who runs once, but after the first time there is a point when they become a perennial candidate, maybe hoping to eventually reach Lyndon LaRouche-level. 2020 is this candidate's second campaign (as is referenced in the draft via significant coverage in reliable sources). Separately, the reference above to the WP:10Y test above is interesting, since there was a Senate election in this same state exactly 10 years ago, and guess what, we have an article on the losing candidate. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
      • • UnitedStatesian, the two cases are not comparable. Roxanne Conlin was a U.S. Attorney confirmed by the Senate, and was also the first woman president of the American Trial Lawyers Association. She is notable for those reasons. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
          • Of those two reasons, neither has an inline cite to an independent source. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
      • And how many articles do we have on football players, who all qualify for standalone permastub articles based on subject specific guidelines and whose articles will never, ever be expanded in 10 or even 100 years but also never, ever be deleted, while wringing our hands over allowing people to create articles on as-yet unelected political candidates with ample national coverage and lots of published information, whom we disqualify from having articles because "we just don't do that"? If we cared about permastubs, we'd address it in other contexts. We don't. And we could all stop caring about the politicians if we just followed our own policies regarding what makes a subject notable, and stop applying different rulers to different topics as a means to delete or remove articles on those subjects— I'm all for using them to include, since that is how they were meant to be used. Think of the headaches that wouldn't have to happen! Of the discussions we wouldn't have to waste time on! Like this one! Yay! A loose necktie (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
        • And how many articles do we have on football players Usually best not to compare the sphere of interest here to one of the known problem children of the notability guidelines. --Izno (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "We don't expect coverage of baseball players outside of baseball, why does anyone expect coverage of a politician outside of politics?" Unless and until she is elected she hasn't done anything in politics. She's basically stood up and said "please, please, please let me do something in politics, I would really appreciate it, I have such great ideas", but she's done zip. Giving her an article is not the same as giving a baseball player an article for playing baseball, it's the equivalent of giving anybody who ever wanted to be a baseball player an article. --Khajidha (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Notified: Draft talk:Theresa Greenfield. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 18:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• This is a good discussion, and I have to get up on my own soapbox here and echo Barkeep49's grand concern above that we're generally irresponsible in our election coverage, but for me it's in the opposite direction of Barkeep's argument. We cover elections in far too much detail. We're supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a newspaper: we're supposed to write basically academic summaries of things that already exist or have already happened, after all the discussion is had (so we're not the ones having it; WP:OR, WP:NOTESSAY) and when things aren't constantly changing, based on reliable sources that review those subjects in retrospect, not as they happen. We're incredibly poor at providing balanced coverage of anything that is ongoing because we're not set up to be objective to current events. We should not write about elections at all until the ballots are counted, in my ideal world, and certainly not while the propaganda machines are in full swing. Maybe this gripe is neither here nor there with respect to this discussion, but since it was brought up now you all get to enjoy my opinion. (/soapbox) There are a lot of quality arguments here on what our guidelines should be, and those are good discussions to have, but there's pretty clearly not a consensus here to restore the article or to do anything with the protection. I think Cullen328's advice to expand her content in the Senate election article is the way forward. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

  I agree we cover many ongoing events in more coverage than an encyclopedia strictly would. In an abstract sense the idea of saying "we're not going to cover something until X months/years after it happens" makes sense to me given NOTNEWS/the first pillar. However, that's only in the abstract sense; I can't imagine if we had only begun covering COVID or if we couldn't reference someone's death because not enough time had elapsed. If we're going to start drawing lines about where we need to be careful about covering ongoing events the idea that we're covering elections too much seems like a strange place to start drawing that line. Our articles on elections are poor and serve our readers poorly - they become lists of endorsements and other things that fit nicely in tables rather than prose. But the fact that we do a poor job of it now isn't to say we're over covering it; it's to say we should do a better job of covering them with-in our encyclopedic mission. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• For most topics, a deletion review is final. On this particular matter, we've had several successive deletion reviews and now we've got an appeal to the administrator's noticeboard. As this is purely a content decision, it's simply not open to administrators to overrule DRV here. I suggest that this is closed without result and referred back to DRV.—S Marshall T/C 01:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
• I'll just say it again: there can be no dispute as to if this meets the GNG. And the SNG says: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." We have a huge number of high-quality sources that cover her in massive detail. So from a guideline viewpoint, this is open-and-shut. The problem is that people are trying to create a new SNG and even though they have failed to do so, somehow we still pretend like that SNG exists and has consensus. It's a bit maddening frankly. Hobit (talk) 13:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

  You missed a bit: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article --Khajidha (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

  Certainly. And we'd done things like not have articles on things like "Donald Trump's hands" on that basis. But a person with this much coverage? I can't think of any such case. The GNG is a bit more clear "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." This is clearly way over the bar of the GNG. And yes, we can merge articles still for organizational reasons. But AfD doesn't normally address *that*. The simple fact is, this person easily meets every relevant guideline we have for inclusion. Her case is not unusual. If we don't want articles like hers, there should be consensus that can be found for the general case. But no such consensus exists. Hobit (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

  Reading that draft, I don't see anything that I would call "significant". She exists. She has a family. She has run for office. But she hasn't really DONE anything, so there's nothing to say about her. --Khajidha (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

  Erb? First of all, that's not part of our inclusion guidelines. We have articles on people who are only famous for being famous. Secondly, she's done a ton. In the last hour there is reporting on an FEC filing against her [1]. In the last 12 hours there is a story on her leading in the polls against the incumbent [2]. She's been campaigning and the news folks think that is important enough to report on [3]. She was in a debate covered and broadcast by national news [4]. I doubt that 5% of our subjects have done as much. Probably not even done as much as she has in the last 7 days. Hobit (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

  Still nothing there besides "hey, this lady's running for election". --Khajidha (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

  A) Most soccer players are just "hey, this guy plays soccer". Most academics are "Hey this guy is an academic". And she has tons more coverage, include deep bios etc., than the vast majority of either of those. B) who cares? That isn't even vaguely part of our inclusion guidelines. She meets WP:N with more coverage than 90%+ of our bios. You are far into WP:IAR territory. Hobit (talk) 12:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

  The difference is the soccer player actually plays and the academic has earned a degree or published a work. Giving her an article is the equivalent of giving an article to anyone who walks into team tryouts or applies to a university for admission.--Khajidha (talk) 03:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  I'm guessing you don't understand US senate elections? It takes a lot of work to become a senate candidate in a competitive race. To maintain the sports analogy, it means you've made it to the playoffs, but might not win the championship. We cover even athletes that have never won a championship. Now it *is* tricky because in some non-competitive races for lesser offices it is pretty much someone just applying. But that certainly isn't the case here. Hobit (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  Oh, I understand them and I'm not saying that running an election campaign is easy. But the entire campaign is still just the equivalent of trying out for a team or applying for admission to a university. It's still just "I wanna do something" and not "I'm doing something". --Khajidha (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  And that's not an inclusion criteria in any policy or guideline. Perfectly reasonable WP:IAR viewpoint, but not based in any of our rules. Hobit (talk) 12:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

  It's the perfectly obvious reading of the policy. 1) No source establishes notability outside of the election and 2) the coverage of her campaign is simply routine coverage of an election, not enough to establish her notability. --Khajidha (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• My apologies for what I am sure are going to be some formatting errors, but I have not extensively used my Wikipedia editing permissions over the years. I was recently shocked to discover that Theresa Greenfield does not have a Wikipedia page; and not only that, but "Theresa Greenfield (American Politician)" is an article that's been created and deleted several times, and "Theresa Greenfield" redirects to a section of the article about the Iowan Senate Race (and that section isn't particularly about Greenfield), while her opponent has a very robust article. This back-and-forth appears to have been going on since this spring, and the election is just over two weeks away. I'm honestly surprised that this discussion largely seems to be circling around notability. Nearly all of the highest level legislative change or stability in the United States comes from the governing power of the US Senate. Having been controlled by one major political party for many years; but with numerous Congressional seats up for election, and many polls showing potential political shifts, there is a chance for another political party to take control of the Senate, with the implications of immense changes in US policy, both domestic and abroad. Only a very few number of US States have the chance to alter their representative political party in the Senate, and Greenfield is the incumbent's opponent in the "swing state" of Iowa. As a Greenfield victory could alter the political makeup of the US Senate, the leading legislative body of one of the most internationally-influential countries in the world, her political career is very notable. There are very, very many news sources - on the local, state, and national levels - citing her campaign; which, as an example, just raised a record amount of money for a Iowan running for US Congress. I've always thought of Wikipedia as a place for unbiased information - the Encyclopedia of the internet - and as authors, editors, & admins - it would seem that we have the opportunity to "balance out the objectivity" with her State's incumbent's article. I realize this is adding some real-world context to a platform that should be neutral of current events, but voters in Iowa started receiving their ballots last week, and the election closes in just over two weeks. They are trying to make their most critical political decision right now, and an objective, unbiased article on this candidate is an immensely important resource. If they currently search Wikipedia, and see the incumbent's robust article and no article for Theresa Greenfield, that is a potential strong influence on their decision-making. Please reconsider unlocking ("un-salting?") this article ASAP so that we can populate it with objective, practical, widely-covered information. Charlie918 (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

  "As a Greenfield victory could alter the political makeup of the US Senate, the leading legislative body of one of the most internationally-influential countries in the world, her political career is very notable. " Nope. Her career will only be notable if she wins. "If they currently search Wikipedia, and see the incumbent's robust article and no article for Theresa Greenfield, that is a potential strong influence on their decision-making. " Why would you go to an encyclopedia for this? This is something that newspapers and voter's organizations and such are much better designed for. --Khajidha (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

  Well I'm afraid there are Wikipedia precedents that are counter to your argument of not being noteworthy until being elected to office. Tommy Tuberville is the nominated Senate seat challenger in Alabama, and has never held public office. He has in fact been the head of several organizations, as has Greenfield. John E. James is the nominated Senate seat challenger in Michigan. He has never held public office, and therefore his only notable accomplishments on his Wikipedia page are that he served in the military and worked for a company. With the nearly daily news articles between city, state, and national news outlets about Theresa Greenfield for the past month, I can't see why these two yet-to-win political candidates are cleanly permitted to have Wikipedia articles, but one of the nominees in one of the most critical "swing states" - a multi-business owner and setting a political fundraising record for the state - would not be notable. This sincerely might just be my misunderstanding of what constitutes 'notability' on Wikipedia. Charlie918 (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

  Charlie918, Tommy Tuberville is notable for his college football career. James' article may not survive an AfD. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument to make. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

  Muboshgu, then this is most likely simply a teachable moment for me, and there's probably a well-written explanation somewhere that I just can't seem to locate. For a Wikipedia article about a person, what constitutes "notability?" If I do a Google search for "Theresa Greenfield," there are virtually limitless articles from various print, digital, and televised news outlets about her going back months, nearly daily since her televised debate, with her name in the headline. There are even more articles significantly about her where her name isn't necessarily in the headline (e.g. "SCOTUS battle crashes into decisive Senate race in Iowa," Politico, James Arkin, September 30, 2020). Is the sheer volume of content created specifically about an individual by news outlets not a consideration in determining someone's notability? If not, what is? Honestly thank you for any insights, this is the first time I've been involved in a blocked article discussion. Charlie918 (talk) 03:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  Charlie918, apologies if I assumed that you are better versed with Wiki policy than you are. The main notability guideline is WP:GNG, and the specific notability guideline for politicians is at WP:NPOL. The presence of citations alone is not enough as the context needs to be considered. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  Muboshgu, many thanks for these links, this is precisely what I had been looking for. My next inquiry may require further source citation. Under the politician-specific guidelines you shared WP:NPOL, it reads, "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline" WP:GNG. In that first page, it is my interpretation that as the final one of two candidates to represent the entire state of Iowa in the American senate, Greenfield passes the "Major local political figures," and while I've previously noted she has significant press coverage, "who have received significant press coverage." In looking at the General Guidelines you linked, there appear to be five qualifiers: (1) Significant Coverage - there are virtually countless articles, hours of taped interview footage, social media, and more that cover Greenfield's political campaign, personal life, and career. (2/3) Reliable Sources - there are many, many articles and news TV segments from city, state, and national outlets covering Theresa Greenfield, so my assumption is that these qualify as reliable sources. (4) Independent of the Subject - these news articles were not produced by Theresa Greenfield. (5) Presumed - this of course seems to imply that even if a subject meets all the criteria, a more in depth discussion may need to occur for the subject to receive an article. Reviewing most of the comments in here over the last five months, it would appear that the majority of these comments seem to support having the article. If the question remains about notability, I wonder if this context is appropriate to apply: The United States government is is one of the most internationally-influential governing bodies in modern times. Within that government, the United States Senate - made up of two representatives from each of the 50 States - is arguably the most powerful, able to enact laws, impeach a president, make treaties, and more. In America's two-party system, simple majority of the Senate means that party will be able to enact their agenda for 2-4 years, and block the agenda of the other party, and thus significantly determine the country's global and domestic policies. In America's current election, there is a chance for the Senate to change party power, with many Senate seats up for election. Based on the political affiliation of the various states' populations, most of these elections are insignificant - people will vote for their party, and their Senate representatives will remain of the same political party. However, there are just five state elections that are qualified as a "toss up," which means due to the near-balanced political affiliations of their residents, determined through a combination of the national census and polling, it cannot be confidently forecasted which political party will win the state. Theresa Greenfield is the Democratic candidate in one of those five states. If the American Democratic party does in fact take control of the Senate in this election, the international and domestic policy changes - including enacting impeachment proceedings for the current president if he remains in power - would be significant, affecting - in various ways and degrees - billions of people around the world. Given this context, and the objective criteria thresholds of Wikipedia, it is my belief that Theresa Greenfield is notable, and should be permitted to have her own Wikipedia page now, not after her potential electoral victory. Thank you for your discussion and patience. Charlie918 (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  How much of that coverage is about her per se and how much is about the election? Consensus on Wikipedia has always been that people who are otherwise not notable do not gain notability just by running for office. That's why this article has been redirected to the election article and that outcome has been endorsed multiple times. Unless and until that consensus changes (and this is not the place to argue that, per User:Spartaz's post below), there is no point in continuing this argument here. --Khajidha (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  Khajidha In preparing a draft article on my desktop before learning about the controversial history of this Wikipedia article, I have 21 articles saved in Word with Theresa Greenfield's name in the headline just from the last two weeks. The subject matter is a mixture of reviewing her professional career (as it relates to her qualifications for the role), her efforts and notable events of her campaign, and her personal background (education, family, organizational memberships, etc.). Several lines up, Muboshgu, who made the original redirect and lock - to my understanding - made the case that because Wikipedia articles currently exist about campaigning politicians who are otherwise non-notable is not a considerable precedent in determining if a page about Theresa Greenfield should be permitted; then your reverse argument, that "Wikipedia's consensus is that articles about political candidates who are otherwise not notable should not be published," would seem irrelevant. If a precedent is not to be considered, and only the objective notoriety rules of Wikipedia are to be weighed, then Theresa Greenfield would appear to qualify by those rules. Charlie918 (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I have to cop to not having read all the links, so if this has been stated already, my apologies. While on the one hand it rankles that she doesn't have a page, on the other, I get the Notability issue, and I'm a believer in the policy. Still, I remember the AOC situation, and in retrospect, that was a blunder on our part. But if we obey N, where is the blunder? Well, either in the fact that "being a candidate doess not ipso facto make you notable" (for which this is not the right venue, WT:N is, so let's set that one aside right now) or else, we're not taking the right approach.

What about this? We have here, in my opinion, a WP:BIO1E event; Greenfield *is* notable (or rather, the one event is), but not before she was a candidate. Therefore, what? Same thing as for Sandra Bland ^[noredirect] ⟶ Death of Sandra Bland; so we create Senate candidacy of Theresa Greenfield. Anyone here want to declare that this is definitely not notable? I bet I could drown you in sources for that. Then, Theresa Greenfield gets pointed to that. If she loses, and never does another thing in her life, that will be her obituary. Am I missing something? Mathglot (talk) 02:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

2020 United States Senate election in Iowa is the article for the "one event" in question. --Khajidha (talk) 03:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

That's a related topic for sure, but not quite the identical topic, and not a BIO1E, but rather a recurring event whose article title could be generated by computer. If that article were entitled, 2020 Ernst-Greenfield Senate election you might have a point, but it still wouldn't be the same topic. Mathglot (talk) 04:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

This is an entirely pointless discussion because this is essentially a content dispute where the policy, precedent and weight of several discussions is not to have an article. This whole thread is simply extended special pleading and asking the other parent. If you think the page should exist then your quest starts at WT POLITICIAN and I wish you good luck with that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I believe this is a quite productive discussion, because it points out that there is no clear and accepted community consensus or clear written guideline for the notability of prominent candidates for high-level office who receive substantial, reliable, independent coverage over time (including significant national coverage). There are a lot of experienced editors here with one interpretation of the guidelines, and a lot of experienced editors with a different interpretation. And this discussion is very diffuse, over several talk pages -- there's also more at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Changing NPOL to include at least some more nominees. Dreamyshade (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• The US election is in a couple weeks? She was deleted because she's only notable for being a candidate, right? Why can't we just keep this deleted, wait to see if she wins, and then have a new discussion after the election? This happens all the time, specifically with US elections, and then once the candidate has officially lost most or all resistance to keeping the article goes away, especially if you give it a couple years. SportingFlyer T·C 12:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• If the person passes GNG and there is no WP:BIO1E issue as pointed out above (the article was deleted at AfD before she received in-depth coverage), there is no proper reason to ban this article no matter how close or far an election is. Oakshade (talk) 06:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• Two points:
  1. Is there an article for every other currently running candidate in every election for US Senate/House seat that is up for grabs this election? (I am assuming we have articles on the incumbents office holders)? If we have them on nearly all of them and hers is an an exception, that's a problem that we should fix. If hers is but many that we do not have, then I fail to see where the problem is. The arguments that show her lack of notability (just running for election is not showing depth of coverage about her directly) have been well presented.
  2. If we move her article to mainspace, it cannot look like a political ad. The draft presently looks like this with the section on her platform. Her platform can be discussed but it needs to be presented far less as a political position and more neutrality along with any criticism of it. Ideally, the platform should be part of the election article, and only her key policies that she has stood being and discussed at length should be on her bio page. --Masem (t) 14:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Redirect

While this article is in limbo can we at least get the redirect pointed to 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa#Democratic primary so users can easily find the three paragraphs on the candidate there? There's no named section for her so at present it represents a navigational challenge. Artw (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Right now due to the confusion around this article there’s a half dozen venues I could make this request, if this isn’t the right one feel free to point me at the right one, but it seems like an easy move to make Wikipedia slightly less broken in this case rather than fully broken. Artw (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Artw, I've just made the change. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Cheers. Artw (talk) 04:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

IAR

Allow me to quote from black-letter written Wikipedia policy: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." WP:IAR.

In this case, we have this long tortured discussion about particular paths around purely procedural matters, which is preventing the movement of a perfectly valid draft (I'm not saying a perfect article by any means - a valid draft) about someone who is clearly notable as evidenced by literally thousands of high quality third party reliable sources. If a particular set of rules which work in ordinary circumstances have brought us to this absurd state of affairs, that's ok: one of the oldest and most important rules of Wikipedia exists to save us.

If Wikipedia, due to some procedural rules, doesn't have an article on the clear frontrunner in a US Senate race, then it is the rules that are preventing people from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. IAR tells us what to do: ignore those rules. This is policy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Note that User:Francis Schonken made a NAC closure of this discussion[5] and moved the draft to Theresa Greenfield (politician), while Theresa Greenfield is a fully protected redirect. Apart from other considerations (e.g. that IAR doesn't trump consensus, and a close should judge the consensus here instead of misusing IAR as a supervote), this technical issue, forcing Francis Schonken to create a disambiguated page to circumvent the full protection shows wby this shouldn't have been closed and enacted by a non-admin. Fram (talk) 08:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The "A" in IAR stands for "All" – so I wasn't too selective in which rules I was ignoring and which ones I wasn't (...but there certainly was more than one I was ignoring, although I certainly must have been still very far from ignoring each and every rule this namespace holds). For the record, I was in the midst of filing a WP:RM#Uncontroversial technical requests to get the content to the right place (didn't want to leave the article in a place with an unnecessary disambiguator in its title), but stopped typing that request now. I'd like to invite Fram, or whoever reads this, to do a better proposal for triggering prompt reaction to get this sorted in the shortest delay of time possible. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

An "uncontroversial technical request" to get a fully protected page unprotected so you can get a declined AfC submission, the topic of a lengthy discussion at WP:AN, at your preferred result? That would me a rather severe misuse of the term "uncontroversial"... The better way would be to propose a closure here, get a consensus for it, and then let people implement the close. If there is no consensus to be found, then we are stuck with the status quo. Fram (talk) 08:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The "A" in the abbreviation of the name of the IAR policy still seems to trip you over. Yes, IAR would usually mean ignoring multiple rules. Anyhow, closure request logged at WP:ANRFC#Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Theresa Greenfield. Thanks for that suggestion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not claiming that you wouldn't be ignoring all rules when you would post a highly controversial move at the "uncontroversial moves" requests. I'm just pointing out that it would be a doomed effort which would only boomerang against you, as it would be very swiftly rejected and would reflect badly on you in discussions about your actions. WP:IAR doesn't, contrary to what you seem to imply, mean "edits used with this rationale can't be criticized or lead to admin actions against me". Fram (talk) 10:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I understand that. Thanks for reminding. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

While I appreciate Jimbo's concerns, I feel I have to point out the last time an admin "took initiative" and IARed like this, they got desysopped. Specifically, I agree with his talk page comment "I would personally WP:IAR and move the draft into article space, but I believe doing so would simply generate unhelpful press coverage of an unfortunately disappointing failure of the slow grinding wheels of our policies." - or indeed, reams of pages on here and possibly Arbcom from everyone who disagrees. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm with Jimbo on this one. Let's not make the Donna Strickland and Clarice Phelps mistakes yet again. Lev!vich 14:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm with Ritchie on this one. It's all well and good for Jimbo to say "IAR!" from his high perch, but regular editors who use that as a reason to bypass a consensus discussion are going to face harsh criticism for their actions, if not winding up blocked. If Jimbo thinks this is good enough reason, let him do it & deal with the fallout. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

There was an overwhelming community consensus at wp:AN, and an obvious conclusion. She slam-dunk met WP:GNG many times over and per wp:notability that means we need look no further regarding wp:notability. Egalitarianism aside, something that comes from Jimbo has extra weight, and even that was just to expedite (and read the community consensus from a different place wp:AN) what was inevitable, and which had strong community consensus. North8000 (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Towards closure

For reference, the previous discussions: AfD from May, DRVs June 4 (endorse), June 15 ("There is substantial and well-argued support for the idea that we should have an article rather than a redirect here; but it falls short of a consensus to overturn"), and July 11 ("I don't see a consensus to overturn here"). Draft AfC rationales here.

Both sides have been thoroughly argued here and elsewhere. I note this to make clear that even though this particular section of the discussion has been open for less than a day, closing it at this time is justified. There is clearly a time sensitivity here, due to the widespread attention that this matter is receiving.

The key argument in support is that the subject is now notable, due to the press coverage received in the last several months. The key arguments in opposition are that the subject is not notable, either directly citing WP:NPOL or stating that she is "only running for office", and that WP:AN is not the correct venue to decide this matter.

The current draft lists 67 sources, the vast majority of which relate to the present election. Reading through this discussion and the discussion on the draft, the majority view is that they are sufficient to pass WP:GNG. I don't see a need to quote specific arguments here, they have been repeated many times below.

On WP:NPOL, it is undisputed that Greenfield fails to meet either of the presumed to be notable criteria. However, many users note that the same section continues: Just being...an unelected candidate for political office does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline.

As to forum, it isn't clear what the correct venue would be. WP:DRV could be appropriate, but so is WP:AFC. A recent AfC reviewer noted that no AfC reviewer can accept this or any future version of this draft unless [an administrator unprotects Theresa Greenfield]. Since non-admin AfC reviewers are unable to accept this draft (even if they believe it should be accepted, as at least one previous reviewer has stated in this discussion), this requires administrative attention.

Consensus is that the subject does meet the GNG. NPOL defers to the GNG in the case of unelected candidates. Consensus can change, and clearly it has changed since the AfD nearly five months ago. The move protection should be lifted, and the draft version of Theresa Greenfield should be accepted. The administrator responsible for the original protection has offered to implement this, so I'll allow them to do so.

If users believe that the current version of the article is still unsuitable, then the normal process would be to nominate it at WP:AFD.

ST47 (talk) 21:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

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

---

Current state of play:

• The current article is at Draft:Theresa Greenfield (in the last few hours it was moved to Theresa Greenfield (politician) and then moved back).
• The AfD was closed as redirect to 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa#Democratic primary on 31 May 2020 (with three deletion reviews).
• Theresa Greenfield is the redirect per above, and was fully protected on 15 June 2020.

It seems Draft:Theresa Greenfield should be moved to Theresa Greenfield after unprotecting the latter. Let's come to a quick decision—I don't see any reason the unprotection and move should not happen now. Johnuniq (talk) 08:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support Johnuniq's suggestion as to how to end this without further delay. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support Given the current state of the election race, the notability concerns from earlier this year are clearly obsolete. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support per the above and per this comment. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support per the above.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 10:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support and also encourage us to think this over afterwards to figure out how this slipped through the cracks to end in such an odd place.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • It's not slipped through the cracks. We have a number of editors who really really think that nominees for elected office, no matter how well covered, shouldn't have an article if that's the only reason they are covered. This has been a long (long) running debate. Hobit (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Jimbo. I always wanted to be able to write that. And per my previous contributions to this discussion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The subject is non notable aside from running for office and even less notable than Kara Eastman.--MONGO (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support per the lengthy comments above. Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per User:MONGO. IAR would only apply if this actually improved Wikipedia. It does not. --Khajidha (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Oppose There is a process for determining the suitablility of articles. That process is not AN. That process has, multiple times, determined that Theresa Greenfield isn't notable, and should not have an article. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

"Theresa Greenfield isn't notable, and should not have an article\" - not exactly the most convincing argument in an AfD I've ever seen, is it? That's why I specifically quoted DGG, who is one of the more sensible admins at AfD, even if I don't always agree with him. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

That's because I'm not making an AfD argument, but instead stating the consensus of the previous AfDs and DRVs. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Noting that AN is one of the places that folks have proposed for DRV outcomes to be appealed ([6]). So this would appear to be as in-process as we get when appealing a DRV result. Hobit (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support per above. This has gone on long enough. --Brad Patrick (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. It seems that JW himself is not really sure of the chances of the challenger to be elected at the beginning of the next month. Moreover, it seems that some contributors think that being the focus of some buzz, here at en:wp, will help her winning the race. But, four years later, the pages buzz (part 1) and buzz (part 2) are rather appearing as a pitiful (and failed) attempt to twist the fate. And that, despite their resp. 778 and 2297 references. But, yes, if she is elected, I would probably try to locate Iowa on a map, at least more precisely than "somewhere between Canada and Mexico". Pldx1 (talk) 13:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Consensus has been built previously in the year using long-standing guidelines around notability. Compromises have been attempted (redirect to the election page, incubate the page in draftspace, etc.) but have been largely ignored by a group of editors who have brought this topic up in a number of fora hoping to get the answer they want. I don't see why people can't wait two weeks before moving forward. Throwing out well-established guidelines because you don't like the outcome is sad. Bkissin (talk) 13:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Look at the dates on most of the refs, dude. This is a moving target. "I don't see why people can't wait two weeks before moving forward" - because it will expose WP to complaints about political bias, perhaps? Possibly these will be justified. Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

It's a moving target that will settle down on 4 Nov. Cabayi (talk) 14:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

LOL, Wikipedia is always facing allegations of political bias by people who don't like what they read or don't get their way. Look at the current issues surrounding the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict! To be fair (and insulate ourselves from further claims of bias, we have ruled the same thing in AfD regardless of the candidate or party. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Parnell (Pennsylvania politician), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel T. Lewis, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quinn Nystrom, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Ronchetti and several others from this campaign season alone! But hey, until we determine a new policy on the topic (which given the last attempt, doesn't seem to be able to reach consensus) then I look forward to discussing this with you all in 2024. Bkissin (talk) 15:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

People also scream political bias at the DM/Fox/NYP reliability RfC results. Didn't stop anyone then (not that I disagree with the results, but point remains). "Complaints of political bias" should never be an argument. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support I think back in May and June this article was debatable in terms of notability, but in the last month has received far and above sufficient media attention, not just to the race but to the individual to warrant the article. If that somehow changes, opponents can always bring it back to AfD.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 14:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support Yes, there were previous versions of this article that were reasonable to delete a few months ago, but Greenfield's coverage has massively increased and is sufficient to pass WP:GNG, and this draft is sufficient for mainspace. Dreamyshade (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - I agree with Pppery that this isn't the forum for this decision. It's a decision for the community, not for admins.

That said, on the basis of WP:NPOL and WP:NOHURRY, Theresa Greenfield (& all other unelected candidates whose notability was first noted after nomination) should remain redirected to 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa (& their respective election articles) until after the election. Doing otherwise dips into WP:ADVOCACY & WP:PROMO and there's nothing in WP:POLOUTCOMES to suggest any other action. Let's see if Greenfield is still notable on 4 Nov.

As Jimbo said, we need to consider how we ended in such an odd place - a rethink of WP:NPOL in respect of candidates would resolve that, but it's probably best to wait til the Supreme Court has decided the election before getting into that. (Note:I fell down this rabbit hole with Kevin Stitt in 2018 with this AFD. It would be good to see some clear resolution to the questions this time round.) Cabayi (talk) 14:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I think you are touching on the right thing. In the U.S., a major party candidate for the U.S. Senate is not the same as a non-partisan local dog catcher. Sufficient reliable sources and media coverage of a party candidate (post-primary, at that) is significant. The candidacy within the context of the article on the election itself is one thing; now that WP is considered a relevant source for information about the election by millions, it should not get wrapped up in this on a repeated basis. It is a clear statement of notability, in this context, that a person is a major party candidate running for one of 100 of the most powerful elected positions in the United States. This should, by definition, satisfy notability requirements. The additional sauce in this instance is that she's _very_ competitive. [7] --Brad Patrick (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)\

now that WP is considered a relevant source for information about the election by millions Just because people think they can get election information here does not make it our purpose to do that. It is absolutely the wrong place for WP to be serving as an election hub for any country. We'll happily report the results of an election as encyclopedic topic information, but we're not in any type of position to be able to talk about fair coverage of all political candidates and issues on a global basis to make it appropriate to work coverage of political candidates from that angle. It is extremely appropriate to judge any political candidate's article through the eyes of an advocacy concern and make sure that the article is more than just a soapbox for the candidate, which appears to be part of the problem with how Greenfield's article has been presented through its iterations. --Masem (t) 16:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support - it's not throwing out any rules. The topic meets all the policies and the guideline WP:N. In my view the argument that such a candidate should not have her own page is farcical, particularly when compared to the other things we give a page to. This website, this community, has a rule that all schools are notable, all train stations are notable, we have articles about bagel shops and pro wrestlers and porn stars and pizzerias, but not a major US senate candidate? Come on. Don't forget our mission is to share knowledge. Let's not pretend this isn't a topic many people are interested in or that we can't write a policy-compliant article about it. Lev!vich 14:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

But we don't generally have articles about PROPOSED schools or train stations. Or PLANNED bagel shops and pizzerias. Or pro-wrestling TRAINEES. Or people who AUDITION for porn movies. Those are the counterparts to election candidates.--Khajidha (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

TG, a "proposed" Senator, is still more important/notable/worthy of a standalone page/whatever formulation we want to use, than like any high school ever built, or even the most famous porn star. More humans are interested in, and need, knowledge about TG than about any high school or porn star or Pokémon, and all but the most famous train stations. If we're not writing about topics like TG, then what the hell are we doing here? We have an article about every damn road in England. Lev!vich 14:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

"We have an article about every damn road in England" - No we don't, I keep finding new ones to write all the time. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, and when you run out, you're going to clear new roads and write articles about them! I look forward to reading about Ritchie Boulevard and Ritchie Lane... I hope you name at least one of them Levivich Way. Lev!vich 15:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Things that "are" are more encyclopedic than anything that "may be". In the only sense in which TG could be encyclopedic, she is just a "may be". --Khajidha (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Thats where I disagree. Open a newspaper. She's not a maybe. She's already notable, win or lose. We have more secondary source material to summarize about TG than I dare say 90% of the pages we have on Wikipedia. It's only through contortions (here, the contortion of WP:NPOL) that one can claim she is not worth including in the encyclopedia unless she wins. There is no logic or data that leads to that conclusion. Lev!vich 15:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

She's a "may be" in the sense that she may be elected. --Khajidha (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm saying she is notable even if she may be elected. Her notability does not depend on her getting elected. The secondary source material won't disappear if she loses. If our job is to summarize the world's knowledge, we're not doing our job if we don't summarize the knowledge about TG. It's a hole in our coverage, regardless of the outcome of the election. Lev!vich 15:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I guess we have different ideas about what secondary sources about her means. Because 57 different ways of saying "this lady is running for election" don't impress me as notability. --Khajidha (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

If all the secondary sources said was that she was running, I'd agree with you. But of course they say much more than that. Lev!vich 16:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I've read the draft. Still looks like 57 ways of saying "she's running" to me. --Khajidha (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Well that's a mistake, judging the notability of a topic by the sources that are in the draft. WP:BEFORE and all that. Lev!vich 16:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Well then, what sources should I be looking at? What can you show me that is more than just either "she exists, she's been married twice, and she's a mom" and "she's running for office"? --Khajidha (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Wait, now you're moving the goalposts. Before you said 57 different ways of saying "this lady is running for election", now you're saying that and she's been married twice, and she's a mom, and that second part is more than just "this lady is running for election"; in fact, "married twice" and "mom" sound to me like the kind of biographical details that one would find in WP:SIGCOV of a WP:BLP. So I'll tell you what: you set forth the definitive criteria for a source that "counts", and I'll tell you if I have any examples that meet that criteria. Lev!vich 17:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Biographical details fill out articles, they do not establish notability. You can give me all the sources you want that she has been married twice and has kids, but that tells me nothing about her notability. And I don't see anything in that second section beyond "this lady is running for election". Unless there's something super outstanding about her campaign, like collusion with foreign powers, all campaign coverage is just "she's running for office". --Khajidha (talk) 18:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

If your definition of "notable" is "elected", then she is not notable. But my definition is the one in WP:N (at least two GNG-satisfying sources), and that criteria is met. Lev!vich 18:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

No, my definition of "notable" is not "elected". But my definition of notable says that people who simply want to have a job, as opposed to those who have that job, are not notable just because they want it. An applicant to a university is not notable. An academic is. A person who does a walk-on tryout for a sports team is not notable. An active member of that team is. A candidate for senate is not notable just because they are running for senate. A senator is. --Khajidha (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Now that's a red herring. Nobody is arguing that she is notable just because she is running for senate. She is notable because she meets the criteria set forth at WP:N. Lev!vich 18:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

How, then? How is she notable? There is no coverage of her separate from this election. She was not notable before the election and just running for office does not make her notable now, no matter how many sources say that she is running for office. --Khajidha (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

What part of, "She is notable because she meets the criteria set forth at WP:N" is unclear? Again, if you define "notable" as "subject to coverage separate from the election" or "notable before the election" (or "notable if elected"), then she is not notable. But if you define "notable" as "two GNG-satisfying sources" (which WP:N does), then she is notable. Lev!vich 18:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I define notability as "subject to coverage separate from the election". --Khajidha (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Which is a different definition than the one that has consensus (WP:N), and one that we don't apply anywhere else. We wouldn't, for example, say that a senator/athlete/scientist is only notable if they are subject to coverage outside of their being a senator/athlete/scientist. Lev!vich 19:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Did you not see my point above? Being a candidate is not parallel to being a scientist or an athlete. It is parallel to applying to a college or trying out for a team. --Khajidha (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

That's a view that does not have consensus. WP:GNG and WP:BASIC apply to everyone; there is no consensus to exclude political candidates from GNG. She might not be notable in your view, but under our general notability guideline, she is. Lev!vich 19:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose as too soon. As with Draft:Rishi Kumar, another candidate who isn't notable outside the context of WP:1EVENT (this election), Theresa Greenfeeld has nothing more than routine coverage for a person running for national office. Wait until after the election; if she doesn't win, she wouldn't qualify for an article here, although her campaign might. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • WP:1EVENT supports having this page. It says, If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. Editors commonly cite 1EVENT to argue that people aren't notable for one event, but that's not what 1EVENT actually says; for significant persons in significant events, it says the very opposite. It's like making an argument based on the shortcut instead of the actual policy being linked to. We could call it argumentum ad shortcutae, perhaps? Lev!vich 17:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support I wanted to close this. Maybe I'm not brave enough, maybe I just thought it would help to strengthen consensus instead. This is mostly "per Jimbo". The idea that someone could be elected to the United States Senate and not have a Wikipedia article is deeply embarrassing to me, and would constitute a high-profile failure on our part. I'm certainly sympathetic to those calling for clearer guidance on notability standards in these cases—we probably don't need articles on otherwise non-notable people if they're, say, the Republican candidate in Rhode Island, or the Democrat in Idaho. Sure, there are major party candidates who everyone knows will just lose by huge margins and that's all we'll hear from them, but it's abundantly clear that that is not the case with Greenfield. The earlier AfD was fine, if a bit on the zealous side, but circumstances have very much changed since. --BDD (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

"The idea that someone could be elected to the United States Senate and not have a Wikipedia article is deeply embarrassing to me, and would constitute a high-profile failure on our part." Why? To me, that is far from a failure on our part, it is a SUCCESS on the part of democracy. --Khajidha (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

It looks reactive, like our measures of notability are off, which I suppose is the case. It's one thing if there's a freak electoral result—Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was a list entry and only became a stub upon winning her primary—but a Greenfield win would not at all be a surprise. I'm not sure what you mean by such a case being a success for democracy. --BDD (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The idea that someone who was not notable (and thus didn't have an article here) won, means that "nobodies" can win. And that's a good thing.--Khajidha (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• Strong support per Levivich, Ritchie333, Future Perfect at Sunrise, BDD, Jimbo Wales, and others in previous discussions. We don't have a criteria that says someone must be notable outside of running for a political office, as Mongo and Khajidha are attempting to argue above. We do have WP:GNG, which supersedes WP:NPOL, and by that standard Greenfield overwhelmingly passes the bar for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." (There's also been a persistent misapplication of WP:1EVENT, which Levivich insightfully demonstrates above). Greenfield and/or her campaign may not have been notable months ago; I don't have a time machine. But all of us as Wikipedia editors need to be willing to revisit our assessments and preconceived notions as new sources emerge, and unfortunately several of us have not been able to do that. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support. The candidate meets the GNG handily. NPOL itself acknowledges that unelected candidates for political office can be notable per the GNG. While I do personally believe NPOL should be changed so that candidates running in major elections are considered inherently notable, such a change would not be needed for Greenfield's article to be created as the GNG criteria are already met. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support. Clearly way way way over the GNG. And WP:NPOL defers to the GNG. That said, the *venue* could be considered to be a problem. I'll leave notes at the DRV talk page. But yes, WP:AN has been one of the options when asking to overturn a DRV outcome (the other is DRV), so this isn't out of process per se. Hobit (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• I don't know. I guess Alvin Greene is some precedent but now that I actually read that article it feels like tabloid material and the thought occurs that we would be better off without it. Haukur (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support. It is absolutely absurd situation that byzantine procedural obfuscation prevent an article on a major party candidate in one of the most closely watched Senate contests. older ≠ wiser 19:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above. The draft certainly demonstrates significant coverage in reliable sources, exceeding WP:GNG by a mile. There has been so much poor judgment involving this article. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Jimbo, who I'm glad to see has talked some sense into the discussion. Greenfield is clearly notable, and it's embarrassing that it has come this far for the error to be rectified. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support. BIO1E: The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. None of the invocations of PROMO make sense to me; it is clearly in the public interest to know about these candidates. We may need to revisit the relationship between the GNG and the SNGs after the dust has settled. Enterprisey (talk!) 20:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Question: What if she loses? The argument seems to be that people aren't notable for losing elections. So say we allow the article now, and she ends up losing the election. Is it then deleted all over again, orrr is it just edited to "Theresa Greenfield (born October 20, 1963) is a person who was the Democratic nominee for the 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa."? "Politician" would no longer really apply, and I don't know why the current lead says she's a businessperson at all, nevermind puts it first, she's not notable for it, and neither are the companies she serves as on the boards of, apparently. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't see why it would matter. She meets the GNG by a mile. I think people ignore the fact that the GNG doesn't require you to be notable for anything in particular, just covered by reliable, independent, secondary sources. Hobit (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • If you are a political candidate, you are a politician whether you win or lose because you are "one engaged in politics"—you just aren't a "politician" by wikt:politician definition 2 (or what some would call a "career politician"). -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support and do it FAST IAR is not needed for the end result but use it if necessary just to speed up the procedures on this embarrassing situation. And it's no reflection on past actions on this article; everyone was just trying to handle it properly. North8000 (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Please do not make content decisions on the administrator's noticeboard: that's really inappropriate.—S Marshall T/C 21:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

---

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

• Oppose Wanted to sneak this in before closure. She can be adequately covered on the election page - if she loses, she won't have lasting notability, and content shouldn't be discussed here. SportingFlyer T·C 21:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  Even if she loses the election, the notability will be lasting with GNG-passing coverage in abundance.Oakshade (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Related AfDs and articles

I think it would be helpful to list other AfDs (current or past) that may be impacted by whatever outcome the above discussion comes to.

• [[8]] Ran for office three times in Ireland (European Parliament, Parliament, and Senate) and failed to be elected all three times. However, in the news since elections for vocal criticism of the Green Party and for advocating that the Green Party not form a government. Article was AfD because she was not elected. Could this deletion be revisited in light of the discussion here? AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John E. James -- active AfD of a US senate candidate who has a meaningful chance of winning. Hobit (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Mr. James is running for the US Senate in the state that ranks 10th in population, representing more than 10 million people. He will forever be either a US Senator or the guy who lost that Senate race. It's not reasonable to maintain a fiction that rules are more important than ground truth - these candidates are more than a line item on another page.--Brad Patrick (talk) 20:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• Draft:Kara_Eastman -- US house candidate in 2018 and 2020. Much smaller race than most US Senate races, but still closely related though the coverage isn't quite as overwhelming. Hobit (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Draft:Al Gross (politician) -- Also a US Senate candidate in a competitive race with significant coverage available (not all of which is reflected in the current sourcing). Dreamyshade (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Gade, the 2020 Republican US Senate candidate in Virginia. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• I would argue that all of the articles that were mentioned are notable. In particular, now that Theresa Greenfield is on the mainspace, Dr. Al Gross is one of the only major party U.S. Senate candidates this cycle without an article, and there is a draft written available about him. This article should be moved to the mainspace, as should the draft about Kara Eastman. The articles about John James and Daniel Gade should stay up at least through November 3. I say this because the voters need to have information about the candidates on their ballots. Narayansg (talk) 22:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  I say this because the voters need to have information about the candidates on their ballots. This isn't an effective argument for inclusion on Wikipedia. If they pass the general notability guideline or any other notability guideline, then they are eligible to have an article (and notability isn't temporary). If they are not notable, simply being a candidate does not make them so. But it's important not to assume the inverse: Simply being a candidate doesn't make them not notable, either. WP:NPOL defers to WP:GNG in the case of candidates. ST47 (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  It also defers to several elements of WP:NOT: WP:NOTNEWS, WP:PROMO, WP:CRYSTAL, along with WP:BIO1E. It may seem oddly political to oppose these, but I would strongly prefer to not turn Wikipedia into a partisan US-orientated website, and instead allow for articles on people only if they are notable. (We can always cover the candidates on the election page, which will likely be watched by interested parties on both sides of the aisle.) SportingFlyer T·C 22:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  For these draft articles, there's a problem related to the cycle that the draft Greenfield article got stuck in (resolved only with a vote here): there's no avenue for robust community discussion of notability for an AfC draft, because a single AfC reviewer can decline a submission and keep declining it. As a relevant example, I saw that for Gross, User:Narayansg moved the draft article to mainspace a few weeks ago, and another editor moved it back to draftspace as "Doesn't meet wp:npol yet" instead of following a documented community process for mainspace articles where you want to contest notability (like PROD or AfD). So, where to go to discuss whether a candidate like Gross or Eastman reaches the threshold of WP:GNG? I expect that few candidates do, but the exceptions (like Greenfield) are important. Dreamyshade (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  Anyone can accept an AfC submission too. If you believe it's ready, you can move it to mainspace. See WP:DRAFTIFY, It is not intended as a backdoor route to deletion. and Other editors (including the author of the page) have a right to object to moving the page. If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and if it is not notable list at AfD. If there is a dispute over whether something should be in draftspace or mainspace, the page should be moved back to mainspace and the dispute should be brought to WP:AFD. If you can't move it to mainspace due to protection, ask an admin. ST47 (talk) 23:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  @ST47:, I actually tried to move the Kara Eastman draft and couldn't for the simple reason it already has a history. Is this a common problem? And could you treat this as an "ask an admin" request for the move (even though I don't believe it is a protection problem)? Hobit (talk) 13:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

  It's probably not particularly common, but yes, ask an admin, or ask at WP:RM/TR. That one hasn't had an AfD since 2018 and the current version is better-sourced. However, the principal author of Draft:Kara Eastman has requested (through a comment on that page) that it not be nominated again until after the election, I would respect that request unless there's broader support for her immediate notability. ST47 (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• One guideline that doesn't appear to have been explicitly mentioned above is WP:NOPAGE (aka WP:PAGEDECIDE). If a political candidate is only noteworthy/covered within the context of political candidacy, it is not (erm...) incumbent upon us to have a separate page for that candidacy, given that the individual for-all-time notability of that candidate is marginal, even if coverage of the election itself including coverage of candidates is significant. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare's Research

• After reading/participating in the discussion around Greenfield, I found myself very curious about which other non-incumbent candidates in the various Senate races have articles. I put together User:GorillaWarfare/Senate races with my results, and figured I'd share it here in case anyone was interested as I was. Many of the candidates have previously held office and met NPOL as a result of their past positions, but I found eighteen biographies of non-incumbent candidates who were not previously elected for office (including Greenfield). Out of that eighteen, four were independently notable for reasons unrelated to their runs for office. Out of the remaining fourteen, there were 9 Democrats, 3 Republicans, and 1 Independent, plus Mr. Willie Wilson in the Willie Wilson Party. They are evenly split gender-wise, with 7 articles about women and seven about men. Edits welcome if I've made any errors. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
• Here are the 14 articles listed on GW's page of non-incumbent 2020 US Senate candidates who are not notable outside politics, and how many page views each article received in the last 30 days. Why in the world would we not provide our readers with the verified, neutral summaries of these topics that they clearly are interested in reading?
  1. Al Gross, I-Alaska ♂, 13,661 pageviews
  2. Jon Ossoff, D-Georgia ♂, 135,335 pageviews
  3. Raphael Warnock, D-Georgia ♂, 76,410 pageviews
  4. Richard Dien Winfield, D-Georgia ♂, 3,000 pageviews
  5. Willie Wilson, Willie Wilson Party-Illinois ♂, 31,311 pageviews
  6. Theresa Greenfield, D-Iowa ♀, 17,114 pageviews
  7. Amy McGrath, D-Kentucky ♀, 155,241 pageviews
  8. John James, R-Michigan ♂, 88,815 pageviews
  9. Jo Rae Perkins, R-Oregon ♀, 15,166 pageviews
  10. Marquita Bradshaw, D-Tennessee ♀, 24,992 pageviews
  11. MJ Hegar, D-Texas ♀, 197,488 pageviews
  12. Daniel Gade, R-Virginia ♂, 36,133 pageviews
  13. Paula Jean Swearengin, D-West Virginia ♀, 24,214 pageviews
  14. Merav Ben-David, D-Wyoming ♀, 11,236 pageviews Lev!vich 16:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

  Because providing encyclopedic information is only one traditional function of encyclopedia. Another function is to select notable subjects (for which the information is provided). This is exactly why we reject, for example, purely local coverage or ONEEVENT (which both can generate a lot of interest as well). No opinion on specific individuals listed above.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

  Personally I believe NPOL should be changed to deem major candidates in Senate races such as Greenfield's inherently notable. I strongly agree with Barkeep49 who said above, I think Wikipedia is grossly irresponsible in our election coverage for the role we play in promoting incumbents over challengers. We should have some level of information about candidates for people seeking information about an election. This doesn't need to be done through a full article but could happen through reasonable coverage in an election article. The incumbent will still get a full article as opposed to say a paragraph (or two, maybe three) but our readers deserve to know more about Greenfield than "Theresa Greenfield, businesswoman, candidate for Iowa's 3rd congressional district in 2018" which is what we're saying now. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

  GorillaWarfare, How is that an argument to change NPOL? Writing more about a candidate in the election article requires no change to NPOL. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

  Sorry, not super clear, those were supposed to be two separate statements. I think NPOL should be changed, and separately I agree with Barkeep's point. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

  @GorillaWarfare: US Senate only or all upper house elections in all countries? If the latter, does that mean all unicameral legislature elections as well? "Senior national legislator candidates" in all countries? Lev!vich 18:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

  I was referring to US Senate. I admit I'm not very well-versed in other countries' political systems, but I would think any major candidates in elections that are somewhat equivalent in other countries ought to be considered notable as well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2020‎ (UTC)

  Any Republican/Democrat nominee for a Senate race will seemingly always meet GNG. So de facto "inherently notable" ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

  I feel like the discussions upon discussions about Greenfield have proven that's not agreed upon, not to mention the handful of AfDs, declined AfCs, and merged/redirected pages on R/D candidates recorded in my user subpage. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

  Let's put it this way: we can argue "presumed notable" in the lead up to the election, but if the candidate loses and their only notability to that point was being the candidate, deletion or merging back to the election article would be reasonable after the election. There are some races where the incumbent has nearly no chance of losing, so the random challenger from the other party is just because they need to test the waters, and that may be a case that that person would readily meet BLP1E. --Masem (t) 19:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

  Yeah, that's why I specified "major candidates" in my original point about NPOL. I don't think candidates like the ones you mention, or the long list of candidates pulling in single-digit percentage points of support or less in some of the Senate elections should be deemed inherently notable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

  What we need to be careful though is that if we make these articles routinely, these cannot come off as supporting their platform, though obviously we do want to document major platform points that a candidate is notable for running for. (A full platform position would be more appropriate on the election page to compare candidates, or if the campaign election itself was notable) Greenfield's section on political positions is a bit too close to promotional but not at a point it needs to be flagged. I just feel that this will be the primary content people will add to these types of candidate articles rather than bio details. --Masem (t) 18:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

  This is why I support including all of the information on the election page, such as 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa. I think one of the biggest misconceptions people have about those of us who don't want to have articles-for-all-time on mere candidates is that we don't want the information to appear at all for non-incumbent candidates. For instance, we have no biographical information whatsoever on the minor party candidates for Iowa. The "after the election" really goes against WP:CRYSTAL and our "once you're notable, you're always notable" policies - why not just cover the candidates properly in the context of the election, and have that be the worldwide standard? SportingFlyer T·C 19:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

  This. Exactly this. One million times, this. --Khajidha (talk) 22:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

  Nobody has ever claimed automatic notability simply because they are a candidate, but that doesn't at all mean someone is automatically non-notable due to them being a candidate. Some people do in fact become notable due to their candidacy, like of Greenfield and Ossoff (the first special election). That was the problem with the Greenfield controversy back in June and July - In this case the person was clearly notable but some editors clung to the idea that nobody could become notable only due to a candidacy, not to mention feeling it was "too soon" since a previous discussion (I had warned back in July the Greenfield issue would come back again and again if we don't allow an article and it turned out I was correct). Oakshade (talk) 02:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

  That assumes Greenfield IS notable, which is still a question the community disagrees on. If she loses the election there's a very good chance the article could be deleted or merged. There's really two issues here: 1) not providing enough information on candidates on the election page, which there seems to be a hunger for along with general agreement to do so; and 2) at what point someone who is running for office but not otherwise notable becomes notable enough for a standalone article given the numerous issues with having these sorts of articles. SportingFlyer T·C 10:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

  If just being a candidate doesn't make you notable, then continuing routine coverage of your candidacy does not make you notable either. You can say "she's running for election" 1 time or 500 billion times, it doesn't change anything. --Khajidha (talk) 11:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

  Community consensus above shows that Greenfield does meet GNG. If she loses the election, an editor might bring up yet another AfD in some kind of WP:POINT exercise, but the GNG-passing train has long left the station and the community's patience will be beyond thin at that time. Oakshade (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

  So, let's look at hypotheticals. If this were an article being proposed about a candidate from the previous senate election in that state, with basically the same sources saying the same things, plus a source for their having lost the election, you would support its existence? Really? I saw lots of people above saying basically saying that we "need to serve the voters". That seems totally wrong to me. We aren't here to serve the voters of this year, we are here to cover this year's election for the people of next year. Or 5 years from now. Or 10. Or 100. If this last round had not resulted in the posting of this article, I doubt anyone would raise the issue 10 days from now if she loses the election. --Khajidha (talk) 17:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

  That's a straw man argument as I've never said anything like "to serve the voters" since coming across this issue back in June. Others might have. And to answer your question, yes of course we should have an article about a person who is notable and easily passes GNG as consensus has confirmed even if they lost an election they became notable for just we had the article of Jon Ossoff after he lost the 2017 Georgia's 6th congressional district special election. Oakshade (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

  Jon Ossoff was AfD'd in 2017, incorrectly closed as a keep (8:4 delete/redirect:keep ratio), and then a mess of a DRV which potentially identified 3 of the keep !voters as SPI but wasn't really close-able as anything other than no consensus. Ossoff is probably the worst possible example you could have given. SportingFlyer T·C 20:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

  If it really is a bad example then show us - If you truly feel Ossoff is not notable due to becoming notable only because of his 2017 candidacy that he lost and his current candidacy and, should he lose the upcoming Senatorial election like Greenfield might or might not, continues to be non-notable in your view, then you are always free to AfD the Ossoff article. But honestly that would also come across as a WP:POINT AfD. Oakshade (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

  The messy AfD and messier DRV were three years ago. I don't think an AfD would be WP:POINTy, but certainly at this point in the discussion it wouldn't help much, either. We need good guidelines for when candidates are considered all-time-notable. SportingFlyer T·C 20:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• The MJ Hegar article can be summarized as: she is in the middle of a notable life, and additionally, she is a candidate. The Theresa Greenfield article can be summarized as: she is candidate and she is candidate. The only notable thing in her bio, seems to be Jimbo Wales campaigning for her article... but this is not yet covered by Reliable Sources: simply too soon. Pldx1 (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
• The bigger issue here is that arguing over Greenfield's notability (and the fact the community is split on the issue) doesn't get us any closer to actually solving this problem, which pops up every two years in the midst of US election season. We need to have this election resolve and then workshop what the actual rule is to avoid having this be a point of contention, the question being: when is a recent candidate notable? SportingFlyer T·C 17:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

  I think that's a great idea. Avoiding doing it just before the election is probably wise, and I don't think there's harm in waiting for election dust to settle to discuss it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

  I completely agree with waiting as it avoids any WP:CRYSTAL issues of "well they might be notable..." Considering the fact we typically lack consensus on what to do with these US candidates, maybe it would be better to frame the question as, how do we improve election coverage on Wikipedia? SportingFlyer T·C 21:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, working on this after the election sounds good. I believe both of these questions are worth asking, because they both come up with deeply split answers (especially when working article-by-article): How do we decide when a candidate may have their own article under their name? And related, but broader: how do we set up our policies and guidelines so that elections can be covered in ways that fulfill the purpose of Wikipedia to the best of our capacity and ability as editors? Dreamyshade (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• I know I'm coming late to this discussion, likely after it has become moot, but looking at the 14 biographies on GorillaWarfare's list, I was struck by the fact that most of these candidates should be notable because they were political activists. I don't know if that term means anything beyond the US, so I will define how I am using it: a political activist is someone who works, often as a volunteer, to effect a change in how government works, often by pushing thru a ballot initiative or class-action lawsuit -- although there may be other ways. And that means these are people who woke up one morning & decided to run for office & somehow garnered one party's nomination. There are exceptions to this. For example, Merav Ben-David strikes me as a notable academic (we need to know more about her publishing history, though); Richard Dien Winfield is another notable academic (his bio article barely mentions he ran for office twice). A possible one is Marquita Bradshaw, but she is notable as "the first African American woman to win a major political party nomination in any statewide race in Tennessee". Willie Wilson is one of those footnote people like Emperor Norton whom you can't exclude from a comprehensive encyclopedia. Jo Rae Perkins represents a movement Wikipedia probably has too little information about, the QAnon people. In all honestly, about the only one of these I might exclude would be Daniel Gade, because his biography makes it appear he did wake up one morning & decide just that, but further research about his work advocating for disabled veterans could show I am wrong about that. Far too often we look at articles on politicians & decide if they are notable only if they held public office, when there are many notable political activists (Martin Luther King comes to mind) who never held office. -- llywrch (talk) 23:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Now she lost

Now she lost, and her article still does not contain anything significant which could not be in the article on the Iowa senate elections. Shoud it go to AfD again, or can we just move it back to draft?--Ymblanter (talk) 07:43, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Neither, as it is quite hard to judge a candidate's post-election notability on election night. Lev!vich 07:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

As per Levivich. Waiting at least 48 hours (if not a week) to consider another merge/delete proposal is certainly called for. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

We can wait for a couple of days, no problem, but if there is no consensus here to revert the move from the draft she will go to AfD again.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree there will be another discussion; it just won't be a useful one until the presidential election is called. power~enwiki (π, ν) 08:01, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Her article might go to AFD, but she probably won't. :-) Lev!vich 08:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Like any mainspace article that has had a decent amount of effort put into it, if an editor believes that the subject may not be notable and can't find sources indicating sufficient notability, that editor would need to nominate it for deletion. WP:DRAFTIFY isn't appropriate for mature articles that have had a bunch of editors and edits over time. I agree with waiting at least a couple days or a week to consider an AfD nomination, especially because coverage of the race isn't over - this article came out a couple hours ago, for example. We'll be able to have a better picture of longer-term notability after journalists have a chance to write up analysis, etc. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:47, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, take the advice as WP:BATTLEGROUND and wait at least a year to reassess notability. There's no chance it can be meaningfully re-assessed in the near term, and there'd be no reason to re-nominate now, in a day, or a week, except to try to win a battle. WilyD 06:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

It should have not moved out of the draft after three failed DRVs to start with. The argument was mainly that if she wins election (which she was expected to) than everybody knows that Wikipedia failed to create an article on a notable person (who is accidentally also a woman etc). This argument is obsolete for the time being. I also do not see how my behavior is WP:BATTLEGROUND. I do not think I was in any way previously involved with this article except for a pair of procedural comments on the top of this thread. I am just absolutely sure that if she were not an American democrat Senate candidate but a candidate to the parliament of Peru with similar credentials, nothing like this would ever happen--Ymblanter (talk) 07:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

The argument was mainly that she met WP:GNG. The closing statement a couple sub threads up was "Consensus is that the subject does meet the GNG." Lev!vich 07:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:ONEEVENT perfectly describes the sittation, but I do not think we shoule be discussing this here. I said very early in this topic that AN is not a good instrument to look for consensus in these issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree ONEEVENT perfectly describes the situation: However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. I'm not sure why you expect an AFD would end up with a different result than the we had here at AN. Do you expect editors will have changed their mind? Or do you expect a different group of editors will arrive at a different result? I expect the same editors will come to the same result. Lev!vich 15:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think it will be a different group of people. After all, it has already been to AfD and three times to DRV with the decision delete / not undelete.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

She was at AFD in May where there was no consensus that she met GNG at that time, and the three DRVs were in June and July, and found no reason to overturn the May AFD as of that time. Then, in late October, consensus was reached that she met GNG as of that time. Now it's early November. If she met GNG in late October, she still meets GNG in early November. A merge proposal might have some support, but an AFD would be a disruptive waste of time (as would draftification). No matter what happens, we will have a page on Wikipedia called "Theresa Greenfield". The only question is whether that page will be an article or a redirect. AFD is not the place to answer that question. It's still called Articles for deletion, not Articles for discussion. Lev!vich 16:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

This also serves to remind us that GNG reiterates BLP1E - we are looking for enduring coverage of a topic, not a blip of news coverage, and that even a prolonged election period run should not be considered "enduring" for our purposes (that is, what is enduring depends on the nature of the topic). Clearly this was being misread if editors took her to be notable by the GNG while as a candidate (there are other routes to presume notability) --Masem (t) 16:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E doesn't apply here either, because she does not meet the third requirement: If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. Neither BLP1E nor ONEEVENT apply to US Senate candidates. Each US Senate race is a significant event, and every general election candidate has a significant role in that event. It was not a mistake that editors (like me) !voted based on her meeting GNG. She meets GNG. There are no "but she's only a political candidate!" exceptions to GNG. There is no "enduring" requirement to GNG. (WP:LASTING is part of WP:NEVENT, not WP:NBIO or GNG.) Maybe there should be, maybe GNG should be changed, but any person can read WP:GNG, as written now, and there really is no argument that she does not meet the requirements as written now. Lev!vich 17:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Notability requires WP:SUSTAINED coverage (part of WP:N) which ties right back to BLP1E and NEVENT. That's the enduring requirement of notability. It's why a burst of news coverage is not sufficient for notability. --Masem (t) 17:11, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

True, but that brings us back to the main point here: it's really nonsensical to assess notability on October 21 and then re-assess it to judge SUSTAINED on November 6. If she met N (including SUSTAINED, as could be ascertained at that time) on October 21, 2020 based on coverage in 2020, then we are not going to have sufficient information to make a determination about SUSTAINED until, at least October 21, 2021. If she's been covered non-stop for a year, then we have to wait at least one year, and only then can we determine if it was a "brief blip" or "sustained" coverage. This is why I agree that the notion that we should do anything with this article this week is just BATTLEGROUND behavior. There is no logic to making any sort of decision this soon after the election; the only reason anyone could possibly want to change the status quo right now is to prove a point. And that point is: candidates who don't win shouldn't have a page. Everyone needs to let go, in the drop-the-stick sense, of the notion that a person's notability is linked to whether they win or lose an election, and also let go of the notion that the mere presence of an article about a candidate is somehow promotional.

By the way, Theresa Greenfield is still the subject of more coverage than Donna Strickland or Clarice Phelps. The problem in all three of these womens' biographies is that each woman was judged by editors according to their accomplishments in the eyes of those editors. So, editors say, "she's not notable until she wins the Nobel Prize", or "she's not notable unless she is a named author on the paper", or "she's not notable unless she wins the election". This approach is wrong, wrong, wrong, and it's not our way, and it's not how the guideline N works, nor how our core policies work. We follow sources. A person is notable if the sources say they are notable: whether we think their accomplishments are important doesn't matter at all. Yet some editors continuously try to add these extra requirements: whether it's "won an election" or "played in a professional league" or "published a paper", it's always just some editor's opinion about what makes someone important. But editors' opinions don't count; it's sources that count. This is misapplied in both directions: sometimes editors apply their idea of "importance" to !vote keep when the sources don't exist (football players, famously); other times editors apply their idea of "importance" to !vote delete even when the sources are plentiful (women, famously). Every time we stray from the path of "follow the sources", we should remind ourselves of what we're here for: to summarize secondary sources. Not to decide what's important. In this case, there is no lack of secondary sources about Greenfield for us to summarize. Lev!vich 17:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

First, I fully agree we don't need to decide today or next week even on its fate. Let's wait for the election results to finalize and see any fallout from that.

There is a huge difference with the Strickland case in that we didn't have ANY article for her - no attempt at draft or deletion. Take away the Nobel, she would still have met the NPROF allowances for an article, but no one wrote it, a discovery made when she got named for the Nobel. That's a problem with our volunteer system is that we write articles that really only interest us and not probably what we should write. It is a very different situation from Greenfield where people were making a draft and trying to include it but there were hard questions on notability.

And there are hard questions on notability when it comes to a candidate in an ongoing an election. WP is now seen as a Search Engine Optimization (SEO) tool blatently used to build up a profile in search engines, and people and corps pay money to try to get editors to make pages to improve their hits. NCORP was recently reworked to try to stall as much of this from the corporate side by making it harder for random corps to get pages. We have to consider the same problems for a candidate in an election that has no other history of note. I mean, we initially have to assume good faith that editors that wanted an article on Greenfield were trying to do in with the intent for an encyclopedic topic, but in the middle of an election in a heated race, some questions have to be raised. (The same issue was at play at the early stages of Phelps article based on the early AFD discussions - lack of third-party sourcing points to more self-promotional concerns). But in the case of Phelps, when this was recognized by the media, they came to the "rescue" to provide addition third-party coverage and establish her as clearly notable for her whole career. Which is a perfectly acceptable route to assuring notability. (This also happened with Strickland too). WP is stuck that we have to be very careful of simply allowing every person that may be named-dropped in sources from having an article since this may be feeding into some system for promotion and marketing and thus must play cautiously.

That said, there is nothing requiring us to not cover candidates in election article with appropriate redirects to make them searchable topics, which should be the default situation for all major US congress races in the first place. Too many editors focus on wanting a separate standalone article for each topic but this is not a requirement; a topic of weak notability can be fairly covered in a larger topic with more affirmed notability and using redirects to get readers there, serving the same purpose without raising any questions of notability. --Masem (t) 18:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• We need to have a serious discussion about this before doing anything. It should go to AfD, but I think a better result is a merge to the election article - there's no reason to get rid of good information. The real question: is she notable enough as a candidate or for any other reason for her own stand-alone article at this point? I don't think the answer to that is yes, but considering this is going to be a problem over and over again every two years, I don't see the rush to remove it. SportingFlyer T·C 13:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

  I agree that there is no rush and we should try to work on general principles. To some extent it may be easier to discuss old instances. For a ten year old candidacy where I think there is a reasonable case for merging a biography into an election article see Talk:Alvin_Greene#Merge_with_2010_United_States_Senate_election_in_South_Carolina? Haukur (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

  The merge to the election article is probably the smarter move, but I definitely would wait a few days to make sure the results are certified and no other options come up. This does not require a AFD (as no admin action is required for a merge, though to maintain it may require that). --Masem (t) 14:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

  If it is merged without reaching consensus first I am sure merge is going to be undone quickly. AfD is one of the instruments to achieve consensus, admittedly not the best one. RfC can be another one.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

  Except that AFD has been repeated denied as a venue to bring up non-deletion requests because the net result doesn't involve admin action. A merge discussion on the article's talk page is reasonable though. --Masem (t) 16:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Being blatantly endorsed by Wikipedia is not so helpful

This Encyclopedia is supposed to be neutral, or at least is supposed to appear as neutral. Seeing Jimbo Wales campaigning for this article was amusing. And what has been won, except a disgracious scar on our neutral face ? The article was only asserting, in Wikipedia's voice, that the candidate was notable for being candidate, and for being candidate, and maybe for nothing else that can be found. This doesn't appear as having helped her. But let us wait and see if reliable sources attribute any influence to any Wikipedia issued endorsement. Pldx1 (talk) 10:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

If having an article = endorsement, then we endorsed her opponent long ago. Lev!vich 15:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

An issue I pointed out is that we should be very careful of these bios looking like political ads. It is important that for a notable politician to identify key issues that they have been known to focus on, but we should not make their bios list out their entire political platform, otherwise you start approaching the endorsement or political ad issue. On the other hand, on election articles, outlining the key issues at play and where the candidate sit is fair game without making us endorse or promote any single one. --Masem (t) 15:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Pldx1, you sound like those folk I see on social media who claim that this or that news outlet is spreading propaganda because they're reporting the news. And after seeing this I'm wondering if you shouldn't be advised of discretionary sanctions in the AP2 subject matter. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Dear User:Drmies. As it can be seen from my contributions, my focus is more about Korean Literature than about American Policy Too. But obvious is only obvious: there are well written stories, and there are poorly written ones. To remain credible, the selection criteria have to be applied evenly. As a side remark, the WIRED article I was referring to is amusingly praising over the hills the Professor in Wikipedia Studies they have recruited. Is smiling so diabolic ? Pldx1 (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

What you are saying here is neither relevant nor clear. I don't know what stories or criteria you are talking about, or what the Wired piece has to do with anything. I don't think you have retracted that odd comment on Jimbo's talk page, and I left you a template with some helpful links, on your talk page. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I have no opinion about whether we should have an article on this person, but I think the one takeaway that everyone can get from this is that having a Wikipedia article about a candidate makes only a minuscule, if any, difference either way to the vote that they get. I hope that supporters of particular candidates will learn that they should expend their campaigning energy on other things than getting a Wikipedia article, as if it is some sort of prize. A Wikipedia article is neither an endorsement of its subject nor of any opponents, and whether we have one or not should be decided by our policies and guidelines, not any other consideration. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Or, to put it more bluntly, WP:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 18:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it's interesting. AOC didn't have an article at the time of her election and won. Nobody reading Donald Trump would vote for the guy, yet look at the election results. I think Wikipedia's affect on elections is overrated. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think this has been Wikipedia's finest hour. First off, a rather hasty discussion on the administrator's noticeboard has overruled deletion review, so now we haven't just got sysops making binding content decisions, we've got them making the decisions in a rush. Second off, we're now deciding that she isn't notable enough for an article because she lost --- even though notability isn't temporary. If we do now decide that she shouldn't have an article, then I think many outside observers would feel that her getting an article in the runup to an election was a political intervention by Wikipedian sysops, instigated by Jimbo. I think it's going to be hard for the community to pretend that it wasn't.
  I think the learning points from this mess are: (a) if it's urgently necessary for the community to overrule DRV because DRV is wrong, then that discussion should happen at the village pump rather than here, because sysops don't make binding content decisions; (b) post-1932 US politics is unbelievably toxic and it's important to follow the processes scrupulously when we're dealing with it, instead of making up new rules as we go along; and (c) we need a big, centralized RfC about whether candidates in a national election should get articles that reaches binding conclusions.—S Marshall T/C 23:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

  Is AN not the right place to appeal a page protection decision, a DRV decision, or a close? Lev!vich 00:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

  I think it's the right place to appeal a use of the tools, but I don't think sysops have any special authority to make binding content decisions.—S Marshall T/C 00:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

  But if a page is protected from recreation, the use of the tools is required to recreate it. (Indeed, if I'm reading right, a non-admin approved it on AfC but was unable to implement this because of the protection.) So ultimately administrator intervention was necessary. And more generally, deleted page protection is only intended to prevent G4-speedy recreations (or similar unambiguous issues like vandalism.) So technically what should have happened was that an administrator should have immediately unprotected it with no further discussion once the AfC was closed. No administrator was willing to do so (probably wisely given the controversial nature, even if it was technically the correct action to take provided the draft was not a G4 speedy), but the fact is that at that point it was already being decided by administrators. If you want to avoid that then there needs to be hard-and-fast rules when any editor can request that protection be removed from a page that has been protected from recreation - if I read WP:SALT correctly, any administrator can, on their own initiative, unsalt a page on request with no further discussion (DRV is also an option but I believe it's only for if you want to recreate the deleted page specifically.) --Aquillion (talk) 00:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, the fact that the page was protected was the pretext that the closer gave for making a binding content decision.—S Marshall T/C 00:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

  The consensus in the AfDs and DRVs was pretty much against having an article until after the election was decided. So in your hypotheticals: if there's an explicit consensus against having an article until such time, nobody should be unprotecting it on their own initiative. It wasn't deleted for notability reasons in the sense that she didn't have enough media coverage, so the general condition for recreation (ie recreating with any number of extra sources, relating to her political run) wouldn't address that concern. The technical matter of unprotection may be an administrative issue, but whether to have an article is really a content one. One that's decided, the technical matter of unprotection is pretty uncontroversial; may as well be at WP:RFPP. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

  S Marshall, if someone is unhappy with a DRV close, the place to appeal that close is AN, is it not? Lev!vich 03:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  I don't think it should be. Content decisions are a matter for community consensus, and administrators don't have any special authority over content, so the optics of making content decisions here are terrible.—S Marshall T/C 03:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  Last time we discussed it, we more-or-less concluded (it was a sparse discussion) that DRV or AN were the two places to appeal a DRV close. Sorry, I'd have to hunt down the link again. I think I included it above somewhere. Hobit (talk) 05:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  I guess what I'm not understanding is: you said this wasn't WP's finest hour. What is it you think went wrong here, and how would having this discussion on a different page (DRV again? VP:PROP?) have resulted in a better outcome? Lev!vich 06:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, we're talking at cross-purposes and I think it's my fault. I agree that AN is where we currently review DRVs. In the light of this episode, I now think it shouldn't be.

I think the discussion since Greenfield's defeat demonstrates that she is not, in fact, notable enough for an article. DRV was right and the AN was wrong. DRV is where we have all the experience and practice at coming to the right choices in these things, whereas AN came to a rushed and expedient decision that, in the cold light of day, looks poor. Even worse, the AN doesn't have a fixed duration for discussions, so the closer could be accused of picking a strategic moment to close (note that I'm not saying that happened: I'm talking about the optics).

I do not think DRV is infallible. There must be a place to review DRVs. But I think that place should be ideally RFC, and if it's too urgent for that, a fixed-duration discussion on the Village Pump. Rushed, ad hoc decisions on the AN are suboptimal.—S Marshall T/C 12:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Philosophically I agree with S Marshall that AN making content decisions, and that is absolutely what happened here, makes me uneasy. Conduct forums, and that's definitely what ANI, while content forums do what they do best. The conventions are different at these types of places and for good reasons as the kind of processes that go into successfully handling one type are not the same as handling another. If someone thinks DRV got something wrong they can convince... DRV. DRV is already an appeal forum. Arguably if someone thinks an admin got a close wrong that could be appropriate for AN (since it is definitely the place to appeal closes) but that wasn't the claim that was made. AN falls into this muddle but this conversation, in my opinion, did not. And I say that as someone who thinks, before there was an article, we had been irresponsible in our coverage of her (and many other non-incumbents). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree that content vs. conduct forum is an issue - the correct step after a DRV is DRV or AN and only one of them ensure a wider view on the article in question. Unstructured discussion is often more helpful than arbitrary bureaucratic structure we have made to keep a smoothly running system, it's quite obvious some articles won't fit properly into the standard processes but they have to dealt with in a manner specific to that article. Finally adding - that as long as appealing a DRV dicussion at AN does not become a norm, this particular discussion is absolutely fine (not a comment on the discussion itself but the fact of dealing with the appeal on AN). --qedk (t 愛 c) 12:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm very disappointed that after numerous DRVs with weeks of discussion held that the article should not exist and the matter should be next reviewed after the election, that a contrary decision was reached with a 13-hour debate here. The US-centric, recentist arguments held up over rational, policy-based debate. And now she's lost the election – what next?

As for where one can "appeal" a DRV? One can't. There has to be a place at which a decision is final. Stifle (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

There is no place at which any decision is final. A decision at DRV can be appealed at DRV, but the appeal should be quickly shut down if no strong evidence is provided. I agree that decisions on content should not be made by administrators. Is there any case in which such lobbying of Jimmy Wales has resulted in an improvement to Wikipedia? And does anyone think that such a decision would have been reached in the case of a candidate in India or Germany, for example? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Because this is a project to build an encyclopaedia, there aren't any absolute rules, or final decisions, other than those required by law. The processes are standard ways of working things out, but exceptions can always be made when the processes aren't working, because the processes aren't the point. WilyD 08:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

User: Armatura

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

---

I would like complain about this user as he broke several wikipedia rules in below links and sentences he made to district/provoke editors and blackmailing admins:

- I ask for support from senior editors, to make sure verified / reliable sources are kept, even if Azeri / Turkish editors do not like them.

- the GW paragraph has been reverted 4-5 times already, by two users interchangeably, despite asking politely. What is next?

- Feel free to go ahead and report. I have reasonable doubts about impartiality of a particular admin

- Attack to user and discussing users not focusing on the topic WP:CIVILITY, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, using statements such "Clearly pro-Turkish / pro-Azerbaijani editors cleaning the evidence of racial hatred by Turkish / Azerbaijani mob in the streets of Lyon may be seen as whitewashing of history". ,,

Thanks in advance for your time and investigation. Mirhasanov (talk) 08:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

This should be at WP:ANI not WP:AN, but given your topic ban I really do not think this is the right way to go about it, and this may well, technically, be a violation of your ban. Pretty much your only options here are to find another topic area to edit in, or appeal your topic ban. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader (talk) does my topic ban also implies that I can't report user that violates wikipedia rules? Mirhasanov (talk) 09:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Mirhasanov, yes, the expectation is that you stop caring entirely about the topic from which you are banned. Evidence (like this discussion) that you are continuing to track what is ongoing in the banned topic is likely to cause you to be blocked from editing the project. As multiple editors have told you now, find something else to edit. --Izno (talk) 13:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• I've warned @Mirhasanov: on their talk page. Of course, this does not preclude action by any admin that sees the necessity. Tiderolls 13:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• OP is not hearing us. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I asked an independent review thinking that other admins are more reasonable but what I saw is bunch of people thinking they are judge and trying to back other admin who clearly violated rules by imposing sanction to me. In normal life even person who kills someone has at least 1 person backing him in a review/ judge process. You all are only good and quick by imposing sanctions or notifications to new users. You just don't want spend time to understand the problem and back each other's decision, even thought you decide that the process was not right. This comment in above by so called "Admin" was clear provocation and attack to user, and no one cared because he is admin. Which wikipedia rules did admin Beyond My Ken followed with below comment?

No. My question was clear and concise, and your obfuscatory answer I take as being, essentially, a "No". Therefore, I stand by my endorsement of an AA2 topic ban, and the block that has been imposed on you, and would also support an indef block or a site ban. I don't think we need or want you here, you should be posting to some ultra-partisan anti-Armenian blog. Beyond My Ken (talk)

Even closure of the case didn't ask me a question whether I have any request or question. Your process is fully unfair. Hence, I need my account not blocked but Vanished as I don't want anymore contribute to corrupted wikipedia. Please Mirhasanov (talk) 17:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• (1) I am not -- and never have been, and never will be -- an admin, nor did I do anything to give the impression that I am an admin.

(2) The potential of posts such as this is why I posted a thorough explanation of what their topic ban means on M's talk page.

(3) Considering "broadly construed", their post here is probably a violation of their topic ban.

(4) I agree that a warning is the appropriate action for an first instance of a violation, to be followed by quickly escalating blocks.

(5) I have concerns, considering their inability (or unwillingness) to understand Wikipedia's processes, that if M is allowed to vanish, they will return under another name and continue in the same manner. Because of that, I do not support allowing them to vanish.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Mirhasanov as someone who has recently received a topic ban, you aren't really eligible for courtesy vanishing. You can simply walk away from your account though, and never log back into it, if you don't want to edit any more. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 18:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Beyond My KenSo that means you were clear provocateur asking nonsense questions irrelevant to the topic. Not punishing you is another unfair face of admins. I don't care what you support or agree. I want my account vanished anyway. I just use this period talk about your unfair bureaucracy. Mirhasanov (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• You're welcome to hold any opinion you wish to about the sun or the moon or the stars or me or anything else for that matter. You're not welcome to attempt to skew Wikipedia to match your ideological opinions. Personally, I think that your not editing here any more is a pretty good idea, but I don't think you're going to be allowed to courtesy vanish, as I explained on your talk page. My advice is to just walk away. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Why do you want a courtesy vanishing? Mr rnddude (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• This is definitely against the topic ban, but before this section poisons the well, I do think that there probably should be a review of Armatura's engagement with AA2 articles. Armatura (like others at the article) very clearly has a favored POV. The question to answer is whether their participation in discussions and edits have been sufficiently constructive to justify their continued ability to work on the article despite their POV. I don't have time right now to look into this thoroughly, and may not for at least a week (this has been the busiest month of my life in recent memory). Between Mirhasanov's topic ban and the fact that this is at the wrong noticeboard, this section should probably be closed, and a new discussion should be opened at the correct venue by an editor not currently topic banned from the AA2. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken I still wondering why you are aggressive like this against me? if you are not an admin why you are keeping provoking me? Why don't you follow normal etiquette while discussing on admin board? What is your purpose?Mirhasanov (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Mirhasanov, I think maybe you don't understand how admin privileges work on Wikipedia. Administrators have been given a few extra tools they can use because they've gone through a process that asks the community to say whether they trust them with those tools. Many, many respected editors haven't gone through the process. Having admin tools doesn't give an editor authority to make decisions against policy. It only means they've successfully asked the community to weigh in on whether they won't do so. The fact BMK isn't an admin has nothing to do with whether or not the warnings they give are valid. It literally only means that someone else has to enforce those warnings. —valereee (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Valereee Thank you very much for detailed explanation dear. My understanding is that we are all belong to different nations, we are all have different opinion but, in wikipedia we must act constructive, friendly, intelligent that eventually leads to collaboration. BMKs sentiment and comments like "I don't think we need or want you here", "you should be posting to some ultra-partisan anti-Armenian blog" doesn't help the process. It creates provocative reaction on other side, eventually leads ignoring his warnings or anything he want to endorse from name of wikipedia administration, arbitration or community guidance. This is what I wanted to underpin. He went against wikipedia rule WP:CIVILITY with is comment above. Mirhasanov (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

•  Renamer note: As a renamer, I can state that Mirhasanov is not eligible for vanishing while under a sanction. There are millions of articles on Wikipedia outside their topic ban that need attention. I invite Mirhasanov to spend six months editing constructively and then requesting removal of the topic ban. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra Agreed and I will follow. Who is going to take action on below request by Rosguill?

This is definitely against the topic ban, but before this section poisons the well, I do think that there probably should be a review of Armatura's engagement with AA2 articles. Armatura (like others at the article) very clearly has a favored POV. The question to answer is whether their participation in discussions and edits have been sufficiently constructive to justify their continued ability to work on the article despite their POV. I don't have time right now to look into this thoroughly, and may not for at least a week (this has been the busiest month of my life in recent memory). Between Mirhasanov's topic ban and the fact that this is at the wrong noticeboard, this section should probably be closed, and a new discussion should be opened at the correct venue by an editor not currently topic banned from the AA2. signed, Rosguill talk 18:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Mirhasanov (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Mirhasanov: Thanks for notifying me about this discussion. Apologies if at any point my writings sounded sharper then expected to your and other pro-Azeribaijani / pro-Turkish editors. I honestly do not think you should have opened this discussion, though, as this isn't battleground and I am not your enemy to try to take a revenge from.
• In response for your concerns, Rosguill, I can only thank you for your constructive efforts on the article. Of course every editor has their point of view influenced by their nationality, culture, knowledge of history. Am I to be blamed for having more of it than others? I will leave this in the hands of uninvolved admins to judge. I have to state, though, that certain anxiety of pro-Armenian editors of 2020 NK war page was caused mostly by insufficient policing (paraphrasing one of the admins) of that extremely sensitive article amidst ongoing violent territorial, ethnic and religious conflict. There was active revert warring by a couple of pro-Azerbaijani / pro-Turkish editors with whom Mirhasanov was trying to coordinate his actions with via Skype (Solavirum who was temporarily blocked and CuriousGolden who chose temporary abstinence from editing as a preventive measure), and the talk page discussions frequently become simple voting in an attempt to prevail with vote numbers instead of trying to reach a consensus and editors openly denying widely accepted Armenian Genocide on the page of conflict that is perceived by Armenians as logical continuation of genocide, were not reprimanded by admins (because, "although it is abhorring, it is the predominant position in Azerbaijan and Turkey"). That article just needs more neutral peacekeepers to avoid the article/talk page becoming a battleground; I asked for it once on Administrators Noticeboard but did not get the necessary attention unfortunately. I think it may be a good idea for the editors to declare their conflict of interest before editing / admining sensitive articles like NK war, as real-life editors do when being published. And I think that it should be made clear in the pinned administrative reminders of the NK and Armenia related pages that denial of widely accepted Armenian Genocide is not welcome at least on those pages, if not in Wikipedia as a whole, to make the assumption of good faith more realistic. Best wishes, Armatura (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with what Rosguill said. There probably should be a review of the said user's engagement with AA2 articles. Overall, the constant useless arguments about every little thing in the article prevented anyone to add anything helpful. And sometimes, you could even find yourself in a completely baseless report (which also reported the admin, Rosguill). This is largely one of the reasons I've chosen to avoid that article for good. The whole talk page is quite toxic, therefore a larger admin presence and a stricter imposition of rules against POV-pushers are necessary. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 04:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Armatura's behavior is tremendously worrying. I don't want me to continue writing WP:CIVIL as a warning to Armatura and see him don't give a single damn about it. "There was active revert warring by a couple of pro-Azerbaijani / pro-Turkish editors with whom Mirhasanov was trying to coordinate his actions with via Skype (Solavirum who was temporarily blocked and CuriousGolden who chose temporary abstinence from editing as a preventive measure)". Now we're talking about conspiracy theories against other users? And name-calling editors, like that should be allowed. Armatura have been violating the same guideline (and several others) for weeks now, with no change in his behavior. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 09:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Editing user scripts for another user

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

---

Good day! I was contacted off-wiki by a trusted editor who has self-enforced a wiki-break upon themselves. They have since regretted their actions, and asked me to remove said break. Not being an interface administrator, I can't do this. Would an interface administrator kindly email me if they have some time to help? Thanks! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Or they can just disable javascript on their browser and do it themselves. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@78.26: you could just delete the user's .js page for them, or they could edit it with safemode (e.g. like this). If you want to email me, I can look at it later today. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I've pointed them to Floquenbeam's advice, with a BEANS warning. Xaosflux I'll let you know if they want to go your route. Deleting isn't a workable for them, for reasons. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for posting here 78!, Unfortunately what Floq didn't know was that I had already disabled Javascript and was getting "There seems to be a problem with your login session; this action has been canceled as a precaution against session hijacking" at the login page, Several hard-refreshes worked. I didn't have a clue how I got in the last time hence my ask. Thanks all. –Davey2010^Talk 14:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

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

How can I upload my profile on Wikipedia

Good day sir/ma My name is Ogedengbe Israel Olamide Popularly known as Mide, A Nigerian blogger, programmer, student too. I'd like to upload my profile on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Israel Ogedengbe (talk • contribs) 20:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Israel Ogedengbe This would be better suited at the Help Desk, but Wikipedia does not have "profiles", Wikipedia has articles. If you want to make a profile, use social media. Wikipedia is interested in what independent reliable sources say about you, not what you want to say about yourself. 331dot (talk) 20:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia is not a form of social media. We have no profiles here, only articles written by impartial third parties about topics already notable enough to merit an article in a global encyclopedia. If you ever become sufficiently notable, somebody other than yourself may be moved to create such an article. In the meantime, something like MySpace or Facebook is closer to your purposes. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

No ducks here. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Intriguingly, when I went to welcome Israel Ogedengbe, I received a startling message, "This page can only be created and/or edited by administrators, template editors, and page movers because it matches an entry on the local or global title blacklist: .*geden?gbe.* # Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vwegba4real" --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC) Quack, Quack Slywriter (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC) Since this is off ever so slightly from the usual pattern, kicked to SPI. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC) CU is inconclusive and editors with more experience with the putative sockmaster think this isn't him. Accordingly, hatting this sub-section. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Johnbod repeatedly inserting unsourced information, removing uncontroversial formatting, and refusing to be collaborative

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

---

On Charles Meryon, he is reverting completely uncontroversial changes like hyphens for en dashes and leaving {{in use}} on the article for days (it's been there now for over 13 hours with no edits) and uses that as a flimsy pretext for reverting. Please intervene here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

No discussion at all on article talk page? One question and reply yesterday? No diffs about anything, no text here about the unsourced information you mention in the section title? This seems awfully premature. Try WP:3O perhaps, if it continues? Fram (talk) 11:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

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

WT: WPTC#Merge discussions getting out of hand: moratorium proposal

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

---

Hello. It appears the discussion has ended and consensus has been reached; however; we need an uninvolved user to close it, saying that there is to be no merges for 3 months after that date. It does not appear to be consensus to revert merges made while this was outstanding, and the sole merge discussion ongoing was paused. Can an uninvolved administrator close this at their earliest convinence? Thanks. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Call me when you get the chance keeps on inserting improper semantics into pages, refuses to even read documentation

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

---

By his own admission, User:Call me when you get the chance has not read, let alone understood MOS:PSEUDOHEAD, MOS:DLIST, or the actual editing instructions for the current events portal but he keeps on reverting with the frivolous allegation that I "hate the semi-colon". Please make him stop this nonsense. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I read them both, but I already know the editing instructions. Forget that I said "hate the semi-colon." Call me when you get the chance 21:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Global ban proposal for Kubura

Hello. This is to notify the community that there is an ongoing global ban proposal for User:Kubura who has been active on this wiki. You are invited to participate at m:Request for comment/Global ban for Kubura. Thank you. Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Wow. That is an astonishing case, especially the socking evidence presented by Lasta. —valereee (talk) 10:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. But even apart from the brazen socking affecting stewards elections, the evidence presented in the RfC is pretty shocking, as are the events that already transpired during the RfC itself. There was another attack of the clones/socks (some of them blocked now), and an unhinged nationalistic rant by one of Kubura's supporters that would have earned a quick WP:NOTHERE indef block had it occurred here. But apparently on Meta this kind of thing is considered OK. Another Kubura's supporter from hr.wiki and an active participant in a prior Meta RfC about hr.wiki made a bunch of posts there that look to me like pretty straightforward Holocaust denial, including this post about Jasenovac concentration camp. It's bad enough that WMF allows this stuff to go on at some of the smaller wikis, but I really don't understand why they let this continue at the Meta site itself. Nsk92 (talk) 01:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Nsk92, I don't know if you noticed the reaction to MJL's move of extended comment to the talk page? Apparently on meta that's something only admins can do, per recent policy intended to prevent RfCs from going off topic. But the admins seem reluctant to actually do that. —valereee (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I did notice this point raised at the RfC talk page. It amazes me that Meta has these kind of policies in place and yet they apparently have few safeguards against blatant nationalistic soapboxing and actual hate speech. It's unclear to me why they allow IPs to vote in those meta RfCs either since in practice this only seems to encourage sock-puppetry and block evasion there. They must not have heard about the paradox of tolerance. Nsk92 (talk) 02:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Block review request (3RRNO question)

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

---

• Murder of Samuel Paty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• GPinkerton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This morning I applied a 24-hour block to GPinkerton for edit warring at Murder of Samuel Paty. The specific diffs I reviewed, which were all within a few hours of each other, were the following:

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4

I viewed this as a clear breach of 3RR, and since I have previously explained to GPinkerton what vandalism is and how it related to WP:3RRNO (lengthy talk page discussion here), I applied a 24-hour block. I have since had another lengthy talk page discussion with them (here), in which I have attempted to explain what he is describing as vandalism might be POV pushing, or the use of dubious sources, but it is not vandalism as the term is defined here and so is not covered by the 3RRNO exemptions. GPinkerton is refusing to accept that from me, so I am asking for community review. If I am out of line with the community then I will need to readjust my thinking; I hope that GPinkteron will be able to hear it from the community if it is there approach that needs to change. Thanks in advance. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• I know this is a snarky thing to say, but by the time we're done hashing this out, the block will be over... Primefac (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

  I get that Primefac, but I'm hoping that there will be a learning outcome here - either for me of for GP. If I am wrong about how I interpret 3RRNO, I'll have some thinking to do, and will have to adjust my internal thresholds. If I'm not wrong, then I'm hoping that GPinkerton will be willing to hear from the community what they are refusing to hear from me, otherwise I expect they'll be back in this situation before too long. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support block for EW. Reviewed the diffs and GP's explanation on their talk page; GP is mistaking a content dispute for vandalism. Schazjmd (talk) 19:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support block The edits were clearly editwarring, clearly not vandalism and clearly not any other exemption listed at WP:EW. --Jayron32 19:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• I haven't reviewed the article history in great detail but your interpretation of 3RRNO is exactly right. The exemption is for reverting obvious vandalism (bold in the policy), and there is a handy what is not vandalism section right in the policy which has "NPOV contraventions" as a dedicated sub-header. In addition to that, here are some more quotes directly from the policy of things that are not vandalism:
  • Reversion or removal of unencyclopedic material: "Even factually correct material may not belong on Wikipedia, and removing such content when it is inconsistent with Wikipedia's content policies is not vandalism."
  • NPOV contraventions: "Though the material added may be inappropriate, it is not vandalism in itself."
  • Disruptive editing or stubbornness: "Edit warring is not vandalism and should not be dealt with as such." Also: "Vandalism is disruptive but disruptive editing isn't vandalism."
  • Misinformation, accidental: "A user who, in good faith, adds content to an article that is factually inaccurate but in the belief that it is accurate is trying to contribute to and improve Wikipedia, not vandalize it."

I could go on, but let's just say I endorse this block, and if they carry on with this defense it should be made indefinite until they show they understand, or we'll just be back here in 48. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support block. The edits GPinkerton reverted were not vandalism. I can understand their frustration but their action was against policy and convention. Tiderolls 20:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Good block, sadly. GPinkerton is generally reasonable, so I don't know what went wrong here. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Good block. Its not obvious vandalism, so not an exception. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• Good block. Not obvious vandalism so not exempt per WP:3RRNO. Even if it were, you should claim exemption in the edit summary to bring more eyes, not claim exemption after being sanctioned. As JzG says, it's unfortunate but everyone has off days. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support block Those edits may have been poorly referenced and pushing a POV but they were not vandalism. I am concerned that such an experienced editor as GPinkerton is having difficulty understanding Wikipedia's definition of vandalism, and I truly hope that the editor will take to heart the feedback they are receiving here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
• Good block, obviously. This is extremely basic policy enforcement, that is all spelled out. And GPinkerton is not a new user. The degree of bludgeoning on their talk page over a routine block is more of a competence issue than anything else. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support block. GPinkerton, take onboard the advice that you're misunderstanding policy. I get it; it's frustrating when a user keeps adding poorly-sourced/npov content, but no matter how much you believe it should be considered vandalism, consensus is that it's not. —valereee (talk) 11:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

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

spam emails

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

---

I received an email from a user saying they were emailing editors who had participated at contentious articles and asking me to comment on a project they were starting at FactsNViews. Their talk shows at least one other editor got this email. If I block for NOTHERE, will that prevent them from continuing to spam other users, or does it require something else? (I'm not sure I should post the username; does that out them somehow/violate their privacy?) —valereee (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• Just to note, I got this e-mail as well. I did not respond. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• You could block their ability to send emails only and reference this thread in the block log. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• On the limited info available, that seems most reasonable. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Ha. I wondered what that was about. Good block. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 18:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• I got an email, too. Could we do an indefinite partial block from a redlink that is never going to be created (say, WP:NoMoreEmailUntilYouRespondAtANI) instead of a 24 hour sitewide block. Otherwise, I'm not sure how we tell if they just wait out the block and begin spamming emails again. Otherwise, given how sparse their editing history is and how abundantly clear they've made it that they want to develop a different site instead of this one, I'm not sure what why we'd let them continue. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• I also got such an email. I didn't go to the link because I'm suspicious of websites in unsolicited emails. I suggest others be similarly suspicious. Given the email text about building a different website and the editor's lack of participation in this project, I think an indef WP:NOTHERE block (with email access revoked) is reasonable. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• I agree, an indef NOTHERE block seems like a reasonable course of action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• Well then there is the issue of hacking and ransomware. I don't know if going to that website could introduce malware that could be used to hack Wikipedia or steal a user's login information. At my former job we were getting nearly hysterical emails from IT to not open strange emails. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC).
  • Exactly. I didn't want to go into it much more per WP:BEANS, but given the link, the site seems to run MediaWiki. Just like our MediaWiki instance, it could have CheckUsers, but unlike WMF Wikis they wouldn't be bound to our privacy policy. I leave the implications to everyone's imagination. That said, odds are good that this is just a good faith person trying to start a new venture, but unsolicited emails should always be treated with caution. Personally, I disable images and prefer plain-text rather than HTML in my incoming emails because it makes it harder to hide things, and on-wiki we have two-factor authentication. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Interesting to look at the enormous ambitions of that new website although it seems like there is only one editor so far. It also floats the possibility of adding affiliate links to articles so you could read about a subject, then buy it and I assume the editor creating the page would make a little money. Yeah, I don't think it's going to work. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh, wow, they are going to charge a fee to editors who want help resolving a dispute. Why didn't Wikipedia think of this? We could bill editors for every RfC or ANI case closed. Paypal only, no cash. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:PERENNIAL#Advertising. I'm pretty sure I've encountered this exact proposal before, to add affiliate links in articles so that a reader could click to buy a product after reading about it. That wouldn't be an incentive to spam Wikipedia at all, would it? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, all. Valareee notified me that my email was being classified as "spam" and that I was being blocked from emailing editors, and also notified me there was a discussion on this page. Let's discuss.

First, my request for feedback from editors is a legitimate query for feedback to an alternative that would address issues that Wikipedia editors have themselves discussed at great length. Whether or not individual editors like or dislike my proposed solution is (a) the point of a survey, and (b) not sufficient reason to block people from being asked for their opinions.

Second, I am not trying to sell anything to the Wikipedia editors I am contacting. So if one defines spam as unsolicited commercial messages, it is not "spam." Which raises the question, can you direct me to the Wikipedia policy that defines spam email and the grounds on which users will be banned from soliciting feedback from other Wikipedia editors? Would the same policy ban me from posting a request for feedback on an editor's talk page?

Third, I would point out that I have received 8 responses from Wikipedia editors and most have included at least some, if not several, positive support for some of the features I am proposing that make FactsnViews significantly different than Wikipedia. A ban on inviting feedback from editors would be a ban on those who want to give feedback from doing so. That doesn't seem fair, much less pro-intellectual.

Finally, what bothers me in the above discussion is that a lot of unground assumptions are being made without fairly considering what is actually being proposed. For example, Inanvector appears to be worrying that FactnViews.com would somehow contribute to affiliate links and spam on Wikipedia? How could that happen? They are separate sites. Moreover, if you are familiar with Everipedia, it began as a Wikipedia fork, and there is nothing wrong with that. Indeed, Wikipedia's creative commons licensing is designed precisely to encourage reuse on other platforms.

In any case, I welcome comments and criticisms -- especially if I'm given an opportunity to participate and respond in such a discussion. Shall we continue it here, or on my talk page? -- Bathis (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

You're really saying that your mass unsolicited emails promoting a site where you intend to make money aren't spam because they're not "commercial"? I'm sure the lurkers support you in email but that won't help you on a noticeboard. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it's probably better to keep discussion here in one place. —valereee (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm saying (1) I did not send out "mass unsolicited emails." I've reached out to about 50 editors who were most active on several controversial pages. Typically, spam and "mass" emails refers to thousands of emails, not a several dozen. Of that 50, 8 have replied, indicating that at least 16% did not consider it spam. In fact, it may be worth noting that true spam email has a response rate of less than 0.001%. In short, my email is not something that all editors consider "spam." It addresses real concerns that many editors have about lack of sufficient inclusion for minority views, original research, and testing of ideas and rating of the quality of articles. -- Bathis (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

It's unwanted advertising that I did not request, that makes it spam, whether it's one e-mail or 50. Using Wikipedia's e-mail service as a means to drum up business is not a legitimate use, whether or not some of the people who received your spam are interested in your product or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Can I ask about the state of play at this moment? Has Bathis' ability to use Wikipedia e-mail been blocked already? If not, it should be, then we can discuss whether it should be unblocked or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

May I also point out that the Bathis account has been open for over twelve years, in which time they've made 17 edits. [9] Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:01, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bathis: I suggest you read WP:NOTHERE and WP:NOTLAB. The two questions I need answered are (1) what are your immediate plans to improve this project and (2) will you stop using Special:EmailUser to send unsolicited emails about your commercial venture? — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Any reason why this editor hasn't been indef'd? The post-block response above is devoid of remorse and understanding that Wikipedia isn't a mailing list for advertising... -FASTILY 03:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Indeffed +email access removed. Bathis, you can appeal on your user talk. —valereee (talk) 11:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Good block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Concerning behaviour

Hi. I am concerned with the behaviour of User:Jack Morales Garcia edit warring at several pages with regards to nationality/citizenship disputes. Neither of us are over 3RR but it is getting ridiculous now especially at Vito Rizzuto. He’s been notified of WP:BRD and edit warring several times but fails to take anything to the talk pages and just badgers me on mine. The burden is on him to change the status quo, not edit war. I don’t know what else to do at this point. Thanks for any help. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi I'm Concerned with the behaviour of user:Vaselineeeeeeee this has reached the extent of lying. He has mentioned me in this saying that I have been tenaciously editing without informing on talk page but you can match the revision dates and the messages on the user and my talk page. For a while this user has been with irrationally compulsive tenacity editing pages without replying with coherence. I've given plausibility and have coherently stated reasons for the reversions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Morales Garcia (talk • contribs) 15:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm combining these as they are the same issues. I see that an Admin, User:Valereee, warned you about your statement on your talk page " I simply find feminists and obstinate people repulsive." Make that two Admins as User:Bishonen warned you about the same thing. Valereee and User:Davey2010 were also concerned about your edits on nationality as was User:Srich32977 who warned you about not using sources. And you told Vaselineeeeee" Leave this page to me. If you ever want to get back at this topic. You send a message coherently stating reasons. And if they are coherent we can change. But for the time being. Leave this." And in an edit summary, "Incoherent explanation, listen vase. You have to leave this because I'm tenacious". You focus on nationality, but "Nationality is fidelity, and Italian American is an ethnicity. And his fidelity in analogy of italy was by far with the states, his birthplace should not intervene and out of respect for servicemen. We should regard him as an American" is original research. Another edit summary of yours says "Nationality cannot be dualistic" - absolutely wrong, I hold dual nationality - that article starts with "Nationality is a legal identification of a person in international law, establishing the person as a subject, a national, of a sovereign state. It affords the state jurisdiction over the person and affords the person the protection of the state against other states." Finally, you're saying you aren't obstinate? Really?Doug Weller talk 16:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk page responses to warnings and concerns shows clear battleground mentality and ownership beliefs. They seem to think they are final authority on what a page should say and that it is on the community to convince them otherwise. Perhaps a time out is needed for them to review WP:Consensus, WP:BRD, and WP:OWN. Being discourteous isn't a mortal sin here but gatekeeping articles certainly is. Slywriter (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• In 118 edits JMG has received seven talk warnings from five different editors. —valereee (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I've messaging on talk pages to states reasons and I've given plausible reasons for reversion and yet the said user reverts without giving any plausible reasons. And all the admins have came up with is recalling my history of mistakes. I mean at least review why I did a specific thing. You can see that the user said I've been tenaciously editing without any reasons. Yet the reasons are in his and my talk page. At least check them out and review his behaviour before you come to me with past reports. Please I beg you to review the my and the mentioned user's talk page and my explanation for reasons on Vincenzo Capone and Vito Rizzuto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Morales Garcia (talk • contribs) 09:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Moving this here. Jack Morales Garcia, please don't start new sections, respond in this one, and please sign your posts by using four tildes like this: ~~~~. —valereee (talk) 10:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• JMG, we don't settle content disputes here. We deal with behavior issues, and you're exhibiting one. You are insisting, apparently through original research, that people's stated nationality adhere to what you believe about how nationality works. In order to change a person's stated nationality, you need a reliable source for their nationality, not simply your own knowledge of who should and shouldn't be considered Italian American or whatever. You've started using article talk, which is good (stop discussing articles at user talk, the discussion should be at the article talk).

I did check your last article talk post, and it said Italian citizenship could be lost: By a man or woman, being of competent legal age (21 years if before 10 March 1975 or 18 years if after 9 March 1975), who of his or her own volition naturalised in another country and resided outside of Italy. Nationality: is the state of being part of a nation whether by birth or naturalization Emphasis on 'naturalization'. Why is James Vincenzo Capone referred to as Italian in the nationality column, despite not having Italian citizenship, While Michael Franzese, of italian descent is only referred to as American. Despite both being Italian American regardless of Birthplace. That seems to have zero to do with James Vincenzo Capone but instead is a general statement of knowledge. That's not good enough. Please go to WP:Teahouse for help learning how WP works. —valereee (talk) 10:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Without going through the various disagreements, just in case it helps I'll just drop a link to MOS:CONTEXTBIO here, which sets out how we should refer to the nationality of subjects in our leads for BLPs. It's pretty straightforward, and might help frame any talk page discussions about these issues. I'll also note that I share the concern about JMG's comments last month about feminists, and would support a block if he ever makes a similar comment again; that kind of conduct is not conducive to effective collaboration. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Gaming ECP at an ARBPIA AfD?

Last year ARBCOM revised ARBPIA to state clearly that non-ECP accounts and IPs could not take part in noticeboard discussions, AfDs, RfCs, etc. I added ECP to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Bank bantustans which had been brought to this noticeboard because of concerns about its being contentious.[10] Following this User:Onceinawhile alerted me to this edit[11] by User:Free1Soul. It was their 512th edit. Now they never received any alerts, but until they got over 500 they avoided virtually all articles relevant to ARBPIA, but over several months they did a series of what looks like semi-automated edits, sometimes 4 in one minute. Half of the 500 were done this month, with 183 done on November 3rd between 15:21 and 17:38, ie in 138 minutes.

I'm not suggesting that this was done to participate in the AfD, in fact I'm sure it wasn't as the issue hadn't been mentioned by the time the editor reached 500 and there seems to be little understanding about ARBPIA restrictions in regard to discussion boards etc. My issue is that this sort of semi-automatic editing seems to break the spirit and even more the purpose of the restrictions, which I think were made on the assumption that 500 normal edits would give an editor time to learn more about our guidelines and policies.

It may seem a bit unfair to single one editor out, but I'm pretty sure that this isn't the only case in which this has happened. I could have taken it to ARBCOM as a clarification but I thought it best to ask here at AN (not ANI). Doug Weller talk 12:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Are their rapid edits net-beneficial? If they're using semi-automated edits that aren't beneficial but instead to speed them to 500, that's gaming. If it's 500 (mostly) beneficial rapid edits which just gets them to EC before we might otherwise like, that's just a minor defect in the system but not any editor's fault and not warranting action Nosebagbear (talk) 12:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) A quick spot check of some of their contributions shows nothing indicating bad-faith in my opinion. Lots of gnomy edits which is probably why they were editing so fast but no POV pushing, vandalism or other bad behavior. Regarding but until they got over 500 they avoided virtually all articles relevant to ARBPIA considering in my vague memories that area is chockfull of warnings and ECP that isn't that abnormal. Asartea ^{Talk Contributions} 13:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

(haven't looked at the edits but) Indeed, avoiding ARBPIA until 500 edits is what a user in theory should be doing, no? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I haven't checked the edits, but the principle should be simple: if the 500 edits were all intended to improve the encyclopedia, even in small ways, this is 100% legitimate. Edits to improve the encyclopedia include fixing spelling or punctuation mistakes, adding or removing PROD tags, participating in any discussion, etc. 147.161.9.245 (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Could we also get an adminstrator to take a quick look at the AFD and consider collapsing some of the discussions. There is an excess of verbiage, some of which is mine, that is not helpfull in getting users to comment. And maybe a quitet word to a couple users,one of which is probably me, that they have said enough in the AFD and more than made their point.AlmostFrancis (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Query about a special letter used by one nation among Roman-alphabet letters

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

---

• See User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Əliağalı : does the letter 'Ə' (uppercase schwa) count as a Roman-alphabet letter in the name of an article about a place in Azerbaijan? (Presumably ğ ("yamusak ge") counts because it is a 'g' plus an extra bit.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• @Laurel Lodged: see here Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Əliağalı isn't the friendliest page name for an English speaking user of the English wiki with a standard keyboard to find. And those are the folks we're meant to serve. Cabayi (talk) 11:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

...and I didn't spot the i had lost its tittle. Cabayi (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• This sounds a bit like a content dispute which probably shouldn't be settled here. However, since we're here, I would follow the spirit of WP:DIACRITICS: the use of modified letters is neither encouraged or discouraged, and we should go with whatever is most commonly used in English language sources of the last 25 years or so. For what it's worth I'll add a personal perspective: when I look at the word Əliağalı, the voice in my head is mute - I would have no idea how to read it aloud, and I wouldn't know how to reproduce it on a keyboard if it wasn't there for me to copy/paste. That suggests to me that a transliteration would be preferable for the article title, but I'd be happy to go with the sources if they use it regularly. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment The problem with sources or WP:Common is that these are often obscure hamlets. It's most unlikely that one would find any references to them in the English language outside of Wiki. For the English-language Wiki, transliteration probably works best IMHO. Also, IMHO, it is closest to the policy not to use non Latin characters in the English-language wiki. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) where is states "Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, as with Greek, Chinese, or Russian, must be transliterated into characters generally intelligible to literate speakers of English.". Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
    • I have no opinion on whether this character should be allowed in the title, but as Anthony Appleyard has already told you on his talk page this is in the Latin alphabet, just as "é" and "ö" are used in the Latin aphabet for French and German names. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
      • • The obvious difference is that "é" and "ö" are regular Latin letter with added diacritics, while "Ə" is a completely different character which is not part of the regular Latin alphabet, but is part of an extension to the Latin alphabet, and is certainly not available on a standard English-language keyboard. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
      • As I wrote on Anthony's page, I didn't understand what he meant and I still don't. Can you show me the place where these characters are listed in the Latin alphabet? I cannot find them in Western Latin character sets (computing) either. Can you show me where they are Latin / Roman ? Thanks. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
        • You might be of the opinion that Azerbaijani is not written in the Latin alphabet, but I don't see how you can fail to understand that statement. The characters are in the Unicode blocks "Latin Extended-B" and "Latin Extended-A" (note the word "Latin") at U+018F, U+011F and U+0131. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
          • As they are clearly labelled, they are extensions to the Latin alphabet, and (by definition) not part of the regular Latin alphabet. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• What I know is that I have received and obeyed a succession of move requests to move articles about places in Azerbaijan to Azerbaijani language spellings from what looked like Roman-alphabet transcriptions of Russian spellings chosen in times of Soviet rule. The Ə ə character was likeliest adapted from the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA). (I have also seen the IPA ŋ symbol ("ng" as in "singer") used in ordinary spellings of African languages.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Azerbaijani is a Turkic language, and he who concerns himself with Turkic languages must expect to come across ğ (yamusak ge) and undotted lowercase i and suchlike. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• AH, ğeez. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Not an admin but my own suspicion is that few literate English speakers would recognise the letter "Ə" or have the first idea how to pronounce it. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• One the one hand, we seem to try for native spellings. On the other hand, this is the English Wikipedia, and that letter is very far removed from the English alphabet. On the The Gripping Hand, I don't see myself searching for that article regardless of spelling. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Would it not have been better to have refused the "succession of move requests"? Since the result is a Turkic language, how is this really compatible with the policy Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)? The Latin letters ought to have been retained in the title with the lead used to transliterate the Turkic letters. Is that not the intent of the policy? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Please stop referring to the letters in question as not in the Latin alphabet. They are. Any discussion of whether they should be used here or not needs to start from that simple fact. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
      • ​How about not in Basic Latin (Unicode block) / ASCII, the chunk of the alphabet accessible to most folks keyboards? Cabayi (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
        • I quote the Ə article's intro:

          Ə ə, also called schwa, is an additional letter of the Latin alphabet, used in the Azerbaijani, Gottscheerish and Karay·a languages, and Abenaki language of Quebec, and in the hən̓q̓əmin̓əm̓ dialect of Halkomelem.

          Also, the other characters are unquestionably Latin, and it seems rather bizarre to say that "Əliağalı" mixes Latin and non-Latin letters, but if you think it's not a Latin letter, I think that's the conclusion you have to accept. I'm not comfortable accepting that conclusion. Nyttend backup (talk) 22:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
          • If Latin vs non-Latin is obscuring the point of the discussion - it's not a character that our users are capable of easily typing into the search box to find the article. Cabayi (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
            • • "Ə ə, also called schwa, is an additional letter of the Latin alphabet," i.e. it's not a regular letter of the Latin alphabet, it's additional. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
            • We name a lot of places in Turkey using the Turkish alphabet, for example Diyarbakır (note the un-dotted i). There is also a redirect to that title from Diyarbakir for the convenience of those who may not know about the special letter. As it says in WP:NCUE,

The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged; when deciding between versions of a word which differ in the use or non-use of modified letters, follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language (including other encyclopedias and reference works).

In fact, we don't always spell Turkish place names with modified letters. There is a modified i on Istanbul in Turkish, visible in tr:İstanbul but we don't title our article on Istanbul that way in the English Wikipedia. The spelling with the modified letter i is not the general usage in English-language sources referring to the city. See WP:NCUE#No established usage in English-language sources. That clause is probably enough to let in the outlandish-looking Əliağalı, since there is no established usage for that town's name in English. It turns out that Google is perfectly happy with a search for Əliağalı. The first hit for that unusual word is our Wikipedia article Əliağalı. Regarding how to type the letter, above my edit window there is a 'Special characters' menu containing 'Latin extended'. EdJohnston (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• There was a recent related discussion at Talk:Jabrayil#Requested move 4 October 2020. - Station1 (talk) 23:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose untittled i's - such strange characters can't be trusted. Article titles should be made up of the familiar letters and numbers that are on our keyboards. Lev¡vich 23:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• This would need a centralized discussion, considering that in the Agdam region articles alone there are dozens of instances of the schwa ('ə') being used in article titles including five cases where it is the initial letter. If there's a desire to expand such a prohibition to all characters not used in English, then that will definitely need a RfC in a place like VPP as such a change would impact hundreds to thousands of article titles. In any case, this is not a matter for this board. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Agree with Levivich - Ordinary English keyboard characters were good enough for Grandpa, and they're good enough for me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • It cannot have been the intent of the policy to impose Herculian efforts on the part of the English-language public to search for and interpret obscure letters that only, -excuse the expression - computer geeks would know about. If that was envisaged by the policy, then Wiki is doomed. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Global ban enacted

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

---

Today an RfC was closed at meta enacting a global ban m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Kubura. The editor in question, User:Kubura, Kubura (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), had also been active here on en-wiki (although his main account is on Croatian Wikipedia). The account is currently globally locked but I am not sure what if anything else is supposed to happen in such situations. Is a local indef block supposed to be issued here as well? What about user rights, such as extended autoconfirmed, which User:Kubura seems to have here on en-wiki? Nsk92 (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

If they are blocked, then they cannot edit enwiki, and there's nothing for us to do. Primefac (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

As they had been in the past constructively editing here, and as they have done nothing here to merit a block, it is regrettable that they are prevented from editing here. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

"Constructively editing here"? The editor was a rightwing nationalistic POV pusher, who, despite his quite infrequent edit history on en-wiki, still had enough time to earn earn arbitration topic ban for his tendentious editing. Nothing regrettable about his absence here going forward, WP:PLAGUE still applies. Nsk92 (talk) 01:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Formal request to look into user User:Praxidicae

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

---

I wish to bring to the attention of the administrators the user User:Praxidicae. If you look at Special:Contributions/Praxidicae, you will see that she continuously lists articles at Articles for deletion as an attempt to insult those who have worked on or contributed to the pieces. She provides little or no justification for the why she decides that articles should be deleted, and does not engage on her talk page when you attempt to discuss them. Further, she is generally rude and condescending, and fails to assume good faith in her actions as required on wikipedia PiratePuppy (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, please block me for following our policies and process of nominating dubious, spammy and fabricated articles. You sure did catch me! Praxidicae (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm going to assume that this is in relation to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gloss Media, created by the OP and nominated for deletion by Praxidicae. I'm going to recuse from taking any "administrative" (in the non-sysop meaning) action on this thread, but I don't think this is anything that merits any sort of deep dive into "ABF". Primefac (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@PiratePuppy: Can you please point to a few specific AfD nominations, and explain why you feel they are problematic? GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

PiratePuppy are you upset that I didn't respond to you under your current account or this one? Asking for clarity. Or perhaps you'd like to discuss all of these disruptive edits of yours that I had to clean up: [12][13]

[14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] Thanks. Praxidicae (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• @PiratePuppy: you've created four different pages on Gloss Media (Gloss Media, Draft:Gloss (media network), Draft:Gloss Network, and the already-deleted Draft:Gloss Media), all of them clearly promotional. It is required by our community policies and terms of use that you disclose your fiduciary relationship for any edit you make in exchange for any form of compensation. Please see this link, and prepare a proper disclosure now. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

  Bah, never mind. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hamaze01. Blocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• OK. Bullshit . Her AfD nominations speak for themselves. And she gives the standard notices. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

what can I say except... Praxidicae (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

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

3RR exemption claimed for BLP; review requested

There've been accusations of edit-warring at Emily W. Murphy; I believe the removals were exempt from 3RR because of perceived BLP violations, but I'd appreciate a few more eyes on it to make sure I and ProcrastinatingReader are correct in our interpretation. —valereee (talk) 11:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

From my initial review, I'd agree that the weight of sources do not support the accusations being made and that the discussion on the talk page about better sourcing being needed is correct. Therefore it would be covered under the 3RR exemption. Out of an abundance of caution, I have full protected the article for a couple days noting that Feoffer has said that they won't add it back in. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

List of indef blocked or site-banned users?

Is there anywhere on Wikipedia -- or any way to generate -- a list of indef-blocked or site-banned editors? I'm thinking that a chronological list of this sort would be helpful in identifying sockpuppets who begin editing shortly after their puppetmaster is blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

You could start with Special:BlockList and select the box for 'hide temporary blocks'. EdJohnston (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

The list would be far too large to be useful. Asking at WP:VPT might find someone able to write an SQL query (WP:QUARRY) that lists indef-blocked users in a range of block dates, provided the user had x edits (maybe 100 edits or more). Or, where the user was created x months before the block date (maybe 6 months or more). Johnuniq (talk) 02:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Quarry would time out. Praxidicae (talk) 02:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

For reference, there was a list of banned users, but it was deleted via an MFD discussion in 2014. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, on the 8th deletion discussion, the decision was to delete. Perpetually contentious. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if remaking it, but requiring that it only include the names and and a link to the ban discussions, would be useful. Although indef-blocked editors are not the same as site-banned ones. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 07:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/50007 is the 10,000 most recently indef hardblocked editors. Too much more takes too long. Knock yourself out. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks to all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Wow, 10,000 and the list doesn't even get back to 2019! Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

An other option is to load the URL https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:BlockList&offset=20201122000000%7C10196617&wpTarget=&wpOptions%5B0%5D=tempblocks&blockType=&wpFormIdentifier=blocklist and fix the date in the URL to the end of the timeframe you're interested in. 109.186.211.111 (talk) 06:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• OK, interesting, I'll give it a try. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

DL6443 topic ban review at content rating articles

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

---

I, DL6443, would like to appeal my topic ban at the following four articles:

• Motion picture content rating system
• Video game content rating system
• Television content rating system
• Mobile software content rating system

Back in 2016 (as SlitherioFan2016), I was blocked for persistently edit-warring and changing the colour scheme at the comparison tables of said articles, so that they did not meet the necessary accessibility threshold required for said tables and articles.

• Ban discussion in March 2017
• Unban discussion June 2019

It has now been more than a year since I was unblocked in June 2019, and while I still have an interest in the topic of content ratings, I am considerably more aware and responsible of my actions, particularly regarding accessibility. I am therefore appealing my topic ban as I have found errors in this field of articles that need to be corrected (e.g. typos, spelling and grammar errors) and that I would like to begin by correcting them, as well as expanding the content of those articles. I hope you will consider my appeal. --DL6443 01:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support: FWIW, I took a glance through their contribs and user talk page history. It looks like they're working diligently to be constructive and have constructive discussions on talk pages when appropriate. They're also asking questions and clearly trying to learn more without being (IMO) burdensome. At this point, I don't see this TBAN being needed any more. DL6443, thanks for sticking it out. Best wishes, Waggie (talk) 03:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Point of order: I support in principle, but I can't see any evidence that you are topic-banned. You were banned from Motion picture rating system in October 2016 for one month (ANI discussion). There was an allegation that you used sockpuppets to violate the ban (here) but this was not proven and no additional sanction was imposed, so that ban is expired. There was a proposal a month later for a permanent ban from the four articles above (in this discussion) but this was archived without being enacted. Your siteban may have been related to your past behaviour on those articles but you successfully appealed it. As far as I can tell you have no active editing restrictions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: My evidence that I am in fact tbanned is this discussion with Yamla and Sandstein on my user talk page. --DL6443 00:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Re-pinging Ivanvector, Sandstein and Yamla due to syntax error. --DL6443 00:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

In the discussion linked to above, I expressed the view that the lifting of DL6443's site ban did not affect any other existing restrictions. I did not know then, and do not know now, whether such other restrictions exist. Accordingly, I offer no opinion about whether they should be lifted if they do exist. Sandstein 07:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support. I think the easiest path forward here is to take the position that they are indeed topic-banned, and support the removal of the topic ban. I concur with Waggie, above; they have been working hard to be constructive so I don't anticipate further problems here. --Yamla (talk) 11:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support lifting all restrictions - I already kind of said so above, but there's confusion as to whether or not DL6443 is actually subject to this (or any other) sanction, so let's formally clean the slate. They've been editing quite constructively since being unblocked a little more than a year ago, and have even followed a topic ban which might not have been applicable. I'm pleased to see that my comment here turned out to be quite untrue. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Ivanvector. Given the user's recent efforts in trying to improve their behavior and edit constructively, I do not see any problems with this topic ban being lifted. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Appeal for N R Pavan Kumar

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

---

• N R Pavan Kumar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• UTRS appeal #37112
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/N_R_Pavan_Kumar/Archive#24_July_2019

This user was blocked on April 1, 2017 by @Favonian: for suspected sock puppetry. @SpacemanSpiff: removed TPA January 2018. They are globally locked since March 2018, so their appeal must be carried from UTRS to here. To ask the stewards to be unlocked, they must first successfully appeal their block locally. I quote below.

Hi there, Myself Pavan. My username is "N R Pavan Kumar" I got blocked globally and banned since, past 4 years. Because of creating multiple accounts, Creating spam wikis and citing irrelevant source to the wikipedia. After 2019, I understood the concept and guidelines of wikipedia and policy so that I didn't create any accounts in wikipedia since 2019. So, kindly I'm requesting you to unblock and unban me in wikipedia. I promise you here after I will not create multiple accounts, spam wikis and I will never cite irrelevant source to the wikipedia. I'm begging you. Please permit me.

What's your pleasure? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. I count more than 30 sockpuppet accounts. This editor knew what they were doing and deliberately set up sockpuppet accounts repeatedly to evade their block. This hasn't been properly addressed in this unblock request. --Yamla (talk) 11:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose even if we accepted everything in the appeal as true, this appeal statement shows such obvious WP:CIR issues that a re-block would be extremely likely. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• hell no in short, they have never contributed anything of value and have cross-wiki socked to the tune of hundreds of accounts. Net negative, no point. Praxidicae (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. This appeal, like its predecessors on User talk:N R Pavan Kumar, is just inane parrotting of WP:GAB. As pointed out above, the editor's actions make clear that there's no prospect of them ever being of any use to Wikipedia. Favonian (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. It's been a while so I'm not going to comment on the unblock request. I'll just say that this sockfarm has been a time sink for at least a couple of years. —SpacemanSpiff 01:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - the user's extensive history of using sockpuppets to evade an indefinite block makes them a net negative to the project. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: With the current attitude to the project, you're joking, right? --93.78.35.45 (talk) 11:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Extensive long term history of sockpuppetry. The only substantive contributions here from any of his sock accounts seem to be attempts to create spam/promotional articles about himself, traces of which can still be found in some page history logs, e.g.[28]. IMO he should be told that he can appeal to UTRS again no earlier than in 6 months time from now and that to have any hope for the next appeal to be taken more seriously, he'd have to do two things. First, provide a clear and articulate statement that he promises not to try to use Wikipedia for spamming and self-promotional purposes; and to make clear that this requirement applies to all namespaces, including articles, drafts, userpages, user talk pages, etc. Second, explain in detail what his plans for Wikipedia editing are, what kind of topics he plans to edit on, what kind of article he plans to create, if any, etc. Nsk92 (talk) 01:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• I don't know if I get a vote as an IP, but I would say Oppose. Has contributed nothing of value to the encyclopaedia and has simply written various hoax autobiographies about his non-notable achievements. He seems to have been at this for nearly a decade, I have just cleaned up the remnants of this piece of vandalism from 2011, where it was falsely claimed that Pavan Kumar was the director of a 2006 film, a claim his later sock puppets would later return to (claimed active 2006-2008 in cinema). 192.76.8.81 (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

ban from UTRS?

• {neutral} same reasoning as for TPA removal and per opposes above. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support indefinitely or in the alternative, for a period of time not less than six months. --Yamla (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support indefinitely. Nothing good will come from this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: How on earth will they ever have any ways of appealing their block. Should leave them at least 1 option. --93.78.35.45 (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

And that is the problem with UTRS bans. And that is why I brought it here instead of acting on my own. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Weak oppose, per Deepfriedokra. Unless folks from UTRS indicate that they want a UTRS ban in this case, I'd leave this one channel open for now. (But if he abuses the process with appeals that are too frequent then a UTRS ban would make sense.) Also, perhaps it's just morbid curiosity, but I sort of want to know if all these desperate pleas are motivated by more than the desire to have another go at creating a G11 article or user page about himself. Nsk92 (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

  @Nsk92: RickinBaltimore, Yamla, and I are UTRS admins. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

  This is appellant's third UTRS request. There were ~seven on their talk page. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see, thanks. Changing to Neutral then. Nsk92 (talk) 02:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

When were the last 2 UTRS appeals made? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: UTRS appeal #20308 closed 2018-01-12. UTRS appeal #35771 closed 2020-10-11. UTRS appeal #37112 (current) opened 2020-11-12 . --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• If users want to support it, it should be confirmed from ArbCom that they will take over future appeals.--GZWDer (talk) 13:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

  Would love policy guidance on that aspect. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• imo: It seems unlikely, from the poll above, that this editor will be unblocked, even with a SO-like appeal. However, perhaps Template:2nd chance is a feasible route to an unblock? I'm currently questioning whether they'd actually pass the process, but at least it remains an option of redemption, ability to show they're willing, and competently able, to contribute to something other than their own self-promo. It's probably worth leaving the door open to them should they actually wish to try that. If their next UTRS request is something other than such a contribution, then indeff. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

  Ow. That's a tough one. I'm not sure I could pass it. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Block evasion

Hi. I am an sysop of es.wiki and as a result of this report it has been detected that the expelled user Jorge Blanco dragon has created two socks accounts. One of them has edited this Wikipedia, thus evading its blocking. MadriCR (talk) 01:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

MadriCR, thank you, it looks like that user has been indeffed for other reasons for nearly a year. —valereee (talk) 01:49, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Jorge Blanco dragon was indeffed, but Jorge Blanco 2000 -  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me on its own even without the heads-up - was not. They are now though. Also I'm surprised that the Twinkle block menu doesn't have "block evasion"? Huh. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, The Bushranger, Twinkle only has that when you attempt to block an IP, but it has "sock puppetry (puppet)" for accounts. Bishonen | tålk 09:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC).

WP:PERM backlog

Please have a look at the long pending WP:PERM backlog especially PCR and a handful at Autopatrolled, Rollback and NPR . Thank you 42.106.196.191 (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Sxologist wants clarification on his block with regard to other Wikipedias

See User talk:Sxologist#Question. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

 Clarified. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikibullying by Heba Aisha

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

---

I need help as Heba Aisha is showing authority over Bihari Rajput WP:STEWARDSHIP WP:OWNERSHIP , not ready to listen to my arguments WP:POVRAILROAD, making newly fabricated/misleading false allegations against me WP:NPA and misinterpreting my statements[29] WP:Civility, HA is singling out me when another user KashKarti has a similar view on Bihari Rajput[30] WP:Wikihounding. This is clearly WikiBullying WP:BULLY. Just because I challenged her image on Bihari Rajput, HA is misquoting my statements, portraying me a caste supremacist, highlighting my 3 months old remark which I haven't used after the warning from Bishonen, making false allegation against me that I actively edit Rajput page which I haven't edited from past many months. And all these allegations and accusations just because I pointed HA in talk page of Bihari Rajput[31]. HA acting as an owner of that page. Please have a look at my argument on the talk page of Bihari Rajput[32] and my reply on WP:AE[33].— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anony20 (talk • contribs)

Since we are at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement it seems to be an escape attempt of the complainant from arbitration.(Duplication of effort) Thanks.Heba Aisha (talk) 14:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

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

User: Ferret

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

---

• • HELP REVERTING FOR BAD FAITH** Ask don't block it we cover stopping to here. One more time that "blocking violation bad faintly" your step it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlaineStu2025 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
• What bad faith?

(1) The material you appear to be complaining about on Durango and Silverton Narrow Gauge Railroad was reverted by an IP several times before Ferret did so. [34],[35],[36], and each time you restored it [37],[38],[39]

(2) When Ferret deleted it [40], they gave a very detailed explanation in their edit summery: "Unsourced since 2010, overly detailed, and very promotional in tone. The entire thing would have to be rewritten. Just cause it's survived a long time doesn't mean it's good to stay. WP:V, WP:OR. Originally written by a hobbyist/rail fan"

(3) According to WP:Verifiability, a core policy, "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed"

(4) The entire section removed was unsourced.

(5) Ferret is an admin, and while it's not impossible for an admin to act in bad faith, it's unlikely. They can certainly make mistakes, but this doesn't appear to be one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

No notification for this report, but here we are. I think this user's patrolling likely needs a deeper review. I'm seeing a lot of good faith IP edits being reverted as test edits (or vandalism) that are likely perfectly constructive. Also seeing several cases, like this, where an IP has explained their edit but were reverted anyway. Possible CIR issues here. -- ferret (talk) 03:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

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

A-NEUN

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

---

Looks like User:A-NEUN got blocked by accident. The blocking admin was trying to block this vandal but blocked A-NEUN and now admin seems busy Huggling. Can someone unblock them please? ‐‐1997kB (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• Left Materialscientist a message. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  Unblocked, thanks to all involved. Primefac (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the unblock. Mistakes happen. Thanks to 1997kB for noticing before I did, and raising it here! A-NEUN ⦾TALK⦾ 18:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Haleth and Jiren related

Hey I know i have been here before. This might not even be the right place for it. If so I apologize. I diagree with an admin @Joe Roe:. It seems that he stripped an autopatrol right after an editor @Haleth: editor (who i just got to know here on Wiki recently) recommended me to use autopatrol. I was mostly like “ok whatever” if it’s important like he claims i will do it. So i did. I was rejected. Ok that didn’t bother me as much. But then I figured out why and that he stripped away Haleth's autopatrol away too. That seems a bit overexcessive. Especially since he based on it another editor (an reviewer who commonly redirects back work after just reviewing them when he claims it doesn't pass GNG). Again i dont harbor hard feelings on Onel5969, sometimes we do have conflict and maybe I shoud’t have autopatrol rights because of him. But that does seem to show favoritism on Joe Ro's part to strip a right on one editor and not give one based on conflict that i had on the other. I would think it’s assuming bad faith myself. But the bigger issue is that he then obviosuly stalked Haleth's work soon after and then changed Jiren to Jiren the Grey because he seems to think a "cartoon character" is not as notable as a real life location (which happens to be a stub). I always assumed you need consensus to do page move presumtions like that. Again I am not an admin but I kind of contesting what he is doing on that. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Joe has been notified now, though Haleth and Onel have not (though I'm not sure if Onel needs to be notified, I don't see any diffs so I can't make heads or tails of who is actually involved in this). Primefac (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry that is harder since I am using a mobile device. I was also going to notify the editors but I am slow on that too because...mobile edit. Will Joe's edit history do? I will link that if you want?Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I will notify Haleth (who seems inactive at the moment) and also link the two issues that i have next too. Also I thank you for the notifications. Have you tried phone texting on Wikipedia? I don’t recommend it over just using a computer lol. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok here is where Haleth said to notify something I knew little about except for the fact that I never had the privilege of getting it automatically. Here is the reason why I was rejected and Haleth's rights were revoked. Here is where he is notified that the editor's rights are revoked. Here is where he moved Jiren to Jiren the Grey. (Note Since I did a lot of out of wiki stuff after I linked this, I will show the rest later to avoid edit conflict.) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:13, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Here is where he reverted the move log of the city apparently thinking it is the primary topic and accusing Haleth of systematic bias and hijacking. Hereis where said he was glad he did it and called the character a "cartoon character" like I mentioned. That's it. That’s all I was talking about. No hard feeling if what did wasn’t wrong. Though I disagree with the name title and WP:AGF was not used IMO. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Wow, this really is something. If Joe Roe has indeed stalked my user contributions and read my talk page thoroughly, which Jhenderson777 has suggested, he would be aware that another editor has also recommended that I sought autopatrol rights, though I did not see him furthering his act of retaliation by also revoking that user's right on this basis. For the Jiren issue, WP:Before showed that the Ethiopian city of Jiren no longer exists, and whatever sources I could find on the topic are passing mentions on books through a quick search. If it was a very important capital city, I'd expect to see more writing on the matter by historians and anthropologists. Given that the article appears to be a perma-stub for well over a decade and only supported by a single source, I would not be surprised if the article is scrutinized or even sent to AfD if encountered by other editors who draw a harder line on notability or even verifiability. Again, BRD. If he disagrees, he could simply revert me and then start a move discussion on the topic, and if he believes that I have made a genuine mistake then he could always reprimand me for it and I am more then happy to concede and apologize.

Could someone advise what is the avenue for me to appeal for restoration of autopatrolled rights, and make a complaint to against Joe Roe in his capacity as an administrator as well, since he has shown the same systemic bias he has accused me of with the name-calling and removing my autopatrolled rights without giving me an opportunity to explain myself? I should note that my decision to pursue autopatrol rights in the first place have nothing to do with evading scrutiny by NPP users like Onel5969, and I am not gaming the system as accused by Joe Roe. Haleth (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse; when I saw Special:Diff/989487297 and Special:Diff/989718312, I already expected to see the latest entry in Haleth's user group log. I'll invite Wugapodes (granting administrator) and Onel5969 to the discussion to see what they think about the removal. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

  Could you clarify what is it that you are endorsing? I am not sure exactly what you are trying to say.Haleth (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

  I think 'endorse' is "I endorse the removal". --Izno (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

  Sorry for the ambiguity. Yes, I endorse the removal. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

  Are you, or any other administrator or editor able to clarify then, whether this page is the appropriate avenue for me to appeal the removal and part of due process? Haleth (talk) 01:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

  Haleth, generally, per WP:ADMINABUSE, If a user believes an administrator has acted improperly, they should express their concerns directly to the administrator responsible and try to come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner. That said, WP:AN is generally the right place to discuss administrative action, and now that a discussion exists, the choice of the venue (and the chance of having a low-publicity discussion) is gone. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

  These comments do indicate that Haleth at least missed the point of autopatrolled. It's not to avoid or get around NPP, it's a sign that the user is trusted enough to skip NPP. --Izno (talk) 23:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Besides Wugapodes, At least one NPP editor and one administrator have endorsed my ability [[41]] to create quality articles which have been previously redirected due to notability concerns. I have also indicated [[42]] that I don't mind NPP editors reviewing my work. I also feel that Jhenderson777 has demonstrated that he too is also trusted enough to skip NPP as he has been an active editor here on wikipedia for several years, which is why I suggested that he do so. I only nudged him further since he has given an indication that he might put it off and forget about it, and it is certainly not part of some conspiracy or pact against Onel or the NPP group as alleged by Joe Roe. But maybe my opinion has little weight since I am not an admin or NPP patroller. It is not to game the system as Joe Roe has accused me of doing, and I feel that they have demonstrated in their series of actions that they does not believe in good faith in spite of being an admin on this site. I requested autopatrolled rights to alleviate the backlog for NPP users, as I sometimes see pages I created or undid a redirect for being reviewed months after they have been created. Haleth (talk) 23:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment as granting admin. I don't usually work at PERM, and at the time was helping clear a long-standing backlog. I welcome the revert and review. I think Joe is within his right to refuse Jhenderson and revoke Haleth. The autopatrol policy says admins can refuse at their discretion if they think it would be beneficial for the editor's creations to go through NPP, and if the goal is to avoid scrutiny, well, that's a reason to think the added scrutiny of NPP would be beneficial. As for revoking, there doesn't seem to be any guidance on that so I think disagreeing with the grant in the first place is as good a reason to revoke as any. To describe my thinking at the time of the grant, Haleth's request was rather different from Jhenderson's and on the surface looked fine--exemplary even. I saw that they'd created 40ish articles with over 20 being C-class or better, and nothing stood out to me after spot checking one or two of them. Haleth had been sporadically active, but over a long period so I presumed they knew the core policies (and they said as much). I can't remember if I saw the conversation with ZXCVBNM on Haleth's talk page, but if I had I didn't think too much of it at the time. On the whole Haleth seemed like a fine editor who met the qualifications, so I granted the usergroup. If actions since then cast doubt on their ability to use the right well, or if the original grant was in error, then I should be reverted. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I am still quite confused. As said before I was invited like he was once. Is there something wrong with that? What was the admin thinking? Was he thinking we were going to use it irresponsibility. I promise I wouldn’t have and I am sure Haleth wouldn’t either. I myself did it out of request naturally Also I don’t see his Jiren edit as constructive at all. Though it’s not a topic I am involved in myself so I discussed it instead. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I did not "invite" you such since I am neither a NPP editor or admin. I suggested that you do so, since I assumed from recent events that you do not have autopatrol rights even though you appear to have been editing on wikipedia for many years and I have reason to believe that your work is trusted enough to skip the NPP queue. I believe that your right to have autopatrol rights should be assessed based on the quality of your work, but I suppose I can understand why our conversation may be misinterpreted as "gaming" the system. So, I believe the real issue for other administrators to examine, is whether they think Jhenderson777 has a poor grasp of wikipedia policies and thus should continue to be subject to scrutiny by NPP editors? Haleth (talk) 23:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes that's what I meant. You recommended it to me like another editor did to you. I fail to see the problem of why you would get autopatrol rights gone. I myself wasn’t sure I wanted it. But it still was like a slap to the face to be rejected because of the accusations he made on us. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I think you should only apply for autopatrol rights, or request for anything for that matter, if you are absolutely sure you wanted it. It was never my intention to influence you in an undue manner or to thwart NPP efforts. Nothing is stopping any editor, even IP users, from proposing anything we have done substantial work on to AfD if they are found to be questionably notable, whether we have autopatrol rights or otherwise. Haleth (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I wanted it. I also thank you for directing and showing me where to go to get it. I was just multi-tasking at that time that I made my request too brief. Didn’t expect the outcome to be so negative (especially in your side). Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 01:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Additinal Comment:I think I know what happened. I mentioned that somebody recommended me it and that opened a can of worms. I was quite busy that day with Wiki contributions and (being ADHD and all) I shouldn’t worded it the way I did. For that I apologize. I also didn’t put much effort on my reasoning anyway. Still feel what the admin done on Haleth was wrong though. Hence this conversation. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 00:10 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• For those unfamiliar with the autopatrolled right (autoreviewer), it exists to lessen the impact that high-volume article creators have on the new page patrol backlog, by automatically marking their creations as reviewed. Sometimes people come to PERM with the idea that it's a sort of reward for being a regular editor, but we try to combat that by making it clear (e.g. in the box at the top of WP:PERM/A) that it has no impact on editing and is only a clerical tool for NPP. The guidelines for granting it are brief, which leaves a lot of room for admin discretion in determining whether the editor requesting it regularly create articles that we can be relatively certain would not benefit from going through the new page patrol process.

Haleth was granted autopatrolled early this month, at his request. I revoked it because I saw this conversation on Jhenderson777's talk page, after he alluded to it in his PERM request. There, he said plainly that he requested autopatrolled because he had ran afoul of a particular NPP user and recommended Jhenderson777 do the same if you don't want any newly recreated or un-redirected articles to be flagged by the NPP team. I didn't see it at the time, but there is also this conversation on Haleth's talk page which makes it clear that Haleth's PERM request was a direct response to a similar suggestion by another editor, so his insistence here that he asked for it it because he suddenly became concerned with the NPP backlog does not ring true. Asking for any user right to avoid scrutiny by others is a giant red flag. I am not sure if I'd have granted his original request—certainly I can see why Wugapodes did—but with this new information and the fact that the request came shortly after Haleth had an article PRODded by Piotrus, it's obvious to me that his creations would continue to benefit from going through the new page patrol process.

Naturally, after I pulled the right, I reviewed the articles Haleth had created in the time he had autopatrolled. There were only two. Thrall (Warcraft) looked fine. Jiren the Grey was also fine in content, but I saw that to create it Haleth had usurped the title of an article about the capital city of the Kingdom of Jimma. This seemed to me to be a blatant failure to consider long-term significance in determining the primary topic, so I reverted the bold move. I can appreciate how editors working in a niche subject area can get a bit of tunnel-vision with regard to the significance of topics (in this case Dragon Ball Z characters vs. historical cities in Africa), which is exactly why it's good we have a new page patrol process where an editor with a broader view can review it. In any case, what happens to the article now is a content decision: if Haleth disagrees with me, he's free to use RM to get a consensus for his move.

I'm confident that pulling the right was the correct thing to do, and that Haleth's creations should continue to be reviewed by other editors. – Joe (talk) 09:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure if you have perused the admittedly-lengthy argument I have posted. If not, please do because I believe you have either overlooked or ignored other comments on my talk page while only focusing on the ones that support your biased rationale. I'll respond to your points right away.

• I have in fact considered the long term significance of the topic. Again, please read argument. It gets no original coverage in the Amharic version and is essentially a translation for the English one which is very sparse in content. I would not be surprised if another editor who has stricter standards of notability then me flag it for AfD or propose a merge to the modern city it is actually part of. In any event, I have already proposed a request to move to since you dispute that it is the primary topic.
• Yes the editor suggested it, and I agreed with his assessment that it helps ease the NPP backlog as well, especially with an editor like me who has been generating a lot of article content which other editors including NPP editors have found satisfactory thus far. Like Jhenderson777, I was not aware that I am eligible to seek autopatrol rights or that it exists at all.
• As for the article PROD by Piotrus, that article was created five years ago, well before I started taking an interest in improving my content contribution and learning more about notability guidelines on Wikipedia. I agree that it does not match notability standards in its current state, and certainly hardly any editors have contributed to it since, so I boldly redirected it myself. I don't think it's fair that you are using this as an example to justify your view of my conduct when there are many other examples.
• No, I don't think your decision to pull my autopatrol right is correct and that it is in fact a punitive decision which you are attempting to promote as encouraging a broader view. I am disappointed by your response as I don't believe that I have done anything wrong or disruptive besides your contention of my bold edit on Jiren, and that you are judging my conduct as an editor by a few off-the-cuff comments. I can continue to edit with or without being autopatrolled, but my position is that your decisions are ill-advised, should not be endorsed and sets a bad precedent considering your position of influence. Haleth (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I note that the other directly involved parties who have been pinged have not responded on this page, so I'll try to summarize what I want to say now. To save everyone time and as per confirmation from ToBeFree that the situation which applies here is WP:ADMINABUSE, the only appropriate recourse for my grievance on this page is to continue the discussion started by Jhenderson777, instead of a two way conversation between me and Joe. I will provide disclosure in detail as to why I sought autopatrol rights in the first place. As noted, this dispute is in relation to fictional topics, but I also edit in other topic areas from time to time, like food and cuisine topics, and general Wikipedia:WikiGnome activity in a variety of topics which I myself don't keep track of, so bear with me.

On 3 November 2020, a NPP editor posted on the Video Games project talk page about reviewing articles for three subject topics which were previously redirected more then a decade ago, but which I undid and rewrote the contents along with introducing multiple sources to demonstrate their notability. The editor excused themselves shortly afterwards and said that there were no apparent issues with the articles. Around the same time another editor (should I ping the editor?) messaged me and suggested that I apply for autopatrol rights; this editor appears to have good standing with the community who has created numerous articles on niche but notable topics, takes a more hardline view on notability then me in their own words, and is also known for starting some AfD discussions where we have on numerous occasions agreed or disagreed during consensus, so he was clearly not teaching me to game the system, and I presumed that he pointed me in that direction because he has a level of trust in my ability to create worthwhile articles on Wikipedia and the NPP is known for struggling through a backlog. I have noticed previously that some of the articles I have created or redirected were only marked as "reviewed" months after my last edit. Both the aforementioned editor and an administrator who is one of the most active NPP participants have also given me a vote of confidence for my contributions. In fact, I have previously considered about applying to help out NPP or AfC in the future.

A few other editors have noted that my comments on Jhenderson777 talk page to be problematic. I suppose it could be construed as "gaming the system" without context. I would like to provide reassurances that it was said purely in jest, and it should not be literally taken as me instructing Jhenderson777 to "game" the system. It does not change the fact that Onel5969 was well within their right as NPP editor, or any editor, to PROD or send all three articles recreated by Jhenderson777 to AfD, even in cases where consensus is ultimately against deletion or if they have been found to have erred in judgement. I have no vested interest in the articles surviving AfD and did not voted in the deletion discussions, though I did provide a comment. Jhenderson777 does not remember our previous interactions, but we did in fact have years ago and I recalled that he was already much more experienced then me as an editor and seemed to have a solid grasp of policies and guidelines. I am surprised that he does not have autopatrol rights even after editing on Wikipedia for more then a decade, because his edits were undone by a NPP editor shortly after he recreated said articles, and he appears to have a good standing with the community as well who has created or undid the redirections of a large volume of articles over the years.

I agree with Izno's comments that being autopatrolled is a sign that the user is trusted enough to skip NPP and telling Jhenderson777 to apply is my way of vouching my trust in the editor's ability to contribute meaningful to the project, and any administrator can scrutinize his eligibility anyway. Another editor have recently sought my contribution on my talk page to a BLP article, albeit also for the video game project, so I presume that's another vouch for trust even though I don't do a lot of BLP work. So Joe's accusation of my true motives to seek autopatrol rights is incorrect and quite frankly, false as it had nothing to do with to do with thwarting Onel5969 or another NPP editor. If my comments about "maybe one person" is further nitpicked as proof of insinuation about Onel5969, I can assure you that those are just my personal thoughts about yet another NPP editor uninvolved or unmentioned in this discussion and I will not go there, and again is not why I sought autopatrol rights in the first place.

As for Joe's accusations that I practiced systemic bias by "hijacking" an article about a real world city (which no longer exists) to prioritize a "cartoon character", which he uses to justify his admin actions to remove my autopatrol rights and revert/move/cleanup deletion the said articles, here's the article in English and in Amharic: [Wikipedia]. A quick Google translate revealed that save for two additional photos which are absent in the English version, the contents of both articles are essentially identical with the exact same source; therefore, I assumed in good faith that the term is hardly the WP:Primarytopic for English language wikipedia, as I would think that if the city is as culturally relevant as Joe Roe has suggested or assumed would have received significant coverage in the Amharic edition of Wikipedia. In anticipation of an argument that the discrepancy may be due to a low number of internet users from Ethiopia, this list shows that Ethopia ranks #37 globally in terms of number of users, assuming the information is cited from a reliable source. The article seems to be a WP:Permastub and efforts with WP:Before reveal some books on google search which contain passing mentions of the city. I am not here to dispute the notability of the city as a subject topic, but my decision to boldly move the article was not contingent on my account having autopatrol rights in order to "game" the system as Joe had suggested, and I did some due diligence in good faith before moving the article as it was clear to me that it is not currently the primary topic of the name in English language media.

I don't have a problem with considering the possibility that my edits to the Jiren articles were in error and would have been happy to oblige if Joe Roe wanted to engage me in a BRD cycle. However, I personally find his actions to be troubling as he appears to be an experienced administrator and an Arbcom member, and though he presents himself as an advocate against systemic bias, which I admittedly have a vested interest in promoting since I do not fit within several characteristics of "an average English Wikipedian", his actions and comments comes across to me as a demonstration of his own biases and a lack of good faith. I honestly wonder whether this is an instance of WP:TOOLMISUSE or WP:INVOLVED since he exercised his administrative powers as a party to a content dispute with his expressed opinions.

This is my attempt to resolve my grievance with Joe's actions in a civil and orderly manner. Do kindly advise if I am supposed to ping any of the uninvolved editors in this dispute which I have mentioned as support for my argument as I don't want my actions to be interpreted as WP:Canvassing. Haleth (talk) 09:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I honestly wonder whether this is an instance of WP:TOOLMISUSE or WP:INVOLVED – this is a ridiculous allegation. I wasn't involved in a content dispute with you when I revoked autopatrolled. I don't think we've ever interacted before. Naturally, after I determined that your articles should not be automatically reviewed I reviewed the articles you created whilst they were. It would have been irresponsible not to. The only advanced right I used to revert your bold move of Jiren was move-over-redirect, which is routinely done for any user on request. This is the BRD cycle that you have repeatedly complained above that you want me to follow. Also, my name is not John. – Joe (talk) 10:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse Joe's actions. Sorry I haven't responded sooner, but I have been rather ill, and have limited my time sitting up at the computer, so this is the first time I've seen this thread. I think both Haleth and Jhenderson777 are both very passionate about the niche topics they cover, but sometimes that passion leads to overzealousness. I think based on the conversations already linked to on Haleth's talk page from another editor, and Haleth's suggestion on Jhenderson777's talk page are a clear indication of an attempt to avoid their "articles from being flagged". I don't think any other rationale is really necessary. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I can’t speak for Haleth. But I know that my intentions were not to get the articles to get flagged. Especially since i didn’t know that is what that did. Also I assume good faith on Haleth an and the other editor too. I do admit I get passionate with projects. If that is a problem...then I guess I don’t need silly autopatrol. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 12:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • If it's okay for you to label our editing patterns to be overzealous, then is it ok for me to describe some of your actions as NPP editor to be characteristic of overzealous deletion? A cursory look at your talk pages seems to indicate that a lot of editors feel that way, regardless of whether their concerns are justified or not. Haleth (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
• Haleth, this now looks like a pretty strong case of "There is nothing wrong with my editing", and a good time to drop the stick. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Now you are just being ugly to someone who admitted he had to take a WikiBreak from all this mess. What disruption did he do to make such claim of that link you posted? What ever happened to WP:AGF? He just did the same thing @Zxcvbnm: (who despite some differences regarding deletion/inclusion did nothing wrong in my opinion either) did to him and still has his rights. He passed on his knowledge is all he did. I still think this shouldn’t never have happened! It was a failure of assumptions along with being an advantage of power. Also it would be kind of unfair to count One15969's vote because he and Haleth had differences in opinion on this exact page. (Just read my other post) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not familiar with basically anything that happened here but I just want to say that I haven't seen an article that Haleth created that is non-notable and would therefore be grounds for revoking Autopatrol. I suggested it because they seemed like they were familiar with GNG and it still seems that way. I have absolutely no doubt that Haleth was not trying to "evade" autopatrol, that seems a total misinterpretation._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I should add that Haleth was awarded a barnstar from WP:VG and I was about to award them one if they hadn't before. It seemed like a pretty open and shut case for being able to create one's own articles without interference._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
    • My sentiments exactly! I will note that I had my fair share of barnstars, dyks, ga articles too. I just don’t show them off anymore like I used to. Haleth is a bit newer on the field than I am. Though he is already a better copy editor than I am I feel. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
• Commment. A PROD of mine is mentioned here, but can anyone link it? What happened? I can provide a commentary but I can't locate the relevant diff. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • W@Piotrus:Wrong section...I believe. The other one should be above. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 12:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• I guess my question is what is the end goal here? To get autopatrolled status returned? Because I don't see any movement to sanction Joe Roe for his actions, from admins, I see support. Before this complaint gets any longer, you might consider what exactly it is that you want to achieve in it and focus on that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I was never sure what needs to be done with Joe. Hence why I brought it here. Was it wrong? Was it right? It didn’t seem to be. So that’s why I brought it up. But it’s obvious that Haleth wanted the autopatrol right back. He is so upset that is inactively cooling off. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 12:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

🙂 With all respect for the unwelcoming, unthankful situation they're in, I'm afraid this public escalation on their behalf didn't really benefit anyone. Haleth saw a need to defend themselves and all they got was more administrative support for the hurtful measure. I think the earlier this thread is closed and archived, the better. Not because Joe had to fear scrutiny, but because everything relevant has been said by both sides of the conflict, and all that's left to be gained is repetition and more frustration. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Liz: Would I like autopatrol status restored? That would be nice, if it happens. But if no other administrator besides ToBeFree takes a position and agree/disagree with my opinion as well as that of two other editors that I may have been treated unfairly by Joe, then so be it. Joe is adamant that his decision was completely justified, so I have to agree to disagree. In fact, I look forward to feedback from what other admins or editors have to say in scrutinizing my actions or Joe's since this has been publicly escalated before I could deal with him on his talk page, and I want to believe that everyone is still interested in assuming good faith. I have made full disclosure on what motivated me to seek autopatrol rights since my trustworthiness have been called into question, so others can judge for themselves and perhaps give me the benefit of the doubt.

With regards to ToBeFree's assertion that my behaviour falls under WP:IDHT, I'd like to point out that two other editors have spoken up in this thread on my behalf on their own accord; one of whom also commented that other editors have previously vouched for my contributions by awarding me with barnstars, which stands in contrast to Joe's accusations (from his rather harsh comments outside of this thread) of my incompetency or implied lack of trustworthiness. With regards to administrative support, Onel5969 is not an admin, User:ToBeFree is the only other admin who specifically endorsed Joe's decision and seems keen on ending this discussion as soon as possible, three other admins including the granting admin Wugapodes have commented on the situation without taking a clear position either way. But ToBeFree is also correct, in that I have nothing further to add. So no harm letting this discussion stay open, as it will stall anyway if no other editor or administrator takes a position on whether the revocation of my autopatrol status due to a misinterpretation of my extemporaneous comments as opposed to a demonstrated lack of competence as suggested by User:Zxcvbnm was the right call. Haleth (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Canadian open proxies

WP:DENY - The Bushranger One ping only 22:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I'm reporting a pair of open proxies from Canada: 142.167.63.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 108.172.129.1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) A few months ago they were used by a block evading vandal to create a series of new usernames, for example "YapYapChubbyDoggy", who's just created a new username, Møstbarr; I hope that the information I've provided was useful. --Vigneslouis (talk) 07:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)  Not done This can be ignored. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Intractable problem still unaddressed and unabated; administrator action deficient

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

---

I believe a very serious case of WP:CRUSH, WP:SEALION, and WP:TENDENTIOUS is afoot, and has been in progress for some time concerning Syrian Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). It has been claimed that the bad temper of the content dispute has made it impossible to determine that this is happening. I do not agree that this is the case. Briefly, the issue concerns a propaganda line, dreamt up in the 1960s by the national socialist Ba'ath Party rulers of the Second Syrian Republic, which stated that the Kurdish-majority and oil-rich provinces in the extreme north were not historically Kurdish and that the Kurdish inhabitants were without exception illegal immigrants from Turkish Kurdistan. Though many were refugees or their descendants from the wars of the end of the Ottoman Empire, the Arab nationalist Ba'athists decided to ignore longstanding Kurdish settlement in Syria and what is now al-Hasakah Governorate, which were Kurdish majority at the beginning of the French Mandate of Syria and Lebanon. This unequivocal fact is stated numerous times by all reliable sources.

Furthermore, it is directly reported by unimpeachable sources that this xenophobic and racist propaganda was purpose-built and deployed specifically for the purpose of the Ba'athist ethnic cleansing campaign in Syrian Kurdistan known as the Arab Belt. This too is well-evidenced by top-tier academic sources. However, a significant coterie of editors, whose members have been previously heavily active in Syrian civil war articles and repeatedly blocked for ethno-nationalistic edit warring in middle east topics generally, has emerged on the talk page of that article who repeat this nonsense as fact and are tenaciously distorting primary sources to (not-really-)agree with this nationalist claim. Evidence for all of this is abundant, yet no serious action has been taken, and the problem remains unacknowledged and unmitigated. The narrative continues to be presented as fact using wilfully misinterpreted primary sources and argumentum ex silentio in secondary sources while ignoring or dismissing as kurdish pov every and all reliable source. This has now been going on for many weeks and urgent action is desperately needed, just as it was when this issue first came to ANI more a month ago! So far little more than washing of hands and complaints about incivility have ensued; it is obvious actual steps need to be taken in a clear direction: away from the nationalist POV-pushing, which needs to be put permanently to an end. GPinkerton (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Irrefutable evidence the narrative pushed on the talk page, of Kurds as foreigners in Syrian territory, is nothing but Arab Nationalist racism

Historically they have been concentrated in three discontiguous places in northern Syria, namely, i) The northeastern corner of Syria, … is to the west of Mosul. … This area has been Kurdish majority since official records began in the last century. The encompassing Syrian governorate is called al-Hasaka (formerly Jazira) … Kurdish and Christian coexistence has generally been long-standing here. ii) The Kobanê (Ain al-Arab to Arabs) district is in the northeast of the Aleppo governorate, in northcentral Syria … iii) The most northerly and western part of Syria, a mountainous outcrop of the Anatolian plateau, the Efrîn (Afrīn in Arabic) district, … Ethnographically the Kurds here are indistinguishable from the Kurds of Turkey and unquestionably in their homeland. …O'Leary, Brendan (January 2018). "The Kurds, the Four Wolves, and the Great Powers – Review: The Kurds of Syria by Harriet Allsopp. London: Tauris, 2015. The Kurds of Iraq: Nationalism and Identity in Iraqi Kurdistan by Mahir A. Aziz. (2nd ed.) London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. Out of Nowhere: The Kurds of Syria in Peace and War by Michael M. Gunter. London: Hurst, 2014. The Kurds: A Modern History by Michael M. Gunter. Princeton, NJ: Wiener, 2016. Alien Rule by Michael Hechter. Cambridge University Press, 2013. Political Violence and Kurds in Turkey by Mehmet Orhan. London: Routledge, 2015. Kurds and the State in Iran: The Making of Kurdish Identity by Abbas Vali. London: Tauris, 2014". The Journal of Politics. 80 (1): 353–366. doi:10.1086/695343. ISSN 0022-3816. and Under the French mandate after World War I, Syria became an important center for Kurdish political and cultural activism until its independence in 1946. In addition to the Kurds in major urban centers and Kurdish enclaves in northern Syria, Kurdish refugees also arrived from Turkey. A Kurdish nationalist organization, Khoybun, operated in Syria and Lebanon and spearheaded the Ararat Re-bellion (1928-31) against Turkey. Exiled Kurdish nationalists from Turkey played a major role in Syria and Lebanon. The Jaladet, Sureya and Kamuran brothers from the princely Bedirkhan family, for example, led a Kurdish cultural movement. The end of the French mandate and the eventual rise of the Baath regime in Syria created a serious backlash for the Kurds. Gunter indicates that the Baath regime came to view Kurds as a foreign threat to the Arab nation, and it repressed them after the early 1960s. Kurds in Syria, as a result, came to be less known in the West, as compared to their compatriots in Iraq, Turkey and Iran. Some Kurds were stripped of their citizenship in 1962 on the grounds that they supposedly all came from Turkey. Moreover, the state tried to Arabize the Kurdish territories in northern Syria. Gunter adds that the fractured Kurdish political-party system is another reason for the invisibility of the Syrian Kurds until the early 2000s. — Akturk, Ahmet Serdar (assistant professor of history, Georgia Southern University) (2016). "Review: The Kurds: A Modern History, by Michael M. Gunter. Markus Wiener Publishers, 2015. 256 pages. $26.95, paperback". Middle East Policy. 23 (3): 152–156. doi:10.1111/mepo.12225. ISSN 1475-4967.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

• Comment - The heading to this section is "Intractable problem still unaddressed". I see two problems that may be intractable. The first is the thread at WP:ANI that has been open against the OP of this thread since 21 November. The second is that this thread is a rant by User:GPinkerton that appears to be syntactically valid with no semantic content. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

  Robert McClenon, all of this is related to the same issue, which is the Syrian Kurdistan page, which like the place itself is a warzone that erupted about a decade ago. GPinkerton (talk) 04:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

---

@Sandstein: the "problems of their own" you refer to is only one of multiple ANI threads this issue has spawned and is an attack thread of all the editors who are causing the problem on Syrian Kurdistan; the problems referred to in this request are detailed extensively in all the ANI reports I have raised on this issue; still, no action has been taken. And now you are closing this with no action ... What more evidence is required to prove a breach of policy requiring action? GPinkerton (talk) 21:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Some diffs pointing out specific problematic behavior would be helpful, for a start. From a quick glance at the talk page I largely see reasonable discussion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

---

• Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • "there are NO historical evidence that a "Syrian Kurdistan" exists, or a "Kurdistan" in Syria. Nothing! ZERO! 0%. Its is all cherry-picked modern authors, zero historical documentation"
  • "By phrasing it as it is in the article GPinkerton is giving unsupported legitimacy to a "Syrian part of Kurdistan" by mentioning these real geographical states together with a made up "Syrian part of Kurdistan"."
  • "In 1939 the french census of the Jazira region showed the bulk of the population being Arabs/Assyrians/Armenians and a minority being Kurds. We have several sources describing how kurds came in waves after waves from Turkey to Syria. We have several sources saying "Syrian Kurdistan" is not real. How can Wikipedia then possibly claim that in the 1920s a "Syrian kurdistan" existed in Syria that was divided? This claim is only a belief held by some people. This is a kurdish narrative that some people go along with. And other do not. It is not a historical fact."
  • "Non-kurds are the majority"
• Attar-Aram syria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • "There are no historical record that puts the Kurdish inhabited regions of Syria within historical Kurdistan before the establishment of Syria"
• عمرو بن كلثوم (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • "The conventional wisdom talks about three parts of Kurdistan; in Turkey, Iran and Iraq."..."While Kurds do live in Syria (various parts), no Syrian territory is considered part of Kurdistan, which is also echoes in the Treaty of Sevres map. We can refer to the presence of Kurdish-inhabited areas in northeaster Syria, but it is a mistake to refer to that as part of Kurdistan"
  • "Give me one source published before 2011 mentioning the term Syrian Kurdistan. Yes, there are Kurdish inhabited areas in Syria, but with other groups, nothing purely Kurdish."
  • [44], [45] (Inserts and re-inserts Ba'athist propaganda line that Kurds did not live in the Jazira region before the French Mandate, created to justify the Arab Belt ethnic cleansing policy in Syrian Kurdistan on the page "Arab Belt". Gross, POV misrepresentation of sources. Edit summary: Added some background info and number)
  • [46] (removes a link to "Syrian Kurdistan" from the article on "Iraqi Kurdistan", edit summary: "Who says northern Syria is Western kurdistan?")
  • [47] (removes a link to "Syrian Kurdistan" from the article on "Kurdistan", edit summary: "Updated regional coverage per established sources, not POV outlets")
  • "I provided the all-important Treaty of Sevres map above, and a number of academic books that talk about Kurdistan, but no "Syrian kurdistan". ... On a quick factcheck, it is interesting that none of the links provided above by Paradise (sic, recte: "GPinkerton") has "Syrian Kurdistan" in the name. (!) We are not arguing about the presence of a Kurdistan or Kurds in Syria. One last thing, I just visited one of the links provided above by Paradise and could not even find Syria in there. There is Iran, Iraq and Turkey."
  • "a number of academic books that talk about Kurdistan, but no "Syrian kurdistan". ... argue that this term was produced by Kurdish nationalists during the Syrian Civil War. We are not arguing about the presence of a Kurdistan or Kurds in Syria."
  • "We have a ton of evidence presented throughout the article and the Talk page that this is a term used/invented by Kurds"
  • "You fail to make distinction between presence of Kurds in Syria (just like in any other country) and Syrian Kurdistan. Respected maps and books have not shown the existence of a Syrian Kurdistan, although they still talk about Kurdish communities. PKK/PYD portal have started this rhetoric of a "Syrian kurdistan" during the Syrian civil war and the control of large swaths in northern Syria by PYD militias."

Besides Syrian Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Arab Belt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), there may be large numbers of article where this POV push is going on, in Syrian Civil War- and Kurdistan-related issues, including over place names in disputed territories in Syria and other parts of the Middle East (Golan Heights, Jerusalem, etc. See contributions and block logs of involved users, including on Wikimedia Commons). See more discussions and diffs at:

• Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_86#PhD_candidate_as_a_reliable_source_for_a_denial_of_Syrian_Kurdistan_against_the_views_of_multiple_professors_stating_otherwise?
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1052#User:عمرو_بن_كلثوم_and_Syrian_Kurdistan
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1052#Unequivocal_TENDENTIOUS_editing_by_عمرو_بن_كلثوم_on_Syrian_Kurdistan
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1052#Syrian_Kurdistan,_at_war_again
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1052#Supreme_Deliciousness_and_WP:TENDENTIOUS_editing_on_Syrian_Kurdistan

I hope this is enough for someone to take this entrenched problem seriously. I can produce incontrovertible evidence that all of these claims these editors have been arguing are false, and I believe I have done so in the section above; further details are available on request. This thread should not be closed until this is properly examined. GPinkerton (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Sandstein, JayBeeEll, Power~enwiki does this "specific problematic behavior" sufficiently "establish the need for admin intervention" or is it really "largely ... reasonable discussion"? I really think closing this is premature. GPinkerton (talk) 15:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Mass rollback of over-categorization

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

---

169.1.11.199 has over the last few days engaged in a good-faith but misconceived categorization spree of South African taxa. These edits fall into two categories:

• Adding redundant lower-level categories (example) - e.g., adding "Fauna of South Africa" and "Endemic fauna of South Africa" to an article that already is in "Endemic butterflies of South Africa"
• The above plus wrong categories (example) - e.g., adding "Endemic fauna of South Africa" to taxa that are not endemic to the country

All their contributions from November 27 onwards are of this type. There may be the odd valid instance among them, but they appear to be widely scattered, and I suggest it is not worth anyone's time to dig through 500 edits to find those. Could an admin please perform a mass rollback here? (I do have rollback rights but hardly ever use them - to my understanding I could not carry out a mass rollback in any case) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Without commenting on the IP in question, there is no special "mass rollback" ability exclusively available to admins. Since you already have rollback, you can accomplish this yourself with something like User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js -FASTILY 22:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I was not aware of that. Thank you, I shall check that out. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

All right, I went and rolled back these edits, and left them some explanation. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Soundcloudlegends

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

---

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

Hi, I went to Soundcloudlegends' userpage after they approached me on my talk page, asking for help with image uploading. The userpage was non-existent, but here's what's weird. There is no log of their account being created. I checked CA, there was an account. They even uploaded an image. Then I go to XTools, since there was no log of the account, and it's telling me that the user doesn't exist. What is going on here? Slykos (talk • contribs • rights) 21:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

They only registered about four hours ago (17:21 UTC to be precise), and xtools can sometimes lag behind enwiki. Primefac (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Primefac: To that point, XTools is about 7 hours behind in lags right now, so that makes sense, yet there is no log for the account. Probably just a glitch.  Thanks! Slykos (talk • contribs • rights) 21:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Edit requests turned down by editor(s) Slatersteven and blocked my further edits - on Talk:2019 Balakot airstrike

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

---

Hi,

I have been requesting brief edits on page Talk:2019 Balakot airstrike, to the protected article 2019 Balakot airstrike. Unfortunately, my request had been turned down by few editors, irrespective of repeated explanation and valid references and justification. Basically, I found the article 2019 Balakot airstrike was deviating and distorting the story.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8F8:1A63:73E1:E8B7:4B7A:510E:6A84 (talk)

That's not a summary, mate, so I've removed it. Feel free to link to specific diffs. However, on the surface this sounds like a content dispute, which we don't handle here. Primefac (talk) 17:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Jeffery lever

Is this guy (User:Jefferyleverrr) creating his own page and then spoofing from User:Margetmilan and an IP?? at Talk:Jeffery lever?? Govvy (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Also there is Draft:Jeffery lever Govvy (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Cardano (cryptocurrency platform) Protection Level

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

---

Recently the page Cardano (cryptocurrency platform) has gone "live" (~23rd October). After less than a week (6 days) it was placed in Extended-protected mode. In the initial 6 days there were several hundred edits/improvements made (due to community excitement about having a page). In the interim 5+ weeks that have since passed, progress on the page has stagnated to only ~19 minor edits. My question ultimately boils down to: is it possible to revert/drop protection levels by one level such that progress can continue? Since this topic is incredibly niche the subset of individuals with both knowledge on the topic & prerequisite number of edits needed for Ext-protected is limited. The protection level currently seems prohibitive to any further significant progress. (similar "cryptocurrency" pages such as Ethereum,Tezos,Ethereum Classic,EOS.IO,TRON(cryptocurrency) etc have no protection levels in comparison). Thank you for your consideration & time. B_Maximus (talk) 13:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• Opposed to reducing protection level. We tried semi and it didn't work, so a few days later it had to be bumped up to ECP. This is exactly why WP:GS/Crypto exists. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Thank you for the feedback - I understand the reasoning but the current state is clear: the page will stagnate in its current protection level. After more than a month "cool down" period isn't it worth seeing if there are more users who would like to contribute to the page? It seems rather inconsistent when looking at the other "crypto" pages I mentioned above that is all (who have no protections whatsoever). If the problem persists place it back in its current "extended-protected" mode, nothing lost. From what I gather the reason for the increase in protection levels was due to edit warring between two particular users (one of which has more than 500+ edits and is still able to make edits to the page...). In this instance why not ban one or both users from editing this particular page instead of placing the entire page on lockdown? B_Maximus (talk) 16:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:NODEADLINE may be relevant here (and possibly also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of protection is to provide space for regular editors, that is, those who are not single purpose accounts aiming to promote a crypto product. Any imaginary editor unable to make a change is free to post an edit request on talk. Johnuniq (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

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

block(s) review

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

---

Per this question, I'd like to ask for feedback on the blocks I issued at Talk:Syrian Kurdistan, three of final four sections. —valereee (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Here's what I was about to post on my talk page in response to a question: Except in the most egregious cases, we do not block editors for single lapses of behavior; we warn them, we point out our policies, we have a conversation with them. For example, I have one block on my record, for saying something really really nasty to another editor who was being (and continued to be for quite a while after that) a total asshole of the worst sort, the polite racist. I was already an admin at the time, so the standards for me were higher. My nastiness rose to the level of deserving some sort of rebuke, and the block was appropriate. This particular case doesn't go anywhere near that level. The proper response would have been to comment "You're not assuming good faith here", not wielding the admin hammer. If there was an ongoing pattern of bad behavior, then blocking for that pattern of behavior would have been appropriate. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Valereee, thanks for opening this. If I've understood correctly, you blocked GPinkerton for 24 hours for posting "the ongoing behavioural issue is tendentious use and abuse of sources and a WP:AGENDA with a blithely carefree approach to uncritically repeating 20th-century propaganda claims as though appropriate for deciding content." That seems harsh. Can you explain the reasoning and what the other blocks were for? SarahSV ^(talk) 19:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Sarah, JPG, the issue was the ongoing incivility/ABF at that article talk, to the point that it was creating fairly major disruption and creating a pretty hostile editing environment for anyone who thought about trying to help there with content issues. We had multiple ANI reports, each also with incivility from various 'sides'. Girth Summit and I went to the article talk and said we weren't going to try to retroactively correct the incivility but that it had to stop. The next three instances of incivil ABF, I blocked for, trying to balance each editor's block history with the length of the blocks. One had no blocks for years, another none, so I blocked for an hour. The other had multiple recent blocks, the most recent of which was 24 hrs, so I did 24. I'm totally open to opinions that my actions were too harsh, and if that's the consensus, I'll certainly apoWhat I'm trying to accomplish is to get the editors there to stop assuming bad faith, and we're having a hard time even getting them to understand what that means. —valereee (talk) 19:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. One editor was blocked for opposing an edit with the words "cherry picked sources that further pushes the debunked 'Syrian kurdistan' fraud." The danger is that just about anyone could be blocked in that scenario. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

My 2c is I'd use the word "benefit", not "danger" :-) In the context of the three ANI threads currently open, the various interventions by more than a half dozen administrators giving warnings for weeks now, all because of the toxic environment arising from that talk page, I endorse these ABF blocks, because everyone on that talk page was on notice to stop accusing everyone else of pushing fraud and so forth. Warnings did not work; short blocks was the right way to go. And FWIW, IMO, the month-long full protection on the page should be lowered, and if there are editors who edit war, they should be blocked, too. Longer-term partial-blocks should be considered for future violations. We're way past discussion and warnings when it comes to Syrian Kurdistan. The behavior of a few has resulting in no one being able to edit the article or have productive discussion on the talk page. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, well, FWIW, IMO if editors are assuming good faith what they'd say instead is something like "these sources don't adequately represent the various RS characterizations of this issue." Again, YMMV, but in this article talk, what we're seeing is a lot of ABF from a lot of editors. —valereee (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I was blocked by Valereee for saying at the talkpage that another editors suggested edit was "cherry picked sources" and told by Valereee to "Talk about the edits, not the editor." when I pointed out that I was talking about the suggested edit he stopped replying. I want an apology from valereee for the baseless block. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

SD, the issue is that "cherry-picked" implies it was done deliberately, whereas "these sources don't adequately represent the various RS characterizations" doesn't. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

"these sources don't adequately represent the various RS characterizations"... who talks like this? Are we lawyers in a courtroom?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness, of course no one talks like that. We write like that, because it's more respectful than accusing people of cherrypicking and pushing debunked fraud. We assume good faith. But feel free to put it into your own respectful phrasing. —valereee (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• It seems these blocks have expired, so while a lot of this may be moot it's worth thinking ahead to how we can better manage decorum at Syrian Kurdistan. One thing that stuck out to me was the hour-long block as it seems like a weird amount of time. Cool-down blocks are an c2:AntiPattern because they tend to have the opposite effect on people, making them more upset, and I struggle to think how a one-hour block would be useful for anything other than a cooling off period. Given Levivich's comment though, I think a stern talking to wouldn't be very effective since that's been tried without much success. I think a better course of action would be to use discretionary sanctions. Some pretty standard ones would be page bans, topic bans, interaction bans, etc, and I think handing a couple week-long bans would help improve the environment more than blocks right now. But feel free to get creative with the sanctions--if there are issues with bludgeoning or sources, try limiting the number of responses per thread a person can make or enforce some sort of format for source discussions. I think the intention of bringing decorum to the talk page was correct and commendable, but I think blocks were the wrong tool for the job. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

  Wug, I'm wryly recognizing that idea of we used to call antipatterns 'bad ideas.' My thinking was that the shorter the block, the less harsh it seemed as a response, and was just a desperate attempt to say, "hey, no, seriously, I'm serious here, STOP." But I think you're right, a different approach would be better. Maybe an 'only warning' template? I don't know. This article is just a black hole for time and energy. —valereee (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

  It is that. Blocks are our pointiest sticks, and often draw blood. One of the recipients of your one hour blocks has been editing (sporadically, but so what) since 2006 without any evident issues; the unblock request says "Prefer indef". That's how much of an insult that block is received as, even if your intent was not to drive someone away. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

  Jpgordon, I saw that, and it's one of the things that made me open this. I don't ever want to drive a well-intentioned editor away, and if I can improve how I deal with issues, I want to. —valereee (talk) 00:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• I endorse these blocks; personally I would have blocked everyone for the same amount of time, and it would have been somewhat longer. As Levivich reported above, all of the users who were blocked have been taking warnings from multiple administrators for many days now to discuss the content and to lay off the personal sniping, both on the talk page itself and in the several ANI reports that have spawned from this incident, while other editors involved in the talk page discussions have been begging for admins to do something. If we were not going to move past warnings into actions, we were going to establish a precedent that any aspersion is acceptable, and it is not. Valereee should be commended for trying something to make Wikipedia better. As for lowering the protection level I'm against it: these editors have just continued feuding and nothing has been settled or even really discussed at all in any constructive manner, and I have no confidence whatsoever that if the protection is lowered that the editors involved won't immediately resume their content feud. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

  I'd not have complained about blocking the bunch of them for disruption, tendentious behavior, whatever. My concern was this use of mini-blocks, and their justifications ("blocked for seeming not to assume good faith in this instance".) That's not the right way to use the pointy broom. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• For the most part I agree with Ivanvector's comments above. However, looking at Talk:Syrian Kurdistan, it is clear that the main problem there is not incivility as such but persistent tendentious editing by several (perhaps most) participants in the disputes there. As I understand it, the page is now covered under the Syrian civil war general sanctions. So any uninvolved admin can start handing out topic bans there, and I really think they should. Nsk92 (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) No objection to the blocks; agree with Levivich that as long as the disputes are localized to one or two pages, longer partial blocks are another reasonable approach here. --JBL (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• Nsk92, one of the problems is that until we peel off the ABF/incivility, it's hard for editors to even deal with the tendentious editing. IMO the content disputes can be more clearly seen when there aren't the various ABF to maneuver around. That said, I think the blocks were the wrong thing to do. I apologize, both to Supreme Deliciousness, Fiveby, GPinkerton, and to the community. I should have instead given a partial from that page or a tban. Thank you all for your helpful feedback. —valereee (talk) 10:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• That talk page looks like a mess. Seems kinda strange to criticise admins for not doing enough and simultaneously blame them for doing something. Warnings are empty if only followed up with more warnings. ABF is never a localised attitude anyway. Personally, I learned my lesson questioning valereee's blocks, they seem to work out for the better. I also think 1hr blocks in such situations are better than week long page sanctions or topic bans, both for the blocked editors, but more importantly for the content on the page. Thus, good block. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

"... are better than [...] topic bans." Certainly not. The talk page is simply crying for topic bans to be imposed to several long term tendentious editors. That would stop their disruption for good, and would help with more than just the page in question. Since General Sanctions are available in this case, they should have been used a long time ago. Nsk92 (talk) 11:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, depends on the behaviour, right? By in such situations I was referring to these blocks, not the whole talk page. If it's chronic POV and TE that's something else. I imagine different reasons apply to different editors on that page, and GP's comment below seems worth looking into. I think an issue is also that it'll take a fair amount of admin effort, on someone's part, to look into this, and it probably doesn't feel worth investing that time if the resulting action will just be overturned with an appeal that dodges the point. It also likely doesn't help that, apparently, no parties have immaculate hands. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Hi all, I feel that most of the administrator action has so far been dancing around the issue and has been directed at me and not the problem itself. If perhaps someone could get around to dealing with the issues I raised at:

  *Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1052#User:عمرو_بن_كلثوم_and_Syrian_Kurdistan
  *Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Unequivocal_TENDENTIOUS_editing_by_عمرو_بن_كلثوم_on_Syrian_Kurdistan
  *Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Supreme_Deliciousness_and_WP:TENDENTIOUS_editing_on_Syrian_Kurdistan

  then this can be resolved all the sooner. I have already been blocked for a comment requesting that administrators need to take action on the chronic issue at work (but in that instance not in the right forum), which long predates my involvement in the Syrian Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article and in fact extends to many pages with which I have no involvement at all. I hope this is the right forum. GPinkerton (talk) 11:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

This is also the kind of thing I mean; obvious ad hominems to obfuscate the issue. GPinkerton (talk) 11:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, I'm going to accept responsibility for not making this clear earlier, but your ban is from discussing this article anywhere, as your participation has disrupted AN/I. It's only a few hours. Just go do something else. —valereee (talk) 13:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Is there somewhere else I should seek resolution? This approach doesn't seem to be working. GPinkerton (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• I'm a bit miffed that among some admin there is much concerns for the blocked editors and apparently no concern for other editors. The blocked editors might be upset by being blocked? Good! What about the rest of us getting upset by inaction? Do we matter? Blocks are a pointy weapon? Yes! What we needed was a pointy weapon! Blocks draw blood? Good! Maybe that'll encourage those editors to change! It bothers me that we prefer a situation where a page is full protected instead of a situation where three editors are blocked, because we're worried about those three editors' feelings. There are thousands of editors to consider! It bothers me that this has resulted with the enforcing admin apologizing to the editors, when it's those editors, not the admin, who did something wrong. And it bothers me when admin who did not spend a single minute of their time trying to help this situation would spend time criticizing those admins who did spend time trying to help this situation. In my view this block review moves us backwards. I respect val's conclusion here but I still think they were good blocks, and better than TBANs, and better than long term partial blocks. If someone had issued such blocks two weeks ago it would have saved probably over a hundred hours of editor time from a dozen editors. Don't be so afraid to use the admin tools, don't be so hesitant to pick out bad apples, please. For the rest of us. Remember the rest of us, it's not just about the squeaky wheel. And for gosh sakes, prefer blocks to full protection. Stop punishing the many for the acts of a few. Sorry to rant but it drives me nuts to see someone with good instincts get turned around by others with less good instincts. Levivich ^harass/_hound 14:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

  +1 ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

  Lol, sorry, Levivich. :) I do think a partial would have been a better choice, at least for SD and Fiveby, and even for GP a partial + tban for that article. I don't really feel like anyone criticizing my actions has done anything wrong or been too harsh, I came here voluntarily, asking for feedback, and after giving it some thought, I could definitely see the point. I apologized not because I thought I should have done nothing but because I could have made a better choice of what to do, and if I'd made that better choice, it would have been more productive, especially long-term. —valereee (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

  "Less good instincts"? Up yours. I saw a highly unusual use of the blocking tool, that was not (to me) evidently within policy, and I questioned it, and clearly my questioning it was correct. If that drives you to a rant, if that drives you nuts, you need to find a new hobby. This was a minor disagreement (if that) between two admins with over 100,000 edits and 30 years combined Wikipedia experience. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

  WP:CIVIL applies here just like everywhere else. Bear that in mind - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

  "Up yours" is fair but it's not a minor disagreement between two admins. First, I agree with you it's not a disagreement really at all. But second, it's bigger than two admins.

  I wrote this joke last year:

  A Wikipedian and a vandal are stranded on a desert island. On the first day, the Wikipedian builds a raft. That night the vandal destroys it. On the second day, the Wikipedian tells the vandal that one or more of his contributions to the raft did not appear constructive, and rebuilds the raft. The vandal destroys it. On the third day, the Wikipedian asks the vandal to please refrain from making unconstructive changes to the raft, and rebuilds it again. The vandal destroys it. On the fourth day, the Wikipedian tells the vandal that if he destroys the raft again, he may not be allowed to participate in the building of the raft, and rebuilds it once more. The vandal destroys it. On the fifth day, an admin arrives with the navy, declares that nobody can build a raft until everyone on the island agrees on whether or not a raft should be built, and sails off.

  The joke is an allegory about (among other things) admins protecting pages in the wrong version and requiring non-disruptive editors to work with disruptive editors in order to get the protection lifted, when what they should do instead is simply remove the disruptive editors. Syrian Kurdistan is that island right now. 50,000+ editors and not one can edit Syrian Kurdistan for a month because we're worried about upsetting disruptive editors. This isn't just about two admins disagreeing; this obstructs the progress of the project in a very real and harmful way. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

  The allegory is invalid. If these editors are not editing in good faith -- if they've proven that our assumption of good faith is unwarranted -- then the editors should be removed. Content disputes are not WP:VANDALISM. NPOV violations are not in themselves WP:VANDALISM. Tendentious editing is not in itself WP:VANDALISM. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 17:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

  You unblocked accepted an unblock request of an expired block with an |accept= reason questioning the validity of the block without talking to the blocking admin first and finding out the reason for the block. You assumed you knew better and took action, even, apparently, without being aware of the background, including four (now) open ANI threads. You also assumed incorrectly in this thread that it was a "single lapse" (it wasn't). You think the question is whether these editors are "editing in good faith" (it's not; the question is whether they are editing disruptively; the only people who are questioning good faith are the editors who were blocked for ABF), and your take-away from my last post is that I think the problem is vandalism, content disputes, NPOV, or tendentious editing (it's none of those things; it's incivility, bludgeoning, and ABF; note I used the word "disruptive" multiple times in my last post). So I stand by "less good instincts." I imagine you stand by "up yours". I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. :-) Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

  Admins aren't police officers and a block isn't the same as jail, but to use that familiar analogy: if a police officer can't see a good reason why a prisoner is in jail, should he (A) ask the arresting officer, or (B) unlock the jail cell and then ask the arresting officer? Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

  Bullshit. I didn't unblock anyone; the block was already expired. I didn't assume, I asked a question based upon the only information provided by the blocking admin. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

  Sorry, my mistake: you didn't unblock, you accepted an unblock request of an expired block. I've fixed it above. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

  Jpgordon, I have to agree with Levivich that this is an issue bigger than a disagreement between two admins. I respect your opinion, and I trust your judgement, but if I'd given a vaguer reason -- disruptive editing, maybe -- would you even have thought to object? Because what's going on at that article is incredibly disruptive, to the point it's daunting to anyone who might try to come in and help with the content disputes. Whole long paragraphs of ABF, resulting in walls of text. I believe apologizing and deciding to use another solution in a similar situation in future was a good idea, but the original blocks weren't IMO a wrong choice. They just weren't the best choice. —valereee (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

  You are correct. We have the large problem of what to do on that terrible talk page and similar situations. My only issue in this instance was the use of the micro-blocks, and that appears resolved (they are not the best tool to use in that situation), so I'm outta this one. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• I repeat: If the admins participating in this thread really feel like doing something useful, they should stop arguing about microblocks and instead hand out a few topic bans for tendentious editing to some of the more vexatious participants at Talk:Syrian Kurdistan. That entire talk page is a cry for help. Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant are availble. Nsk92 (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

  Nsk92, Vexatious: [48] (See source and next comment; clear misrepresentation of sources.) GPinkerton (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  Now I have been blocked (for stating the facts in this edit) but persistent, blatant, tendentious, and nationalistic editing continues unabated and unadmonished, with the crudest of barrel-scraping ideological distortion. The procedures are malfunctioning badly. How much of the encyclopaedia is interlarded with such nonsense because of inadequate administrator oversight? This should worry everyone, a lot! GPinkerton (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

  I don't have the time or frankly interest to wade into that pit of vipers, but I will say this: GPinkerton, the fact you keep getting pulled into discussions on AN and ANI on this topic repeatedly (a) might reflect on your editing, not theirs; and (b) even if it doesn't, even if you're genuinely working from the standpoint of verifiability, not truth, it might not hurt to step away from the topic area for awhile and both calm down and let others calm down regarding you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

  The Bushranger, a cursory look at the page history and talkpage will show that option (a.) is insupportable. I don't have the time or frankly interest to wade into that pit of vipers is becoming part of the problem, yet the issue is complex one which is cut-and-dried nationalistic POV-pushing when actually examined even briefly. The opportunity to crush the vipers is available, but unused. GPinkerton (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Request to Block the suspected editor Slatersteven, for his unruly behavior, nepotsim, shielding global terrorism

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

---

Hi,

I have been requesting brief edits on page Talk:2019 Balakot airstrike, since 27-November, to the protected article 2019 Balakot airstrike. Unfortunately, my request had been turned down by few editors, irrespective of repeated explanation, discussions, and valid references and justification. Basically, I found the article 2019 Balakot airstrike was deviating and distorting the story.

I have notified the editor Slatersteven in his talk page, given notice through Wiki Admin here on 6-Dec-2020. Yet to receive any reply/action on suspected editor Slatersteven.

excessive content collapsed ~ mazca talk

I seek wikipedia admin to block the editor Slatersteven (talk) from doing any further edits related to India and Indians. Black list and ban from any editing, atleast for an year for his unruly behaviour, irresponsible, favoratism, nepotism and shielding global terrorism. Also, I make humble request to wikipedia Admin to incorporate my two of the below edit requests on page protected article "2019 Balakot airstrike". Summary of discussion 08:53, 27 November 2020 (UTC) I made two requests given below; 18:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC) : Editor Kautilya3 (talk) had blatently turned down evidence from Indian newspapers supporting my edit requests while he accept similar citation from pakistani or other news papers. Further more, he also criticised and pulling down the Indian government to speak to few individuals and newspaper posted article in wikipedia and providing evidence from news paper. It is highly objectionable that on the name of editor, Kautilya3 needed Indian governemnt to edit messages posted based on news papers. I have provided the same above explanation and discussed on page 09:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC} another editor Slatersteven (talk) had objected my argument and asked for third parties other than Indians to edit the page. This is blatant reply and cannot be accepted that none of the indians could seek edit request on the page while many messages published in the article refers just pakisthanis, many individuals and news papers. 15:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC) I replied and explained him his disorder, as above. 15:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC) same editor Slatersteven (talk) again intervened and repeating the same as India and Indians cannot ask for edit requests on this page while publishing messages from pakistanis and pakistan agencies. He simply turned deaf and and blind on me , on Indian and indians and my request. 09:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC) Again I explained him of his disorder, as above and simplified my request 09:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC) Again editor Slatersteven (talk) intervened unnecessarily and turned down my request. He did not even read my explanation and discussion provide above. At this time I would have expected him to refer the matter to other editors as I have no control to choose editors. I treat this as either he is determined to wage war against Indian and Indians and the wikipedia readers. 13:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC) I made him understand his disorder and be fair in publishing security and terrorism related matters. I wrote in strong words of his behaviour and treatment of others especially those who talk in favor of India, with similar credible evidence. 13:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC) Now the same editor Slatersteven (talk), started to say they did publish news from india on this article. He is contradicting from his own words he put on discussion. He is not talking consciously. He is not accepting strong argument in favor of India with credible evidence. Now It was clear to me that his ultimate aim is not to publish any news in favor of India. Favaratism and Nepotism is high with this editor Slatersteven (talk). He was trying to cheat me and my valid case. He was diverting public attention from the topic. 08:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC) again I made strong commitment to make valid changes to the article. I unveiled all his undertone and hidden agenda behind his response to my discussion. 10:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC) Still the same editor Slatersteven (talk) was blatant and turned deaf and blind on my request. 12:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC) I again simplified my request and humbly asked him to publish with the consequences of nepotism unveiled by few editors like him. 12:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC) same editor Slatersteven (talk) blocked me from further discussion on the page that he was palnned to do so at the beginning and unveiled his religious fundamentalism, nepotism and favoring global terrorism. I seek wikipedia admin to block the editor Slatersteven (talk) from doing any further edits related to India and Indians. Black list and ban from any editing, atleast for an year for his unruly behaviour, irresponsible, and an act of nepotism. Also, I make humble request to incorporated my two of the edit requests on page protected article "2019 Balakot airstrike" Edit request 1 Either to replace para 5 from summary with below message or add below message next to para 5 Spice-2000 bombs, described as a "decapitating weapon", are designed to penetrate enemy buildings, bunkers or makeshift shelters, before exploding inside at the point of contact. It wont damage external structure. So, damages wont be found and traceable from satellite images. refer citations https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2019/mar/04/satellite-imagery-will-show-damages-done-by-the-iaf-jets-in-balakot-air-strike-sources-1946619.html. https://theprint.in/opinion/balakot-air-strike-why-iaf-used-907-kg-penetrator-bombs-to-target-jaish-terror-camp/205227/ Edit request 2 Either to replace para 3 under section "Damage" with below message or add below message next to para 3 The structure was attacked and hit by atleast three spice 2000 bombs penetrated into the main structure, destroying enemies and target internally. Refer citation ; https://theprint.in/opinion/balakot-air-strike-why-iaf-used-907-kg-penetrator-bombs-to-target-jaish-terror-camp/205227/. Further, various phone calls from Jaish members made distress calls during that night/day of attack and even top member confirmed attack through his affected colleague. This triggered pakistan army to corden off the structure on behalf of Jaish terror gangs. Pakistan did not have allowed anyone to reach the spot for over a month, until all are evacuated and or disposed off and rectified/covered up the minimal damage happened externally, as intended. Further, it took more than a year for pakistan govt/army to hand it back to Jaish terror gangs. Refer citation ; https://www.oneindia.com/india/pak-agencies-set-to-give-back-full-control-of-balakot-facility-to-jaish-e-mohammad-3179523.html. If there is no attack or damage to the structure, why was it took pakistan more than a year to hand it over back to jaish terror gangs?. Why didn't pakistan allowed any one for over a month since the attack on 26-feb-2019 to 29-Mar-2019, remain unanswered?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8F8:1A63:73E1:2D99:E143:3F00:D284 (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

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

User Koavf block review

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

---

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

A few days ago Koavf was blocked indefinitely for edit warring by Joe Roe. His immediate appeal was declined, and followed by a discussion on his talk page which did not reach a consensus to unblock, nor about exactly what should be done.

Koavf's block log currently records 27 blocks (not counting entries for changing block duration), 21 of which are for edit warring. These blocks consistently span 15 years of Koavf's wiki-career: they're not in groups of isolated incidents, they are a pattern of habitual, persistent, intractible problems. They have been subject to admin-imposed, community, and Arbcom restrictions to try to curb their edit warring behaviour throughout this time, yet here we are again. Koavf is also one of our most active and prolific editors, second in all-time edit count (not sure if the list includes bots). One might say that an editor with more than two million edits is bound to run into trouble from time to time, but one might just as reasonably say that such an editor ought to know to avoid behaviour that has repeatedly led to blocking. Responding to this latest block, Koavf was quick to point out that any revert restriction previously imposed on them was eventually lifted on appeal, but the block log does not back this up: they were handed an Arbcom 1RR restriction several years ago as an unblock condition, and were blocked for violating it six times before it expired.

Just to be clear, I'm not agitating for Koavf to be banned or to stay blocked indefinitely, nor is this a third-party appeal. It's just that we've tried numerous different ways of sanctioning and restricting this behaviour, and I'm not the first admin to say I really don't know what else we can do. We can't just keep having this exact discussion every few months - it's not fair to the community, nor to the many less experienced editors who have been much more seriously sanctioned long before getting to a double-digit block count for the same behaviour.

So what's the way forward? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Is there something that can be added to a user's .css file that would hide the "undo" button? Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

In diffs, that would be .mw-diff-undo { display: none; }. --Izno (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Throw in .tw-revert too. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it would work - there are manual ways of undoing (i.e. going to the previous version, and simply copying & pasting). GiantSnowman 17:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the point was that it gives one pause. Like, I dunno, when you know you shouldn't be using Wikipedia at work so you add it to your /etc/hosts to block access. You could get around your own self-imposed block with another 15 seconds of time, but in the process you're reminded why you added the block in the first place, and hopefully the better half of the brain takes over and resists the devil's temptations. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm loathe to be an armchair psychiatrist, but it looks to me very clearly to be an impulse control problem. It's so easy to read something, get mad/excited/otherwise emotional about it, and click that undo button (with or without snappy edit summary). It's cathartic, too. We've all been there... some of us have better self control than others. A manual revert takes a lot more time/effort; it slows an editor down. By the time they get to the edit summary, they're not feeling so snappy anymore.

If we were physically in the same office, I'd get up, bring Justin a cup of coffee, physically rip the undo button off of his keyboard, pat him on the back, and go back to work.

I think Justin is a fine editor who just can't have that button because he can't stop pushing it. So I'd support an indefinite sitewide 1RR restriction, a sitewide 0RR restriction, or a technically-enforced 0RR restriction (if possible, add code to Justin's common.css that literally removes the undo button from everywhere), any one of which I think is a better step to try in lieu of a siteban/indef. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, unrelated to this discussion, if the ability to revert/undo/rollback could go back to being a userright that admins could revoke, or a function that could be part-blocked, that would solve a lot of repeat problems. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: .tw-revert for some reason isn't working for me. But .mw-diff-undo, .mw-history-undo, .tw-revert { display: none;} added to common.css removes undo from diffs and page histories (except the twinkle part that's not working). Levivich ^harass/_hound 21:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hm. It's apparently #tw-revert (id not class), but it also seems like this only applies on the most recent revision (ie the ones you can rollback). If you view a diff that isn't the most recent (so that it only shows "restore this revision" rather than the rollback options) the ID is like tw-revert-to-992356724. So, all in all, something like .mw-diff-undo, .mw-history-undo, #tw-revert, [id^="tw-revert-to-"] { display: none; } will do the trick? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: Yup, that works, thanks! Levivich ^harass/_hound 05:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Just want to add here that, technical aspects aside, this is a really poor solution, similar to treating someone like a toddler — "If you can't play nice with your bulldozer I'll have to take it away." If we're seriously at that point where folks think an editor needs this sort of thing to be productive, then that editor is not productive, and should've been blocked ages ago. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who has had no or almost no personal interaction with Koavf aside from their occasional appearance at AN/ANI: leave them blocked. If they were not the second (or so) most prolific editor on this website, the past two years of their block log would have gotten them indeffed a LONG time ago. Their response to the block on the talk page suggests to me that they don't think the normal rules on edit-warring apply to them since they keep talking about "specific community sanctions" while ignoring the existence of our edit-warring and 3RR policies. We have consistently reinforced that behavior by unblocking them early - all of the sitewide blocks in the past two years have unblocked early with "time served," "user agrees to stop edit-warring," "user commits to using dispute resolution" - clearly that isn't working out. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree with GN. Being prolific is no excuse for behaviour like that, and any other editor with a block log like that would have been indeffed long ago. GiantSnowman 17:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

No user, no matter who it is, be it Jimbo, Koavf, myself, etc. is bigger than the project. The rules for behavior here are the same whether you have 2 edits, or 2 million. That block log, if it was for a user with less edits, would warrant an indef. I agree. Leave them be. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Further opinions after reading subsequent comments: I oppose any immediate or near-term unblock, even with restrictions. I favor converting this to a CBAN and having Koavf take the SO at some point in the future. If we're setting future unblock conditions now, I would support 0RR or 1RR (without these excessively complicated "0RR for some reverts, 1RR for others, except on every third Tuesday where they get -1RR and on federal holidays where they get 1.5RR"). I oppose the forced implementation of technical restrictions on rollback, but am all for presenting them to Koavf as options to help them, NOT requirements (these are tools that could help avoid the impulse to rollback, no more).

With apologies to Dr. Seuss, an alternative formulation of my thoughts:

I will not unblock, this goes too far

I will not unblock with RR

I will not unblock for CSS

I will not unblock, they've transgressed

I will not unblock, not today.

I will not unblock, no, no way.

GeneralNotability (talk) 02:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

So if the community is going to be assuming this block, I think it's important that is made clear rather than just "leave him blocked" so that it's clear to him about what his avenue for unblock is. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• Unfortunately he seems to be a classic case of an editor who simply doesn't think the rules apply to them. He full well knows the rules about edit warring but cannot stop himself. I've also seen him cause problems on at least two occasions this year by implementing rash changes to high use templates/infoboxes without trialling them in the sandbox – in one case he was reverted but simply reinstated the same change a few hours later. It would be incredibly annoying for editors who stick to the rules to see a prolific offender be allowed back again. I would suggest that he be told he can appeal some time down the line (perhaps a year) and then can only be brought back with a 0RR restriction. Number 57 19:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
• As the blocking admin, I don't have much of substance to add to my initial block rationale. I haven't interacted much with koavf, apart from blocking him for edit warring last year, and again now under very similar circumstances. In both cases the conduct struck me as really over-the-top battleground behaviour and surprising coming from such an experienced editor. Last time I offered him a quick path to an unblock if he agreed to stop, which he did, and even though this time the problem was exactly the same (refusing to take contested blank-and-redirects to AfD/a talk page and edit warring instead), that was my first instinct again. After reading what Ivanvector and others have said, I'm not so sure. In koavf's defence, many of the things mentioned above happened years ago and he had a clean block log between 2010 and 2019. But we have been here before, several times. He hasn't stuck to previous, informal unblock conditions, and in the recent talk page conversation he's given the impression that only formal sanctions and other bright-line "rules" (e.g. WP:3RR vs. WP:EW) matter. So I worry that any anything we come up with here will be gamed and reinforce the idea that he can get away with ignoring conduct policies as long as he says the right things afterwards. Personally, I think we have better things to do than micromanage that kind of behaviour. But I'll leave it for others with perhaps more patience to decide. – Joe (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
• @Ivanvector: I might be missing something, but did Koavf request this be brought here for discussion? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

  He did not. He appealed the block on his talk page, which was declined by 331dot, and following that Joe Roe suggested that an unblock should be with some kind of condition, and also quite pointedly if I may say so that a user of Koavf's experience ought to know better by now. Barkeep49 suggested terms for a conditional unblock if Koavf could answer some questions about the edit warring policy, which I suggested was a bad idea given the number of times Koavf has previously been given conditions and/or conditional unblocks which were proven ineffective. 331dot's decline was somewhat procedural I think, but I'm under the impression that Koavf did not satisfy Barkeep49's questions. That was on Wednesday. Barkeep49 pinged me today to ask if I was going to do anything because it's not fair to Koavf to just leave him hanging, and while I agree I also have no idea what's next. Hence this discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

  To add, based on the feedback Joe and Ivan offered there was a sense that it might be appropriate for the community to weigh in, as some other sanction might be appropriate at this point. Given those comments I paused my discussion with him pending any sort of decision the community would make. Like you I am concerned about the possibility of a community block without a person having appealed but since there was some thinking that a community sanction, including possibly site ban, would be appropriate I did encourage Ivan to come here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

  It just feels like something wrong is happening in spite of no one person doing anything wrong. I'm not saying Ivanvector did anything wrong by bringing it here (particularly the part where he makes clear he isn't trying to get them banned), I can't articulate exactly how this is demonstrably unfair, but it just feels really unfair. An editor is unilateral blocked by an admin (which I have no issue with individually), it's brought to ANI by a third party for review without the request of the blocked editor (but with the best of intentions by the third party), the community discusses it and looks like it might decide not to unblock right now (which is not necessarily the wrong decision if it had been brought here by the blocked editor), and yet it somehow morphs into a community ban, where from now on, the editor has to appeal to the community. I kind of understand how these things happen, but it seems like it's been happening more frequently lately, and it keeps blowing up in the face of the blocked editor, who hasn't actually requested community review. I mean, I guess I understand in theory that if at any time a consensus exists that an editor should stay blocked, there should be a new consensus before an unblock. But in practice it seems unfair in a way I apparently can't describe well. Maybe if AN/ANI were fit for purpose I'd be less concerned... --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• I think an unblock with 0RR (with the proposed CSS hack so Koavf doesn't forget) would be more beneficial for the project as a whole. We should only block users who are considered a net negative. We all have flaws. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

To clarify: I mean 0RR using undo/rollback (so no undo/rollback/Twinkle rollback and the CSS hack to ensure Koavf can't accidentally forget) and 1RR by manually editing a page or loading an older revision and publishing that. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• There is no need for action, because the user is already indefinitely blocked, and should remain so: given their block log, it is clear that their conduct is extremely unlikely to improve. Sandstein 20:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblock with an indefinite WP: 0RR restriction. This can be appealed to a WP: 1RR after 6 months, six months after that the 1RR should be resumed. Any breaches of this should result with a resume of this indef, however, if an admin is leniant, it should be no less then 3 months. If they refuse to agree, I oppose any unblock within the next period of a year. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@HurricaneTracker495: Koavf has already said on their talk page If that's [x] days off, then a 1/0RR for [y] time, then I appreciate the opportunity. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I want to make sure he is ok with my specific condition. Because it involves times of appeal and when he can appeal. For example if he gets unblocked 00:00 UTC tomorrow, then it's not until 00:00 June 5 when he can appeal his 0RR, and if that passes at 00:00 June 7, it's not until 00:00 December 7(2021) when he can appeal his 1RR. In addition, his rollback should be revoked as part of an unblock condition, as should his pending changes reviewer. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@El C: what do you say? --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Since you pose the question to me specifically, HurricaneTracker495, I also echo your recommendation for a mandatory 0RR of an indefinite duration as a sort of last chance saloon. Mostly, because I'm a pragmatist when it comes to such a prodigious contributor. But, in the interest of transparency, it is probably worthwhile to note that my experience with Justin is coloured by him generally being a nice person whom I always liked (before, during, and after my succession of blocks this summer). Justin has been unfailingly respectful and polite, even when the heat was on and he was frustrated — these are attributes which are greatly to his credit. That said, let's put the cards on the table. During this summer, Justin broke 3RR (on an article talk page of all places), so I partially blocked him from that talk page for one week. Then a few weeks later, he violated 3RR again, so this time, I sitewide blocked him for a week — was unblocked early by Ivanvector after a few days (it should be noted that Ivanvector convinced me to waive my objections to an early unblock). Then, about a month later, he broke 3RR yet again, so I sitewide blocked him for one month this time — but again, was unblocked early, this time by Newyorkbrad after about a week. This time, I did not waive my objections to an early unblock, a stance for which I came under heavy criticism, where many argued that this one-month block was too harsh. This was an argument which I felt (and still do) was bewildering, because it stood in stark contrast to the maxim of enforcement escalation for bright-line rule recidivism. Still, even at that point I was not advocating for an indefinite block. And I continue to oppose one now. If Justin needs an indefinite 0RR restriction to retain editorial standing, I just don't see what harm there in trying that out. True, several participants above note that Wikipedia is not therapy, and they are not wrong. That is fair enough. But if we do potentially have at our disposal a magic pill in the form of an indefinite 0RR restriction, I do think we should give it a shot. Losing Justin would be a sad day for the project and would be sad for me, personally. Let's not let that happen for naught. If, as ProcrastinatingReader notes directly below, this proves untenable, then it does. But at least we can take comfort in knowing that we really did all we could. As for how that is to come about (and how long Justin should remain blocked for beforehand), I'm happy to go with the flow as far as those details go. El_C 22:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah, on closer read, I misunderstood ProcrastinatingReader's point below — namely, that simpler restrictions are smarter restrictions. They are right, of course. El_C 22:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think a simple 0RR, everywhere, is untenable (that I think is a good idea), but I think the strange proposed mixtures of 0RR for using the undo button, 1RR for manual reverts, expiring 00:00 UTC in 6 months, then converting into 1RR immediately which expires in another 6 months, plus all the stuff here, is all too much. I can't even wrap my head around it; unintentional violations and confusion will likely happen. I also don't think this is about unblockables as much as it is about considering whether a Koavf that doesn't edit war is a better outcome (for the content on this encyclopaedia) than no Koavf. I think, probably, yes. Luckily for Koavf they only have one issue, and this seems to be a recurrence/flareup rather than a persistent 15-year pattern (clean block log for 9 years prior to mid 2019). Besides, and I'm not saying that this conduct isn't problematic, but edit-warring over Special:Diff/991881812 is a drop in the bucket compared to the disruption caused by persistent POV pushers, persistent low-level incivility and general toxicity-inducing logorrhoea, elsewhere on AN/ANI right now, and it doesn't get any sanctions. Koavf could edit war once a month and he'd still be less disruptive. So yes, perhaps something needs to be done here, but for a generally productive editor with some impulsivity with the undo button I think we can do better than an indef. Not necessarily for the sake of that editor, but for the sake of the project; Koavf does not appear like a net negative to me. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Koavf is definitely a valuable editor, and I see where your statements are coming from. Maybe, based on the doubling technique, we reduce the block to 2 months, and then put him on a WP: 1RR restriction after. And then, instead of one revert every 24 hours, it's one revert every 2 weeks(which, if anyone cares, is 336 hours). --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• Wayyyyy too complicated above if going this route imo - complicated restrictions do not work. No need for these strict timezone stuffs, or conditions if Y then Z, or 0RR if X but 1RR if Y. Simpler restrictions are smarter restrictions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
• What am I missing? Five blocks in 2020 for edit warring. 27 blocks in total. And, people are !voting for them to be unblock after only a few days with a restriction they can appeal in six months? We should preserve a copy of this discussion for reference at WP:UNBLOCKABLES. Mkdw ^talk 21:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • This. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Yup. You guys wonder why we have intractable problems? It's because they're made exactly like this. Katie^talk 17:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Here's what you might be missing, or at least here's why 27 blocks in total including 4 in 2020 (not 5) for edit warring don't alarm me. Because lies, damned lies, and statistics:
    1. 21 of those 27 blocks occurred between 2005 and 2008, when Koavf was ~23-26 years old (according to his Wikipedia page). I don't hold against people the transgressions they made 12+ years ago, as that's ancient history, and I don't really judge adults in their late thirties or older by what they did in their twenties, as I hope I'm never judged by what I did at that age.
    2. That leaves 6 blocks in the last 12 years (Dec 2008 to Dec 2020), which is not bad, particularly when you consider that those 12 years = >1 million edits. Nobody gets sitebanned for a block-per-year or block-per-edit ratio that low.
    3. Even that isn't the whole story, because in those 12 years, it was one block in 2010 and one block in 2019. That's a 9-year period with no blocks in between: that's pretty good, especially considering those 9 years probably also = >1 million edits. That's like 10-20 productive editors' careers' worth of nondisruptive editing right there.
    4. So 4 blocks in 2020, specifically starting June 2020. Can anybody think of a reason why someone might, after ~12 years of barely any blocks for edit warring, be blocked multiple times for edit warring this year? Anyone? Bueller?
    5. In the last 10 years (Dec 2010-Dec 2020), Koavf has been blocked 5 times by two admins. The last block was reviewed at AN. There's no need to relitigate those blocks here, but suffice to say that at least some editors (inc. me) disagreed with at least some of those blocks.

  Putting it all together, no, I don't think we should siteban Koavf for being blocked too much. 27 sounds like a lot, but it's not when you realize it's less than 5 valid edit warring blocks in the last 10 years and >1 million edits, which is not a terribly high block rate, esp. when almost all of them came during the pandemic, and all of them were made by only by two admins. After Koavf received his 21st block in 2008, the community did not siteban him. Looking back at his last 12 years of contributions since then, I think that was a good choice, not a mistake. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I have never subscribed to the principle that you should lower a bar to the point where a disruptive person who still fails to acknowledge their problematic behaviour does not even notice if they have passed over it or not. It is as close an endorsement or an apology for WP:UNBLOCKABLES which has no place in our community. Mkdw ^talk 19:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Support unblock with 1RR/0RR. Kovaf's contributions are long-term and evidently a net positive, but edit warring is always unacceptable and measures should be taken to prevent this from happening again, including an appropriate common.css. 🎄🎄 Ed talk! 🎄🎄 21:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep block until Koavf submits an unblock request that includes a solution that satisfies the community. It's his problem to solve, not everyone else's. Schazjmd (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
• I'm with General Notability. Leave them blocked for at least 6 months. At that time they can appeal and the question of restrictions can be revived. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
• Good block and leave it be unless or until he makes an unblock request since I really want to get away from things that look like third party appeals. I like the idea of mandating css that removes the undo button--it's quite clever--but this is exactly why third party appeals are a bad idea. It's simply not fair to Justin that--without his consent--we're now discussing new sanctions that probably wouldn't have happened if he were allowed to follow the standard offer like everyone else. Unless this is explicitly a CBAN discussion, I feel uncomfortable with this closing as anything other than good block/bad block. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

  This does not seem like a traditional third party appeal. The editor submitted an unblock request regarding which admins could not come to an agreement. Per the Wikipedia:Blocking policy: If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard is recommended. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

  I recognize it's not a "traditional" third party appeal, that's why I said "things that look like third party appeals". We don't allow such appeals anyway so it's not like there's a "tradition" to conform to in the first place. Secondly, the quoted part of BLOCKPOL doesn't apply. The blocking admin is available and the only unblock request was reviewed and denied. The disagreement on the talk page is about conditions of an unblock which requires Justin's consent and any given admin's, not a consensus of admins. The applicable section is WP:CONDUNBLOCK If the blocked user does not reach an agreement on proposed unblock conditions with an administrator, the blocked user may post another block appeal (emphasis added) and Justin has not posted another unblock appeal. We benefit no one by continually weakening our prohibition on third party appeals. Unless or until Justin specifically asks for community review of the block, I think having unstructured discussions about a user with no clear goal is a bad idea. Not only is it a bad idea, it continues a bad precedent of circumventing our usual unblock mechanisms for people we like. Justin has been blocked over 20 times for things like this and I'm opposed to anything that even smells like special treatment at this point. We have a process for this, and it does not include holding a moot court at AN. (edit conflict) — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

  No, and I said in the opening statement that it's not meant to be a third-party appeal. I also oppose third-party appeals, but in this case Koavf did appeal himself, on his talk page. Four admins couldn't come to an agreement on that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

  Not meant, but it has the same effect as one. Yes, he appealed himself, but it was subsequently denied. In doing so, were our procedures not followed (making this an WP:ADMINACCT issue)? If not, why are we second guessing a valid admin action? If we're not second guessing 331dot's denial, then this is a new appeal, and it should be Koavf who initiates it when and where he is ready. He hasn't done that yet so what are we doing here? Imposing sanctions that he may not want based on a discussion he didn't ask for? I think that's fundamentally unfair. We as a community should not be issuing conditional unblocks sua sponte. I'm not saying this to fault you--I totally understand your thinking--but this is like the third instance of "I wanted to unblock but the most recent request was denied and no new request has been made" I've seen here in as many months. We're coming off the rails and this is an example of how these well meaning requests can wind up imposing harsher sanctions than would have happened if we all left well enough alone. This is as clear a case of WP:UNBLOCKABLE as I've seen and we really need to reflect on whether this is taking us in the direction we want to go. The whole thing just feels off to me, and I'd prefer we use our regular processes. If admins can't come to a consensus on an unblock, then no unblock. If the editor wants to appeal that, they can ask their next request be copied to AN. But unless an admin is copying an unblock request or asking that their own controversial block be reviewed, I don't think we should be discussing unblocks at AN. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Support unblock with 1RR/0RR - manage the edit warring. --evrik ^(talk) 22:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Evrik: what are your thoughts on revoking this users PCR (or, more importantly), rollback? --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

The loss of privileges may have to be the penalty paid. --evrik ^(talk) 22:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• Standard offer If we are going to treat repeat offenders the same, regardless of their contributions, then the obvious response to me is to offer them the standard offer. I value his contributions, but I fear if we, two days after they've been blocked, unblock with a 1RR or 0RR condition, we have to have a plan on what to do when THAT requirement is violated. After all of these promises, I don't think anyone can pretend that giving a restriction will be automatically adhered to. Or, we have to say, 1RR/0RR as a final chance and then an indefinite block, no more chances. But personally, I think a six month period before the next unblock request might get across the seriousness that the community feels about this repeated misconduct. Plus, it's what we recommend to just about every indefinitely blocked editor unless they are a vandal or sockpuppeteer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

  @Liz: WP: SO explicity says The six-month threshold can be adjustable under special circumstances. If an editor shows an unusually good insight into the circumstances that led to the block, and sets out a credible proposal for how they will deal with those issues in future, then a return might be considered sooner. On the other hand, if the indefinitely blocked/banned user continues to be especially disruptive, or has engaged in particularly serious misconduct, then some administrators may become unwilling to consider a return for a much longer time or, quite possibly, ever.. SO is not 6 months, and depending on what happens... --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Seriously? A block can be any length of time. But the standard Standard Offer is 6 months. I never said that a Standard Offer is only 6 months. If can be 3 months, it can be 12 months. But the standard is 6 months. What a pointless disagreement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the standard standard offer, we should really standardize the standard offer one of these days... GeneralNotability (talk) 01:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Stay blocked AT LEAST through the new year. At least! Seriously, this many blocks? 95% of other editors would have been indeffed without a second thought after HALF that number. Revoke their advanced privileges, and then make them come up with restrictions they can follow that will resolve this, with the understanding that the alternative is indefinite block and they can prove they have reformed on another Wikipedia site. The WP:UNBLOCKABLE mention above is way accurate. Gentle forms of persuasion haven't worked. The 2x4 upside the head hasn't worked. Bigger hammers are needed. Ravensfire (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

  @Ravensfire: What advanced permissions? I was only thinking PCR and rollback. They could possibly use there other ones wisely, such as template editor, NPR, autopatrolled and others. It seems silly to revoke rights not relevant to a 0RR/1RR restriction. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

  HurricaneTracker495, PCR and Rollback at a minimum. It's a bit of a trust thing at this point. For most editors, they'd be looking at WP:SO as the only option and probably would have anything else revoked. Koavf IS a huge exception to the "most" editors just because of the sheer net positive they bring, but part of the "bigger hammer" may be to pull everything, to underline that there is an issue with their general behavior. Ravensfire (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

  @Ravensfire: I strongly disagree. I present you two users-Miraclepine and Neveselbert. Miraclepine was indef blocked for CIR reasons and retained autopatrolled, and Neveselbert was blocked for sockpuppetry(unblocked after 7 months)and retained template editor. It even says, In general, rights of editors blocked indefinitely should be left as is. Rights specifically related to the reason for blocking may be removed at the discretion of the blocking or unblocking administrators.[16] This also applies to the user rights of site banned editors.[17]. In this case, rollback(and PCR)had directly to do with the block. (Now some users do lose there rights like Doc9871 or INeverCry). --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 23:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

  HurricaneTracker495, Fair enough! Ravensfire (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• Stay blocked I know if it had been me on the other end of 27 different blocks, the community (or certain members of it who like to "implement process") would demand my indefinite absence. I see no reason why Koavf should be treated any differently, they may have millions of edits but hey, all good things come to an end, and this is it. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• Convert to community site ban. The only way back here I can see is through the standard offer (that is, 6-12 months) with an appeal to AN demonstrating understanding and a commitment to change. At that stage the only option I would consider is 0RR in 24 hours combined with a consensus required provision, that is they cannot revert in the first 24 hours then need consensus for any edits of their's which are reverted. This would need to be in place (that is, no appeals allowed) for at least 12 months probably more like 24 months. While escalating blocks would be the norm, given the significant history here and that it is a very last chance, any breaches need to be met with long blocks (e.g. a 6 month block then back to an indef community ban). Any blocks should only be appealed to AN as the current block, any restrictions applied and any will be community bans. Pending changes reviewer and rollback should also be revoked with a request for them back not permitted while the these restrictions are in place and required to AN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

  @Callanecc: In that case, we need to decide a WP: SO length. 6 months? 1 year? 3 months? --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) HurricaneTracker495 I'd have no issue with 6 months per WP:SO but Koavf has the option to wait longer which I think would be wise as it's more likely to be accepted. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

  HurricaneTracker495, we don't determine the "standard offer" time at time of block/ban. SO is written out, but it's also not set in stone - an administrator may be willing to unblock a little earlier than 6 months, but there also is no requirement that an administrator unblock after those 6 months. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

  Now that I've re-read this, I think the confusion is over the concept of "standard offer" versus "ban which may not be appealed before (time period)". GeneralNotability (talk) 02:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Are you serious? WP:SO is already written out. No one needs to clarify it. Praxidicae (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: Yes, but there is some argument between six and 12 months. How about this-9 month SO, should one be warranted. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

The standard offer is 6 months. It's up to Koavf if he wants to wait longer. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with those above - Being prolific doesn't grant you a right to edit war. I also don't agree with them having stuff added to their CSS page - You either discuss things the moment you're reverted or you move on elsewhere. I would support unblocking after 6 months with the restriction of 0RR which to me seems fair and reasonable. –Davey2010^Talk 23:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
• I support Callanecc's proposal. In no other situation have we proposed custom css hacks to help a tenured editor abide by basic policy - one that is meant to prevent disruption, which they've repeated 4 times this year and with an endless block log. This is ridiculous and needs to stop. Praxidicae (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
• Stay blocked The amount of edit warring from such an experienced editor is ridiculous. He should appeal in 6 months like anyone else would have to after that number of blocks. P-K3 (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I basically oppose everything here. I oppose an unblock, I oppose a "conditional unblock" with a CSS-enforced no-revert, I oppose changing the block to a community ban, I oppose that we're having this unnecessary discussion at all. Koavf's block history suggests they can improve, but that's not going to happen with an immediate unblock. If Koavf wants to appeal in 2-3 months, we can consider it then. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

  @Power~enwiki: Read WP: CBAN. If this is declined, he IS banned. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

  @HurricaneTracker495: I disagree with that assumption. If this discussion is closed with no consensus but consensus against a CBAN, then there is no CBAN. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

  It explicity says, Per the banning policy, a blocked user who is or remains indefinitely blocked after a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is considered banned by the Wikipedia community. and Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". Therefore it is correct, and also this is only a small part of the community but it's kind of a pain to reping everyone. However, whoever unblocked Koavf the last time should be brought into this. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

  The first quote is from WP:SO, which is an essay. The second quote is from CBAN policy, and explicitly requires "due consideration". "Due consideration" is not synonymous with "a thread at AN". Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

  Ok, but I just proposed making it a guideline. See Wikipedia talk: Standard Offer HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Full ban (which is incidentally what their indef block will be converted to according to WP:CBAN unless this discussion results in an unblock). Koavf knows what they do is wrong. They do it anyway, full in the knowledge they will get away with it. Unblocking with a restriction that they have outright declared will be lifted eventually anyway is not going to make them change their behaviour. It never has before. Arguing they should be unblocked at this point not only enables their bad behaviour towards others, it is a direct endorsement and encouragement that they should continue. Its explicitly saying to everyone who isnt Koavf "You arnt worth as much as this person". Ban them and put an end to it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
• Good block. Having reviewed this its clear that they haven't learned. We can't keep on giving them n-th chances, so as a final chance I would want to leave Koavf blocked indef with an option of the standard offer (therefore under WP:CBAN be banned indef, so standard offer appeals would need to go to the community if I understand this correctly). If they want to take the standard offer, then yes they can in 6 months time, but otherwise leave them banned. Furthermore, I would also want to see as part of the standard offer Callanecc's 0RR restriction be as part of the unblock. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 01:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
• Good block - I'm not sure what the point of this thread is, Ivan's OP essentially doesn't say anything other than that it was an obvious justified block and that he's not proposing an unblock, so obviously the way forward is for Koavf to follow the normal unblocking process and try to negotiate an acceptable conditional unblock, and if he's unwilling to do that then the Standard Offer is the next thing on the table for him, and given the context six months time off is not particularly harsh anyways. I think Ivan is a brilliant administrator but this just seems like unnecessary drama. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
• 21 edit warring blocks already? I'm going to agree with Dreamy Jazz, above. The WP:Standard offer is the only thing that should be on the table. If this user needs to impose some discipline on themselves, the .css code is there for the taking, but it's meaningless imposed by the community. They need to actually want to stop their disruptive pattern, and if they need to remove the Undo button, then they need to choose to do that. VanIsaac_WS^cont 01:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblocking The "edit war," if you can even call it that, was clearly over when the block was applied which means the block was/is purely punitive. I strongly oppose a CBAN and I don't believe editing restrictions of any kind are necessary. Iaritmioawp (talk) 05:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose everything — I agree with power~enwiki: I oppose having this discussion, and I'd oppose either a cban or an unblock coming out of this discussion. It's neither an appeal nor a review. The community doesn't need to do anything. If Koavf wants to appeal, he can. If he wants to make another unblock request, he can. There is no indication here that the normal procedures are somehow inapplicable or nonfunctional here. It's funny because a lot of people are saying treat him like any other editor, yet we're not doing that; we're doing the opposite of that. Other editors don't have threads like these. Treating him like any other editor means doing nothing. He made an unblock request, it was declined, no one is appealing it or arguing against it. So let it be. Let Koavf decide if he wants to appeal, make another ordinary unblock request, or neither. I strongly, strongly disagree that either the spirit or letter of CBAN means that if this discussion ends in no consensus, the indef automatically converts to a CBAN. "Due consideration" means a proper appeal, not this. Levivich ^harass/_hound 05:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  • You know, Levivich, I get the sense that there are some cross currents going on here. On the one hand, we have Justin saying: 'spell out the restrictions for me and I'll comply with these once I'm unblocked, whenever that ends up being.' While many, including you, seem to expect Justin to appeal, presumably by saying: 'unblock me when you decide it's time to do so, I am committed to any new restrictions.' Well, it's not complicated: the new restriction ought to be an indefinite 0RR. Maybe one day, Justin will earn enough trust to turn it into a 1RR. Hopefully. I choose to be optimistic. What needs to be sorted out presently is the nature of the appeal itself, because I agree with you and Floquenbeam that this turning into a CBAN is problematic. We don't need to overcompensate for what happened this summer. Speaking of which (beyond Wikipedia): what a summer. What a year. But anyway, just because Justin (somehow) got the better of the admin boards when my 3rd 3RR block of him —in the span of 2 months!— got overturned (despite my emphatic objections /soap), doesn't mean he should get the worse of it now. Let's have less worse. Less worse is good for moral! El_C 06:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Yeah part of the reason I was so opposed to that block was because of the fear of a thread like this. But you're right, less worse is good for morale, and the important thing is the way forward/what-to-do-now. Hindsight being 20/20, I wonder if it would have been better to post a pointer here inviting admin to discuss at Koavf's UTP whether to accept an unblock request and if so under what conditions... really I think it's down to whether that condition would be 0RR or 1RR and for what period of time. The community shouldn't be involved unless and until someone appeals something... that is, until someone (Koavf or another editor) disagrees with an admin action (an accept or decline of an unblock request), at which point that person can make the argument as to why that action was wrong, and then the community will be in a position to give it "due consideration" by having an actual appeal to consider, written by the "appellant" (whoever that may be). Until then, kick it back to the UTP; Koavf knows his way around an unblock request. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @Levivich: It won't end until a consensus has emerged. If the consensus is for him to stay block, he remains blocked but with it turning into a ban. If it is with an unblock, he's unblocked. The reasoning is, let's say you have a block given by El C which is declined by Yamla, 331dot and NinjaRobotPirate. Not only El C, but those 3 admins need to be consulted. In this case, since the community as a whole is involved, the whole community needs to decide if he is unblocked. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
    • The 'whole community'? AN and AN/I are a minuscule fraction of 'the community', whatever it is you think that is supposed to mean. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
• Close as out-of-process - As editors above are treating this as a third-party appeal, close it as out-of-process. In support of Floq's 'feels really unfair' comment above: Non bis in idem. At least, not unless requested by the 'appellant' themselves. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. I think that an editor being blocked should not be able to preempt a community discussion on sanctioning said editor so long as they have the opportunity to comment on it via their talk page. We generally start these conversations before an editor get blocked, but I see no fundamental reason why the community shouldn't intervene if we feel a different sanction should be imposed. If we want to close this conversation with leaving the WP:SO available, we can do that. If we want to impose a CBAN or revert restriction, then that is also something we can do. Procedure should never block us from resolving conduct issues; it should only prevent us from making a situation worse. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 08:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment from what I can see, the crux of the edit-war related to the List of awards and nominations received by Elliot Page, with Kovaf trying to fix the BLP issues within said list. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• I also don't see the point of this discussion. If someone has a persistent problem with edit warring - as is blatantly the case here - then they should be blocked unless they can convince us that they won't do it again. "We can't just keep having this exact discussion every few months" - OK, then don't. Hut 8.5 09:22, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Time was a "community ban" was simply a block that no administrator was willing to undo. I think we're about there with Justin and this request, whatever its posture, should be treated in that light. My sense is that a number of administrators are unwilling to unblock under any conditions. I think it would entertain it under 0RR restriction, but I'm also in no real hurry about it. Mackensen (talk) 18:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block. I echo the editors above who have pointed out that any other editor with such an extensive block log would have been dismissed and left to be remain indefinitely blocked long ago, but because Koavf has 2 million edits, some editors will always find ways to excuse him or his behaviour. Special treatment because of a high edit count should not be a thing. Enough is enough. This is a waste of the community's time when every few months the community seems to be having the same discussion. He has clearly proven at this point that he will not change his behaviour. Others evidently disagree, but personally, I've not seen any edit from Koavf in the past year or few years that another editor has not already stepped up to fill the role of or is not already doing themselves. Ivanvector pointed out that Koavf does a lot of MOS:ACCESS work. So do a considerable amount of editors now that it's policy. Koavf's category edits and extensive script edits are also done by many of the other prolific editors (who also don't have AWB restrictions) on the site with considerably less problems and less to no edit warring. I just don't see what he's contributing that others aren't already doing with nowhere near the amount of problems. This isn't even to mention his blatant hounding of multiple editors including myself, which he continued even when asked to stop by an administrator. Leaving that aside though, twenty plus blocks for the same thing has proven when he has said he will stop, he obviously won't, no matter the restriction that he will eventually work his way out of. Let us stop having this timesink of a discussion every few months when if it were anybody else, it would have ended long ago with a sitewide ban and no AN threads multiple times a year. Ss112 18:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
• Close this discussion with no action Let Justin make his own unblock request and let him make his own offer of conditions. This is exactly the type of problem we get into when a "please review the recent block of [X]" turns into a "what should we do about [X]" What do we do about a problem like Koavf? Right now -- nothing. And nothing needs to be done right now. That's the entire point of indefinite blocks. (I really shouldn't need to make that observation, especially to the highly-experienced editors who are likely to respond at ANI, but apparently it has been lost in the undertow of this discussion.) There is no consensus in the above reams of discussion that the most recent block by Joe Roe was incorrect under any established policy or procedure. The point where it went off the rails is where Ivanvector asked: "...what's the way forward?" I want to thank Ivanvector for being genuinely concerned with the results of such blocks but this board is not a place for calm, reasoned consideration of issues like Koavf. This will inevitably go wrong in some way that causes acrimony and recriminations. It already has, in fact. Justin is certainly well-experienced enough to engage his reversion issues in a forum that is at least better-equipped to handle this type of issue: Arbcom. Failing that, he can use UTRS to propose what he sees as his transgressions and, most importantly, what he is willing to undertake to address that history. Either way, we don't continue to have the same stupid "He/She/They are an untractable problem editor!" "No! He/She/They are are a valued contributor!" mess that happens every time. Nothing new is ever said in those discussions. Let's be honest, random AN/ANI denizens are not going to solve this continual re-debate every time that a prolific editor steps across the lines. At least Arbcom or UTRS are ways that a subset which the community has selected, designated, and approved, to address these issues can be allowed to address these issues. Everything else is just a waste of time and bytes. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Cosmetic bot day close review

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

---

A CENT-advertised discussion at the Village Pump on a "Cosmetic Bot Day" was closed by S Marshall where he proposed guidelines for a trial of the idea. The closure led to disagreement and discussion under the discussion, at the bot noticeboard, and on his talk page. I am asking the community to review the close and whether it is in line with the discussion and policy.

Personally, I am concerned that the close is a forced-compromise/left-field supervote since at least one proposal (#3) doesn't seem to have been brought up by anyone in the discussion and multiple bot approval group members have pointed out that the requirements are impractical. The issue with S Marshall's proposal #3 was raised at the village pump and S Marshall pointed to his talk page where, in response to BAG member concerns, he said he would not re-close the discussion.

It also appears that the close overrules WP:BOTPOL without sufficient consensus to amend policy. Per the bot policy, all bots (emphasis in policy) must be approved at WP:BRFA before they may operate and their technical details must be reviewed by the bot approval group. On his talk page BAG members raised concerns about the close circumventing that process, and S Marshall refused to amend the close to take this into account instead saying that a second RfC would be required to determine technical details of cosmetic bot operation. Despite comments from editors in the original discussion (including me) who explicitly preferred using the typical bot approval mechanisms instead of a bespoke process, S Marshall said he would not amend because he did not see consensus to leave technical details to BAG, but based on s Marshall's own characterization of "rough consensus" I don't believe the discussion had sufficient consensus to overturn the policy of requiring BAG approval for bots.

For those reasons, I would like the community to review the close, and I recommend that it be overturned so that a new editor can close the discussion. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

To avoid splitting discussion any further, I've left notes at the above discussions and a standard notice template on S Marshall's talk page. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Closer: I do think I was clear, in that closing statement, about differentiating my assessment of community consensus from my personal suggestions about how to implement it. The hypothetical cosmetic bots would still need to be BAG approved and I didn't say otherwise. What I've been asked to do is re-close to say that the community approves a trial and delegates all the details to the BAG. I don't think that's what the community has decided.—S Marshall T/C 22:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • If you will be offering novel opinions, you should participate in the discussion, not add your opinions at the top and discourage any further discussion. Doing otherwise does not make it clear that your opinions are unsupported. It's also not clear at all how leaving implementation details to BAG and requiring bots to go through BAG functionally differ--in both cases the details are ultimately up to the BAG. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
• While the closure seems to be out of step with the discussion, the wider community having more control over bots than the traditional "let the BAG do what it wants" is something the bot community needs to deal with. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

  ... which is relevant how to this thread? If you believe the BAG is regularly overstepping its remit, {{rfc}} and/or WP:BOTPOL and/or any of a bunch of other places have space for you to raise it. --Izno (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

  How is it out of step, though? To my mind, that discussion admits of two closes: "Consensus for a limited trial" (which absolutely must not flood people's watchlists or cause BLP issues), or "No consensus for a trial". You can't get to "Consensus for an unrestricted trial" from there.—S Marshall T/C 23:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

  @S Marshall and Izno: There are a number of BAG members in these resulting discussions that come across as absolutely incredulous that the wider community could even approach making decisions about bots --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

  "There are a number of BAG members in these resulting discussions that come across as absolutely incredulous that the wider community could even approach making decisions about bot" I'm going to put a big fat on that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

  Not that anyone asked, but for the sake of transparency, I'm not a member of BAG. I pointed out concerns of BAG members since they'd be most affected by the outcome and generally know bot policy, but my concerns about the close are my own as a community member and participant in the discussion. If you follow the links I gave in the OP, 4 non-BAG members (not including me) raised concerns about the close. While there may or may not be issues with how BAG members responded to the close, they are far from the only people who took issue with it. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• the wider community having more control over bots than the traditional "let the BAG do what it wants" is something the bot community needs to deal with. Says who. We're not 'doing what we want'. There is zero-community mandate to have bot trials that somehow avoid editing vital articles or BLP articles (and a cosmetic bot by definition cannot cause any BLP issues). Those are things S Marshall made up out of thin air from someone that closed an RFC that isn't an admin (see WP:NONADMINCLOSURE), or have any bot-related experience. Let BAG do its job and oversee the trials, if someone is even interested in coding such bots. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

  @Headbomb: I agree with you that those are inappropriate supervotes. But, at the same time, I agree with Fram below. You and a number of you colleagues come across as dismissive of the fact that the community could possibly decide on restrictions on the place, manner, and timing of bot edits. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

  Struck after it was brought to my attention that I was overstating the level of input by BAG members in these discussions --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 15:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

  The community could very well decide that there are restrictions on bot edits. It already has decided such (see the pretty much the entirety of WP:BOTPOL). What the RFC didn't do is put new restrictions on such bot edits (in fact there is a support for lessening those restrictions), or overturn the current policy of requiring BRFAs before bots are approved. The community could certainly choose these things in the future, but it didn't in that RFC. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

  tbh that comment is equivalent to there being an RfC on the blocking policy, a non-admin closing it in a disputed way. Then when admins (who are expected to understand the blocking policy the best) complain that the close is (a) not an accurate summary and (b) infeasible when it comes to how they do blocks, others commenting "but that's just you overstating your role in blocking / dismissive of the fact that the community can change the blocking policy!" ignoring that the point is not who gets to block, but that the close is problematic. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn close, personally, I think that several of these points do not represent the consensus in the discussion. Point 3 is not mentioned anywhere in the discussion, apart from the closing statement. The point about one edit per article was mentioned in several comments, but I don't see consensus for this personally. The close does also suggest some level of supervote. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

  Overturn it to what? No consensus?—S Marshall T/C 02:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

  Overturn to nothing, and let someone else close it, or overturn to there's consensus to explore a trial, and let BAG do its job. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

  I would prefer that it be overturned so that the discussion re-opens. Therefore, someone else can come along to close it. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• (involved, voted support) Overturn and re-close — Normally I wouldn't engage in a line-by-line response to a closing statement but I see SM asking for specifics about the problems with the closing statement, so here goes:

Details

I'm somewhat surprised to find that rough consensus exists for a trial of Cosmetic Bot Day. – The bolded part is the only summation of consensus in this closing statement AFAICS. I'm not surprised at all to see that there are a number of very grave and serious concerns about the proposal. – Closer's opinion, but "a number of" is vague. A lot? A majority? What's hugely missing is any kind of description of what those concerns were or how many editors shared them. I think we need to respect those concerns ... – Because they have consensus? Or because the closer personally thinks these concerns have merit? ... and be as cautious and conservative as possible, which means placing some restrictions on the trial. – Two editors !voted "support with restrictions" as far as I can see. Did "placing some restrictions" have consensus, or is this the closer's personal opinion? There isn't a consensus about what those restrictions should be, ... – Is there consensus that there should be restrictions at all? (Over and above the restrictions that already exist.) ... but after reading editors' concerns here, I can think of some starting points. – That's great but it's something that should be said in the discussion, not the closing statement. I propose that: ... – Everything after this is a proposal, not a summation of consensus (and not binding), so I won't respond to it.

Every sentence in the closing statement up to "I propose..." has "I" as the subject: a sign of a closer who is sharing their thoughts, as opposed to summarizing the thoughts of other editors. There is only one clause of one sentence in the closing statement that describes what editors actually agreed to (it's the part in bold). We need a closing statement that spends more time describing what was agreed and less time describing the closer's opinion about how we should proceed. S Marshall has some good ideas; he should have !voted. It's that classic adage: if you have an opinion, don't close, vote. I don't know if my understanding has consensus – I'll leave it to an uninvolved editor to decide – but my understanding was that my support !vote meant I was supporting allowing BAG to approve cosmetic tasks if those tasks were run on a "Cosmetic Bot Day". I did not understand my !vote to be supporting any specific restrictions, or supporting not having BAG involved. The proposal quite clearly was: This proposal is to have 1 day a month or year etc.. that is exempt ie. "Cosmetic Bot Day". Any such bot would require approval though WP:BRFA as normal ... The "trial run" issue is a red herring: the first Cosmetic Bot Day is, by definition, the trial run. If it goes horribly, there won't be a second Cosmetic Bot Day. Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

BAG (or the representatives here) seem to misunderstand / overestimate their role. While no bot may run without BAG approval, it is perfectly acceptable for non-BAG community processes to impose restrictions or otherwise define tasks a bot may or may not do, or days a bot may or may not run, or people who may or may not run bots. RfCs or similar discussions can't approve a bot to run, but BAG may not approve a bot which goes against an RfC conclusion. This is separate from whether the closure of this RfC correctly represents the actual discussion; that can of course be challenged. But not because it intrudes on BAG territory, because it doesn't. If the community decides that only one bot may do cosmetic edits, then BAG may not approve two such bots (they can of course approve none at all). BAG may refuse to approve any bots under some RfC conditions, they may point out that some RfC conditions are not feasible, ... but there ends their role, their power. Fram (talk) 08:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

That is correct, and no BAG member is saying otherwise afaics. The issue here is not that the community is prohibited from deciding by consensus which bot tasks it will and will not tolerate (ensuring consensus exists for a given task has always been part of the BRFA process). But there's a difference between ensuring tasks have consensus, and requiring (effectively, due to the infeasibility of exhaustive lists of restrictions, and per SM's talk page clarification) tasks with novel restriction or scope (compared to a previous CBOT task) be individually submitted to community for RfC, reducing BAG to an advisory role, a concept which has already been rejected (eg here). Consensus could have required that cosmetic tasks go through RfC in batches, but I don't think any participant was trying to vote for that, and it's unacceptable that a close create an outcome which no participant (other than the closer) envisioned. For all practical purposes, this proposal was closed with "consensus against". ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Again, I'm not defending the actual close. But the general tone of some comments (yes, that's rather subjective), and actual comments like "There is zero-community mandate to have bot trials that somehow avoid editing vital articles or BLP articles [...] Let BAG do its job and oversee the trials" give a strong impression that at least some BAG members feel that such restrictions would be unacceptable and should only be decided by BAG, which is incorrect. If the community would e.g. want that, for some specific bot task, the bot again needs community approval after the trial, then the BAG can not decide that this is not necessary. The opposition from some bag members here is not simply "the closure is not representing community consensus" (which is a good reason to protest of course), but "you are invading our turf", which is false. BAG has an important role, and while an RfC can in general not overrule that role, it may go above and beyond BAG to impose additional or exceptional restrictions. Fram (talk) 09:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I think this is just miscommunication. As a BAG member too, albeit a newer one, that's not my interpretation of BAG's role and I don't think Headbomb is saying otherwise. BAG does not decide consensus, it interprets it, and it is already required to ensure any task (cosmetic or not) be in compliance with consensus. If consensus supports some type of edit, it usually falls within BAG's remit (indeed, much of its point) to ensure a bot task's specification is in line with that consensus, applying restrictions where either its specification or its technical design may cause problems which could exceed the bounds of consensus (and it regularly does so, eg Cewbot 6). Consensus here did not explicitly support any cosmetic only limitations (such as "do not edit BLPs"), thus the default is BAG, after deciding if the task itself has consensus, decides whether a given function or technical implementation is such that it would be problematic if it operates on BLP articles (and, if so, it would impose an operating restriction in the BRFA). Community consensus can, yes, always override that particular, by stating "X edit can be performed but not on BLP articles", but it did not do so here; the misrepresentation of the discussion is the crux of this issue, everything else is merely an aside when analysing the practical effects of this close. Which is @ SM's talk, and pretty much says that each CBOT task needs to go to RfC individually or in batches, and thus BAG reduced to an advisory role (and that is contrary to consensus). I think that's what Headbomb is saying here.

As an aside, the close is effectively forcing the community to further limit the usage of cosmetic bots, even when consensus didn't state its desire to do such; SM's close seems to outline his concerns of cosmetic bots, not of the community's. Heck, I just did a CMD+F for "BLP" and the word was only mentioned once in the discussion, and the concern was promptly refuted with "configure your watchlist differently". ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, then I think we're all on the same page here. Fram (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

See reply to Guerillero above. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• Regarding feasibility concerns; as someone who suggested tight restrictions, a couple of comments. Regarding one edit per article, perhaps bots could be rewritten to take in article text on stdin and write the new text on stdout (maybe taking the title before that), so that we could chain a bunch of them together for one edit. (I'm sure other solutions exist.) Regarding timeframe, as GreenC correctly pointed out, 12 edits per minute only gives 17,280 edits per day. Maybe bump it up to 30 edits per minute and run it for a week; that gets us to 302,400 edits, which is enough to do every article after ten of those. And of course the bot might not even have an edit to make some fraction of the time; assume half (I dunno, maybe a frequent AWB user could correct me on that), and you're down to only five weeks, or 2.5 years if you do one week every six months. Distributing the articles for each week evenly throughout the alphabet might be one rough way to make sure nobody's watchlist gets particularly hammered; we could also distribute by category tree or topic area (WikiProject). The vital articles restriction also kind of makes sense to me, although given the reaction (or just the fact that it didn't come up in the discussion) we probably want further debate. Generally, I recognize minimizing disruption is the first priority; it's on bot operators to work around the restrictions that come from that, and not to push the envelope on watchlist/page history impact. I'm neutral on the rest of the close. Enterprisey (talk!) 10:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn - SM's close isn't really a close .... It's a "I propose X, Y and Z" - I sort of see his "close" more as a !vote than anything so IMHO it should be reclosed. –Davey2010^Talk 10:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• Generally (responding to a number of contributors including Davy2010, Dreamy Jazz, Levivich et. al.): If you've considered the debate and decided my close was wrong, then shouldn't you be able to articulate which close would be right?—S Marshall T/C 16:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

  No, not at all; that's incorrect logic. A person can identify a problem even if they don't know or can't effectuate the solution. For example, I don't have to know how to land a plane to know when someone did it wrong. But if I were to sum up the result it would be: There is consensus to have 1 day a month ("Cosmetic Bot Day") where bot tasks are exempt from the Cosmetic regulation, assuming there is otherwise consensus for the bot task. Any such bot task would require approval though WP:BRFA as normal. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

  I would say consensus to have a trial for a cosmetic day (i.e. have one such day, and then pause and see what comes of it), rather than close with an indefinite thumbs up on such a day. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• I had been reading along with this discussion with an eye to being a possible closer. If this review is closed such that the original discussion would need to be reclosed (as opposed to a more directed overturning to no consensus or consensus against or to the original close being endorsed) I am prepared to serve as a closer. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
• Re-close Levivich hits the nail on the head. This closure is a gross misrepresentation what the !voters said. The closer's suggestions (which shouldn't have been put into the closing statement in the first place) were not discussed and don't even make sense. There's no reason to exclude vital articles or BLPs from a trial – bots cannot introduce BLP violations (only humans are capable of doing that).

Regarding the concerns raised here by Fram/Guerrillo of the BAG's role, leave the details to BAG is just a shorter way of saying "leave the details to be chalked out per the normal process – which is WP:BRFA". Anyone can participate in BRFAs, you don't even have to be in BAG. Having to get an RfC consensus for every technical detail of the bot operation (which is what S Marshall recommends on his talk page) would be a really really inefficient process, that likely leads to the same outcome. – SD0001 (talk) 03:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

That's not how I read it (close + responses though). Even the aspect that after the "trial" (the one day of cosbot runs), another RfC would happen to evaluate the trial and decide on a definitive consensus for future runs, was opposed, because trial evaluation should be handled by BAG. That's not "every technical detail", that's a major aspect of this idea which would be evaluated by an RfC instead of BAG alone (of course, one could have an RfC at BAG, but that's not really usual). It's the opposition to eve ntaspects like this which gave the impression of an overly protective attitude from (some members of) BAG. Of course, this was a reaction to an overly broad or problematic RfC close, but one doesn't correct an error by posting counter-errors. Discussion above clarified that this wasn't intended, and that everyone agrees that the community can place additional rules, restrictions, controls, on any bot operation or operator; but making this clear was important. Fram (talk) 08:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

These things were never in contention to begin with. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• Ignore "I propose" The actual close seems fine. Rough consensus for allowing a trial and no consensus on the various restrictions seems a clear and defensible close. The warning that quite a few contributors have important concerns also seems fair to add to the close as it should guide the trial. The proposal can just be ignored for trial purposes as it is clear that it is personal opinion and not a reading of consensus. I persaonally have no issue with closers adding advice for a future RFC, but if one is not oppened and closed with consensus then all it is is a failed proposal.AlmostFrancis (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

  The problem with that approach is on SM's talk page, he wrote: I definitely do not think the community decided to have CBD but leave it to the BAG to decide the technical details. In the circumstances you should probably decide what's technically feasible and then set up a second RFC with each option listed for community approval or rejection. (emphasis in original) and I do not think that at that discussion, the community approved the use of cosmetic bots and delegated the hows and whys to the BAG, and I will not re-close the discussion to say that. Would you like me to begin an RfC close review on the AN? It seems to me that the closer's interpretation of their own close requires a second RFC. It would be weird to interpret a closer's close to mean, more or less, the opposite of what the closer says it means. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

  Sorry I don't think I was clear as I dropped a word, "guide the trial" should have been "guide the trial RFC". When I said ignore the the closers proposal I didn't mean there didn't need to be some proposal passed to run the trial. The restrictions will need consensus before the trial is run so a second RFC should be necessary. I just don't see any reason to follow the closers proposal or believe it should have the strength of consensus behind it. I don't want to bag on the RFC originator, since I think just getting consensus for having a cosmetic bot day is a pretty good win, but to change a long time consensus against these bot edits I think you need a tigher proposal.AlmostFrancis (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• Well, AlmostFrancis is exactly right. My close does separate the community consensus from my personal suggestions, and those suggestions are absolutely up for discussion and amendment. What I've declined to do is self-overturn to "consensus for a trial limited only by the BAG approval process"; and after this discussion I still won't do that. The objections were too numerous, and in some cases (such as the concern about watchlist flooding concealing BLP violations which was expressed by people who had actually experienced it), too weighty, for me to find a simple "Yes, let the BAG handle it" consensus. I tried to put myself in the place of the oppose voter and think of the restrictions that would allay the concerns they expressed. So yes, all the business after "I propose" is up for discussion on my talk page or elsewhere, but if you want me to remove it entirely, then I won't do that without a formal overturn on this page. Because it's not what the community decided.—S Marshall T/C 00:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "Let the BAG handle it" is policy, and there is no consensus in that RFC to overturn that policy. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
    • It doesn't overturn policy. Nothing in policy prevents the community from imposing additional requirements over and above BAG oversight.—S Marshall T/C 11:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
      • And nothing in that RFC imposed additional requirements. You made that up, not the community. What was proposed and supported was "a periodic (monthly) 1-day (24hr GMT) relaxing of WP:COSMETICBOT assuming there is otherwise consensus for the bot at WP:BRFA", with some debate about what the exact period should be. So let BAG does its job and oversee the trials. There is zero mandate vital articles or BLPs to be excluded from the trials. There is zero mandate for having only one edit per article. In fact one of the point of the trial is to gauge how common multiple edits per articles are, if some tasks could be merged together to minimize multiple edits, and if bots edit war over each other and so on. It is a terrible close, and should be overturned to one that reflects the actual RFC. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:28, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
        • If you can read that discussion and think it would be right for a trial to "gauge how common multiple edits per articles are", then I don't think you've understood the opposers at all; and you certainly haven't given sufficient weight to the gravity of their concerns.—S Marshall T/C 21:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
          • Which just shows how inappropriate your close was that you are still pushing for your supervoted opinion to be in the close. Let the BAG do it's job. People supported a trial for cosmetic day so let's have a trial. People can then have the full set of actual facts before deciding what constraints, if any, are appropriate, for cosmetic day. 20 multiple edits out of 30,000 is a very different thing 2500 multiple edits out of 30,000. And, depending on what exactly is done, it may not even matter if what's done is considered useful enough. These things are the things that seen through trials. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
• I have read over the discussion here and the original close, having not taken part in it on any level. I believe that the "I propose" section is indeed unfortunate wording. Proposals should not be made in an RfC close. Based on this and the fact that it has proven controversial, this close should be overturned (and closed by an administrator) per the guidance at WP:NACD that "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins.". It is also of note that it was not tagged as an NAC close, which is required for non-admin closures of discussions. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I've made 152 RfC closes since 2014, many of which have been reviewed by the community. In all that time and all those reviews, you are literally the first editor ever to say that RfC closes should be tagged with the NAC red letter. Last relevant discussion about RfCs that I know of was here, and whether I personally am required to use the NAC red letter was discussed (in a slightly different context) here.—S Marshall T/C 23:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

    Personally I only tag deletion discussion closes with {{nac}} (WP:NACD is about deletion discussions), which are an administrative matter. RFCs are not an administrative matter, so admin status should be irrelevant to their closure imo. Still, any potential closer should be suited for the close they make: Editors who close discussions concerning highly technical subject matter should have the necessary background to effectively evaluate the evidence and arguments presented. - the most logical and feasible close would've came from a non-involved editor who has technical experience of bot operations on the encyclopaedia and BOTPOL. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

    See WP:NAC instead then, which says the same thing pretty much. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

    WP:NAC is WP:JUSTANESSAY. Levivich ^harass/_hound 01:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn and re-close Some points in the close don't seem to reflect the discussion, not to mention the close reads as a !supervote to me. The job of a closer is to close with a consensus of the discussion. If there are missing gaps in the implementation, then those gaps are supplemented by existing policy, and lacking those, judgement of applicable editors. Unless there is a critical oversight where said gap prevents the successful implementation of said proposal, I cannot see any justification of adding points to a close that does not reflect the discussion. I don't see such a critical oversight in this case.—CYBERPOWER (Merry Christmas) 23:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

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

A question regarding possible good faith overprodding and over AFD related similar project articles over and over and how to improve them.

Sorry for the excessive title but as it implies I have a question if there is such a guideline for so many prodding and AFDing that is going on. There has been around four editors that I can think of that have been baiting comic book related fictional character articles that always vote delete and / or nominate them or prod the article almost all in one day. While there is nothing wrong with it I keep wanting to rescue these articles but it is in vain since they are picking them all in once. Again I assume good faith. Nothing to block someone over obviously. But at the same time I feel helpless on improving or helping Wikipedia. See here, here, here, here, here, here and here are just some of many examples. It’s been going on for a while now. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing an issue with any of those; all the deletion nominations have explained what the issue is. Wikipedia isn't a directory of everything; for something to have a Wikipedia article, it needs to demonstrate significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources and the onus is on the people who want to keep the article to provide that. It might be annoying to have multiple related articles nominated at once, but if they all share the same issue it's not unusual for them all to come to light at once. Provided you can demonstrate the significant coverage in reliable sources, there's nothing to worry about and they'll all be closed as keep; if you can't demonstrate it, then the editors are acting correctly in nominating them for deletion. ‑ Iridescent 15:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I already said that. Though I feel that that there needs to be a guideline is to stop overnuking related articles on the same day if that makes sense. Definitely when they hop on the same bandwagon vote over and over. You know they are going to vote delete no matter if we add more sources etc that talk about it. Also how does one have time to improve more than one article anyway. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 16:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comments- firstly, why weren't @Piotrus: and @Onel5969: informed of this discussion, which primarily concerns them? Secondly, it's interesting that people have infinite time to write unsourced crufty articles and regard sources as optional until someone raises an objection, but not too many objections because that's too much work. Reyk _YO! 19:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Jhenderson777 could really use a mentor-type situation to go over Wikipedia guidelines and policies because I believe they have a very fundamental misunderstanding on the scope of this site. This is not meant to be an insult, but they have a very Fandom-like mentality when it comes to these articles. Their anger seems to come from the idea that these are being unfairly deleted simply because they personally lack the manpower to save them rather than the simple fact that most do not actually reasonably pass WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment, first thanks for the ping Reyk. Second, I do a bit of work over at NPP, particularly at what we call "the back end of the queue". Many of those articles are redirects for months/years, and then someone turns them into an article. I'd say of the ones which are legitimate (not someone simply removing a redirect, or blanking a page, or putting ###### on the page) probably 60-75% of them get "reviewed" without problem. Another 10% or so get reverted, and then get improved, and restored. The rest are simply poorly cited articles which don't show the notability of the subject. These either get reverted, or sent to AfD for discussion if an editor simply continually reverts the redirect (or asks for an AfD discussion), without making any attempt to improve the sourcing to show notability. If a valid attempt is made, and I am unsure about the notability, I usually let another reviewer take a crack at it. If they're "nuked" on the same day, that's simply when they came up in the queue. I tend to think of WP as an encyclopedia, and not a fan magazine, but attempt to adhere strictly both WP:GNG and SN guidelines. Regardless, just thought I'd explain my process. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Reyk: To ping them was a ridiculous way to boil the pot and very unnecessary and I knew it would cause editors like User: TTN to say crap like this when this was just a civil question where I assumed good faith on and I didn’t say names in the first place. I guess @TTN: isn’t aware that I created at least four good articles and B-class articles or I am well aware of how the guidelines and essays are. What I see you are unaware of @TTN: is of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Comics and I see how you dislike their rules on its way of handling it. Instead of deleting articles maybe you can discuss the way comic book character articles are in that particular page. Since you are not liking the way they were written all the time. I thank One15969 for being civil after the ping but I don’t really have a beef with him compared to the three other editors. He handled it better and more civilly while I can’t say the same with TTN. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

First, I don't think TTN was pinged? Second, the Manual of Style deals with style, while this section, the AfDs, and TTNs comments deal with notability. It doesn't matter how well-written and well-structured an article is, when the subject isn't notable it still should be deleted or redirected. Fram (talk) 08:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, I for one have found the comments by Onel, TTN, and Piotrus in this section to be helpful and rationally thought out, and have added useful input into the discussion. Excluding them from a discussion started about their actions would have just been a one-sided airing of grievances. Reyk _YO! 11:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Jhenderson777, you know that enormous "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page" banner you saw when you started this thread? It means what it says; Reyk is doing you a favour by correcting your negligence and notifying the editors involved. ‑ Iridescent 14:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Well thanks for him then. But I never complained in my first paragraph and I couldn’t remember names to ping at the time period. Also to mention I am busy in real life with things and I am on a mobile device editing which is tougher to edit on. Regarding the ping, I feel the topic is an irrelevant off topic banter and we should move on and move on from it. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

(Thanks for the ping). This boils down to the mostly understandable fact that one can get frustrated, not having enough time to research and rescue content they consider useful. Tough - but Wikipedia cannot wait for one person. At best, I can recommend that Jhenderson777 asks for userfication/draftication of the article they want to work on. And there is nothing stopping them from reaching out to members of WikiProject Comics and related, creating a list of such articles, and working on them collaboratively in the future. What is more problematic is when one loses one's cool and starts making personal attacks against those they disagree with: "stick a fork in it for once... You are getting on my nerves." - as far as I can tell, TTN is always polite, unlike Jh777, and it is ironic Jh777 starts to complain about this about this, while in the very same post they say "editors like User: TTN to say crap like this". Then there is the smaller issue of not following the best practices (from the same diff: "It has cultural impact. I promise you that. Regardless if I found it or not." - which goes against wP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES which Jhenderson777 is well familiar with). Additionally, while WP:DEPROD does allow one to deprod things based on the weakest or none rationale, it does suggest adding a good one is best practices, and "Stop prodding AND AFDing so many related content simultaneously. Nobody can improve content with this kind of persistence to delete everything" is not it. I strongly urge Jhenderson777 to respect WP:AGF, WP:CIV, WP:NPA and like, and not to let whatever frustration they feel affect their edits. The only constructive thing here is to issue a civility warning and move on. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

That was just one time where I got frustrated, Piotr, and I admit my wrongness and to cool off. Also I do recall User: TTN being ugly to someone who voted keep one time. I wish I could find where it was at. But I think you know and refuse to acknowledge it because you warned him about it. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 12:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• The PROD process is not appropriate for the topics in question because it is only for "uncontroversial deletion" and "must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected" Such nominators clearly expect and get opposition but they persist regardless. Note that TTN's use of deletion processes was restricted by arbcom in a similar case. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• What's the timeline here? Were the nominations made in one batch, or are they ongoing? Were PRODs continued after it became clear that at least one person (Jhenderson777) was likely to object to them, and therefore can't be considered uncontroversial? – Joe (talk) 12:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I have a little too much stuff going on in real life (despite being a wikiholic sometimes) to go through all that. There shouldn’t be controversy anyway. Since I called it good faith it not really that controversial. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 12:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
    • I think these basic facts need to be established if you are expecting any administrator intervention as a result of this thread. If the nominations caused bad feelings but are finished, there's nothing to be done. If, as you claim in your original post, there was an overuse of PROD and/or AfD, we could address it – if it's continuing. Otherwise, what kind of resolution do you foresee? – Joe (talk) 13:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
      • There is just so many. I linked two articles that are prodded. Maybe someone like @Darkknight2149: can link all the prods and AFD going on. Apparently he reported this issue before. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 13:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
        • Here is every article currently proposed for deletion, and at a quick skim I'm not seeing anything comic book related in there. If you're going to raise a complaint, the onus is on you to provide some evidence for it, not just make an allegation and expect us to take your word for it. As Joe says, what administrative action are you actually asking for here? ‑ Iridescent 14:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
          • There are several comic book characters with prod tags currently. For example: Zeiss (comics), who is a Batman villain. There are obvious alternatives to deletion in such a case. Either the article might be improved by reference to its stated source of The Essential Batman Encyclopedia or other sources such as this. Failing that, it should be merged into a page like List of Batman family enemies, along with all the rest. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
            • @Joe, reading your comment, I just got an idea. How about I declare all articles to be important to me? Then we could scrap the entire PROD system, as every single PROD could then be established controversial.. Look, I've been reading about the PROD system and to me, it seems to be full of loopholes. "Likely to object"? That's purely random. If I love cats and object to prod on cats and then declare I consider all cats notable, so this reasoning line would make all articles on cats resistant to this deletion method. Am I getting it right? - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • This stuff has been going on for a long time. The arbcom case I linked to was in 2008. TTN has since been inactive on and off for years at a time but has been especially active in the last year. Piotrus has likewise been especially active in this field in the last year. For example, here's a complaint about their prodding in February:

    Just in the last six weeks, I've "rescued" Tom Hughes and Margo Montgomery, Teacup in a Storm, Bluntman and Chronic, Breathless Mahoney, Tara King, Mike Gambit, Captain Battle, Cathy Gale, Dharma Initiative, Fanny Zilch, Knock-off Nigel, Mother (the Avengers), Oceanic Airlines, Persephone (The Matrix), Ethan Hunt, Purdey (The New Avengers), Scott Robinson and Charlene Mitchell, Steve Andropoulos and Betsy Stewart, Teacup in a Storm, Newton T. Bass, Batarang, Power Sword, Day of the Figurines, Nibbles (Tom and Jerry), Royal Flush Gang, Spike and Tyke (characters), Steve Johnson and Kayla Brady, Stormbringer, Sumuru (character) and Terrible Trio. The only thing that I "rescued" them from was Piotrus' inability to use Google Books and Internet Archive. Piotrus: it is time to step away from Prod and AfD. You are not good at it.

In the following discussion, there was a telling response

... I don't mid deprods or people disagreeing with me at AfD. All I do is to raise possible issues with notability and such for review. Sometimes the review ends up with deletion of content, sometimes with merger, sometimes with retaining it. This is just routine version of WP:BRD. We are here to improve Wikipedia, which sometimes involves discussions about what may need to be deleted. That's all. Please keep up the good job of saving articles, and if I ever do not reply to a good keep argument at AfD or such, please don't hesitate to ping me to re-review the situation. A rescued article is always better than a deleted one. It is just that sometimes someone has to clean our wiki house a little bit.

This indicates that Piotrus uses PROD as a form of bold cleanup – that he will prod an article with some issues as a way of getting it fixed or deleted. It seems clear that he expects that there may be reviews, rescues and other alternatives to deletion. This is not uncontroversial deletion and so the prod process should not be used. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I very rarely agree with Andrew about anything related to page deletion, and everyone knows I'm not a fan of having articles about things like minor comic book characters, but I really think Andrew hits the nail on the head here. PROD shouldn't be used as a way to test if someone opposes deletion. That's maybe what a {{notability}} tag should be used for. PROD is for when you are quite sure that no one will oppose the deletion.

That said, whether there is a problem or not seems susceptible to mathematics: what % of an editor's PRODs are deleted? If it's 50%, that's a problem. If it's 90%, it's not. Whether it's "overprodding" or not depends on the percentage. Lev¡vich 18:19, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I could likewise post a list of many articles Andrew deprodded and that he never even bothered to vote on when they went to AfD and that were unanimous deletes. Also, some comic articles do get deleted through the PROD system. It is illogical to claim that because sometimes someone objects to deletion in topic area x, then PROD is no longer applicable. While there are obvious cases on the keep side, it is impossible to guess which article will get deprodded. I've seen Andrew deprod articles that had zero references, zero reception, and where nobody, including him, was able to find a shred of helpful sourcing. I have also seen similar articles, or ones that are "slightly" better, get successfully deleted through PROD. Unless we rule that comic-topics are immune to PRODs, arguing that someone is making errors proding because some of their prods get challenged is a joke. All prods can be challenged, and unless someone is prodding stuff that habitually is kept, this is pointless. All prods are ALWAYS A TEST, since you never know criteria the reviewer is using. Plus there is the issue that if the reviewer uses bad criteria (like believing everything in a given topic area is notable because they are fond of it), does it reflect bad on the prodder, deprodded or the prod procedure itself? Anyway, as I am pretty certain most of my prods are deleted one way or another, I don't feel I am doing anything wrong - but let's look at the statistics, given that Andrew's problematic deprods and copy-paste keep votes in AfDs have been discussed here and in similar foras much more often than my actions. While I don't think there is any good way to get prod statistics (since edit summary search tools don't deal well with deleted edit summaries, AFAIK) ere's some data from AfD stats: for me Number of AfD's where vote matched result 79.5%, and for Andrew, 53.0%. 53% - that's about as good of a ratio as flipping a coin! It's pure noise, from the information sciences perspective, no value added. So one person here is much more often in-line with the community view than the other. Andrew said just above: "Piotrus: it is time to step away from Prod and AfD. You are not good at it." Right, Andrew, right... WP:BOOMERANG, anyone? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I've suspected for a long time that the point is for deprods to reflect badly on the person who placed it, no matter how silly the deprod rationale. But as I keep saying, as long as it's possible to deprod for dumb reasons like disliking the PROdding editor, or disliking the PROD process, mere whimsy, or just to be annoying, it isn't possible to infer a "controversy" that the other person should have been able to predict beforehand. Reyk _YO! 11:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• I'm no admin and a relatively new NPP editor but have to note firstly that User:onel5969 does exceptional work at what is ultimately a relatively mucky job. It's sometimes often hard to make the calls about what to keep, what to tag, what to delete. As a novice, I've found that process pretty difficult at times - and sometimes it involves terrible decisions (the autistic kid whose non-notable bio of himself you have to nix, dashing his clear hopes is one that I'll remember for a long time) and sometimes it's crystal clear. Most often, it's borderline and you have to take the call - and the opprobrium if you get it wrong. You also get the messages on your talk, the AfD arguments and all the rest. Do you deserve getting dragged to AN when the decisions regarding notability have clearly involved a number of editors and consensus? Not really. I'm not saying anyone's above scrutiny, but as far as I can see, the process has actually been working fine here. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I harbor no hard feelings for him compared to three other editors off the top of my head who like to do Order 66 with most articles. All I got to say He kind of says and does the same thing predictably and I got to work harder sometimes when I wasn’t even finished. For example: Scribbly the Boy Cartoonist had to be improved tremendously and he jumped the gun on redirecting the baby article because it wasn’t proven yet. Then I boldly merged it and it got improved more so I am no better sometimes. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 16:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
    • So work in draftspace. Works, no? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
      • Alexandermcnabb: I have to disagree with your comments about User:Onel5969's track record. It is nice that he is putting time and energy into doing NPP work, so A for effort. But one look at feedback from other users towards Onel5969's NPP actions on their recent talk pages from the last 2 months might call your comments about his supposedly exceptional work in question. Haleth (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
        • He was voted as number four contributor to NPP [49], a vote that was endorsed roundly by other NPP reviewers. With over 17,000 reviews in the past year. From my own experience, that's going to throw up some negatives - and I have personally found getting it right is by no means a walk in the park. A little breakage is inevitable - and he has broken, proportionately, a great deal less than I have so far. Like I say, NPP is a mucky job... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
          • That is not actually a vote, but a statistics tally of the quantity of reviews by each NPP member over the past year, not a vote of confidence on how consistently well each individual exercised their competence and judgment when reviewing flagged articles. Also, the endorsements I can see were for John B123 as reviewer of the year as put forward by the nominator. But I digress. Haleth (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• If an editor regularly is working in comic books they should know that the deletion of comic book character articles is controversial and so PROD is inappropriate. I see no evidence that AfD is being used inappropriately in this area. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with assessments by Barkeep49 and Lev¡vich of the situation. I don't think the persistent, recurring use of PROD by Piotrus as an appropriate "test" of a subject article's notability because he is unable to discern the other user's rationale to be appropriate. Pretty sure that is what an AfD is for since we are all supposed to work by consensus. Haleth (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• Here's a fresh example, from my daily patrol of today's AfD log. It's a character called Rocket. This was prodded by Piotrus in the usual drive-by way, with no discussion or specifics – just a generic, cookie-cutter nomination. The prod was declined by Iridescent, "I'm not comfortable considering uncontroversial the deletion of a page that's been live for 15 years and has that much of a history. ...". Piotrus then nominates the topic at AfD, where I find it.

I am not familiar with this character and so start searching. I immediately start finding hits: DC: 10 Things Fans Should Know About Rocket. This is a listicle but it's at CBR, which is usually accepted at AfD, and the fact they wrote solely about the character is a promising start. Focussing on Google Books, I immediately find some meat: The Blacker the Ink -- Constructions of Black Identity in Comics and Sequential Art where there's some detailed analysis of the controversy about the character's decision whether to have an abortion. This already seems adequate but I press on. I then immediately find another book: Black Superheroes, Milestone Comics, and Their Fans. This is from a university press and has plenty to say about the subject, as she was a breakout character in the series and effectively became its main protagonist.

I only searched for a minute or two, just looking at the first page of hits, and have stopped searching now as it is already apparent that the subject is quite notable. The character is not just a routine superhero, but is literally iconic in their representation of contemporary black culture. To nominate such a character for deletion in these times of BLM seems remarkably crass. To do so as "uncontroversial" using the PROD process demonstrates a considerable lack of competence and clue.

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

For the editor who keeps persisting I need to show a link. How about this?. Does this summarize enough regarding the AFD's. Again I assume good faith again...it’s just that I am one editor and can’t rescue so many articles at once if I tried and could. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 13:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I just did a quick skim and I'm seeing pretty normal AfDs. I don't see any signs of disruptive behavior. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I didn’t say anything about disruptive and (as I said before) I am assuming good faith on them. I just think they are too persistent if anything. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 17:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Too persistent isn't really a thing. Either someone's actions are disruptive at AfD such as by doing too many nominations in too short a time or doing too many poorly conceived nominations in which case the community can take action or their actions are not disruptive and no community action is needed. My assessment is tha the concern you've raised about AfD is not disruptive or otherwise a problem. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

"Either someone's actions are disruptive at AfD such as by doing too many nominations in too short a time or doing too many poorly conceived nominations" That's exactly the issue. Darkknight2149 07:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I understand that's the alleged issue. And it is why I have, with the evidence at hand so far, not seen enough to say that there actually is a problem. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why I was tagged here. If you're wanting my observations, I have already been vocal about it in the past. Fiction-related content has been an easy target for overzealous deletion. Part of it is that a lot of crufty material does fly under the radar in these areas, part of it is the aforementioned overzealousness, and part of it is a lack of familiarity (either with the subject itself or with deletion criteria). I don't see anything wrong in the examples that Jhenderson777 picked out above, but I have been continuously amazed at the lack of quality control at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements. For the past year or so, there has been an influx of low-effort nominations and votes (often from recurring nominators), many of which fail to cite a policy-based reason for deletion at all or fall under WP:IGNORINGATD. Common ones include "The article fails to establish notability" (not how it works), "The quality of the article/sourcing isn't good!" with no further rationale (not how it works), "It's just a minor character in a book" (this actually happened a couple of times in a row; not how it works), "When you combine a bunch of not notable characters into a list, you get a not notable list" (not how it works), "Current revision fails WAF and/or the manual of style" (not how it works), as well as recurring mischaracterisations of WP:GNG, subjective declarations of unimportance, assuming every article of a type isn't notable just because one wasn't, and barebones rationales.

There has also been a few recurring users (who double as nominators) who have been voting "delete" on every single nomination no matter what (usually with the same cookie cutter rationales), including on ones where significant coverage has been provided and there is a consensus for keep. At least one of them doesn't seem to have ever voted "keep" on anything, despite having been active on Wikipedia for years. That's not to say this doesn't ever happen in the other direction (Rtkat3 often votes "keep" without citing any policy besides "C'mon, let the article stay" and Andrew Davidson's input is hit-and-miss), but these are fewer and dismissed more often than the "delete" ones.

Aside from disruption, there is also a number of good faith nominations where a source check is performed, but the coverage is dismissed by the nom because they have a ridiculously high standard for "significant coverage" that outweighs the community's (Example1, Example2, among several others).

Overall, this is an AfD category that could use a lot more scrutiny and administrator eyeballs than it currently gets. Personally, the time I spend having to check and see if nominations there actually fail WP:GNG or a WP:DELREASON could honestly be better spent working on my other projects (this in particular is a current priority that has a lot of work to go) and my real life schedule can be sporadic. I did finish an ArbCom case related to this a few months back, but given the passage of time, haven't decided what to do with it quite yet. Darkknight2149 07:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• I too have experienced this type of thing for pages that might have potential and support the claims of @Jhenderson777: and @Andrew Davidson:. Another example of this is the List of New Gods which I mentioned that most of the characters who no longer have their pages currently redirect there and who knows what would happen to them if that page is deleted like what I had to do with the page for "Titan (New Gods)". On a related note for the proposed deletion, I had to redirect Ned Creegan to List of minor DC Comics characters when it was threatened with deletion. TTN once tried to put up the Longbow Hunters page that I created in light of their appearance of Arrow for a proposed deletion which got removed by @Toughpigs: who left his reasons in the edit summary. I'm also listing some examples of Jhenderson777's claim here. --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
• The most important and effective thing to do is to add good sources to articles. There are lots of secondary sources in books and magazines about comics, cartoons and fiction in general. They're available on Google Books, Internet Archive, on Kindle, and in libraries and bookstores. The Wikipedia Library offers free access to Newspapers.com, JSTOR and ProQuest. People who want to save fiction-related articles should be improving articles with good-quality sources — and not just for articles that are prodded or up for deletion. Get a good nonfiction book about comics history and go through it page by page, adding a reference for everything discussed in the book. TwoMorrows Publishing is especially good for significant, independent coverage of comics history. For example, there was a little run a few months ago of people nominating articles related to Jack Kirby's work. Kirby has been extensively studied and discussed for years, including a long-running journal devoted just to his work. Many people added information and references to the articles, and we saved almost all of them from deletion, plus now they're better quality articles. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The onus is on nominators to cite a policy-based reason for deletion, per WP:ATD, WP:NEXIST, WP:ARTN, WP:PRESERVE, and WP:NOTCLEANUP. Not the other way around. Any user who is nominating a bunch of articles on the sole basis of them being poorly-written or poorly sourced is doing something wrong. What if we didn't do that, and still made the effort to clean-up/cite these articles? Because WP:NOEFFORT is no excuse. (And to be clear, I'm not talking about the number of legitimate nominations that have been filed, which goes without saying) Darkknight2149 19:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Worrying about who the onus is on is not the point. I've wasted time criticizing nominators in the past — the quote above criticizing Piotrus is mine, and I wish I hadn't written it, because it didn't make any difference. If you want articles not to be deleted, then the most effective way to do that is to find good sources, and add sourced information to the article. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I tend to believe that policy and procedure exists for a reason. Darkknight2149 23:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree to disagree, ToughPigs. They want the character to be Mickey Mouse level apparently. Look at all the improvements Nightscream and I made at Umar (Marvel Comics). That article still didn’t change the deletionists mind. Especially TTN's mind which he called it "smoke and mirrors" on being notable. I mean the group deleted the Injustice League without my knowledge. A primary Justice League arch villain group. I and another editor cite dumped Cain and Abel just recently. But it still is “plot dump” outside of having brief publication history. Nothing is pleasing these editors mind due to Wp:GNG which doesn’t sound as strict as they make it out to be and also so many link of WP:NOTPLOT going on that you would think sock puppetry is almost going on. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Toughpigs, I agree with what you said and that is consistently the best approach when dealing with subject topics where notability is called into question. I think the crux of this discussion, and why Jhenderson777 got so worked up in starting this discussion in the first place, is whether Piotrus's conduct demonstrates that he adheres to this website's fundamental approach of assuming good faith from an objective point of view. I have not formed a view, though in some of his previous comments which have been highlighted by other users, he indicated that he does not know the rationales of other users and relies on his stance of presumed suspicion as a basis for his repeated (Jhenderson would argue that it is indiscriminate) use of PROD when questioned, even in cases where it may not be an uncontroversial deletion from a reasonable point of view. Perhaps both editors could reassess the objectivity of their approach when handling the issue of contentious deletion topics? Haleth (talk) 09:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

If you really think socking is going on, SPI is thataway. Otherwise it just seems like you're throwing shade on people just for agreeing with each other and not with you. Reyk _YO! 11:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I said "almost" as in almost seems like it. It’s obvious my discussion here wasn’t originally about that. Yikes man! I am well aware of where to go to. There isn’t enough substantial evidence and again I assume good faith that it isn’t sock puppetry. Sounds like you are throwing shade at me and you really need assume good faith as well. Geez! Your comments seem kind of random and baity IMO LOL. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 12:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes Haleth. People are reading too much of what I say. If you look at the title it even says “good faith”. Yet Piotrus pointed out that guideline like I am not adhering to it. Like what? Are you not reading my comments or are they not clear. Being on the spectrum it wouldn’t surprise me if I am not clear. But in good faith just let me know then. Also I assume good faith..and I do believe some articles should be deleted/redirected while some shouldn’t. Those I normally did not vote on because I knew the AFD would do its thing so I was a silent majority. So I am not always an inclusionist and disagreeing with the deletionists. The most bad faith thing I could think of to say is I do feel like these AFD's are being treated like cleanup which is a no-no. Also just advising to slow down the process because inclusionists MIGHT want to help save the articles but too many to save would be stressing for them. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

It is kind of weird that nobody even pretends to follow WP:BEFORE these days, and that faliure to meet GNG is just taken as read when nominating and making delete votes. Artw (talk) 03:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Here's an example of comic-related content that gets habitually deproded by Andrew: Tara Fremont. Two paragraphs, all plot-summary, no references. All is well, eh? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Tara Freemont is quite similar to Garganta – another member of Femforce. Garganta was prodded by Piotrus on 18 Nov and that prod was then removed on 23 Nov. Too Tall Tara was then prodded by Piotrus on 25 Nov even though it was clear that that opposition was expected. The nomination even anticipates the opposition by stating "There is also an option of WP:ATD in the form of redirecting this to Femforce..." which makes it clear that the nomination was a violation of WP:POINT. Piotrus is wasting everyone's time by using the PROD process when it is clear, even to them, that there is a more sensible alternative. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a bold merge seems like a more healthy alternative than prodding since prodding seems a bit controversial. If the article is a stub like that I don’t think anyone would mind. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jhenderson777 -->But isn't merging totally unreferenced content a violation of WP:V? What significance does this content add, given WP:ALLPLOT anyway? - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson -->Are you saying that redirecting is the best option here? If yes, then why haven't you done so? Aren't you wasting everyone's time by making us move to AfD? After a prod is challenged (which suggested redirect as an alternative), redirecting does not seem uncontroversial, and indeed, it would be "a violation of WP:POINT I believe. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I would probably just Boldly redirect that one. Not necessarily merge which I am used to saying. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The Tara Freemont article is not "totally unreferenced" and so GizzyCatBella is commenting without having read it. WP:ALLPLOT, which they cite, is an essay and so is mere unofficial opinion. GizzyCatBella is wasting time by presenting unsupported and erroneous opinions. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Or of course GizzyCatBella is doing nothing of the sort, responding to a discussion about "merging as an alternative to prodding", relating to the article at the time it was prodded, when it was totally unsourced. Merging it then is what their comments are clearly about. WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL aren't essays. You could have asked "what do you mean, the article is no longer unsourced?", instead of attacking the editor and jumping to incorrect conclusions like "is commenting without having read it". Fram (talk) 09:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Andrew, look, when I viewed it first, it was unreferenced; then you added very weak references, which is technically an improvement, but please don't mislead people into believing this article was referenced before. The added references are also relatively weak, as can be seen in the ongoing AfD in which you have not even bothered to participate in (where there is not a single keep vote). - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• Is it fair to conclude from this discussion that PROD shouldn't be used, at least for now, for comic book characters? It seems likely most will be disputed. And we have fairly solid evidence that some PRODs have been really bogus, showing no actual research, just looking at the state of the article. And some dePRODs also look pretty questionable. So let's just put a moratorium on the involved parties PRODing these articles for a bit. It's not helping, probably violating policy, and I think that more than a few are surviving AfD. Hobit (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

User page of John Simmit

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

---

Can some admin delete the userpage of John Simmit, as it just reads “E”. –Cupper52^Discuss! 15:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

So what? A user can put whatever they like on their talk page, as long as it's not disruptive. I hardly think "E" is disruptive. Primefac (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I've gone above my pay grade and removed the E. I hope John, who is blocked indef' for disruption, doesn't mind. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Dunno, I half expect the OP to now request a G7. Primefac (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

What a pity this editor has behaved in such a way as to get blocked. It took 14 days from account creation to get one letter on the user page, so in a few months we might have got a word, and in a few years even a sentence. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

E-V-E-R-Y-O-N-E--S-H-O-U-L-D--R-E-M-E-M-B-E-R--T-O--D-R-I-N-K--T-H-E-I-R--O-V-A-L-T-I-N-E. --Khajidha (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

You'd be surprised how many folks attempting to game ECP do that, actually. Primefac (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, I'm tempted to register User:Horta, just so I can put N-O-K-I-L-L-I on my user page. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Hide edits

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

---

Hello, could you please hide some edits in the history of page Marta Semelová? Edits contain vulgarism in the Czech language. Thanks. --Patriccck (talk) 18:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

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

500/30 protection on People's Mujahedin of Iran

Can we implement the 500/30 protection to WP:GS/IRANPOL articles? (or more specifically to the article People's Mujahedin of Iran?) We are suddenly getting several new editors with a keen interest in voting on the RfCs there. Thanks. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Participating in discussions over contentious material is what we want new users to do, and I doubt you'd find an admin willing to EC-protect a talk page. There is an RfC that has gone on far longer than it should have, but I don't see any evidence of disruption. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Instead of applying protection to talk, we should be sure that any editors who seem to be new to Wikipedia are alerted using {{subst:Gs/alert|irp}}. Maybe the filer's concern is about the large RfC running at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#RfC about removing contentious content from the lede. But I haven't noticed any influx there of people with fewer than 500 edits. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Here is one, and here is another. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for tracking this down. The people whose edits you are mentioning are Maqdisi117 (talk · contribs) and Shiasun (talk · contribs). I'll let them know that their edits are being referred to in this thread. EdJohnston (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I am not a new user. I have a history of many edits in Persian Wikipedia. I even have some Good and Featured articles in Persian Wikipedia. But the other point is that I talked to the source there and just did not leave an empty comment.

Since I work mostly on Persian Wikipedia, please let me know by notification if you are talking about me. Shiasun (talk) 20:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• The two comments Stefka refers contain more substance than what some other users have been giving in that RfC. Shiasun, for example, actually presents a WP:RS to back up their point.VR _talk 21:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:UAA

There are 25 usernames from up to several hours ago at the time of writing. funplussmart (talk) 22:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Reporting User:Tizen03 for personal ethnic attacks

The User:Tizen03 has only been editing for sometime but has racked up multiple warnings on their Talk page, engaged in edit wars with multiple users, adds original researches, copyvios, but edit wars even when reasons are explained. Has some sort of agenda against a specific community living in Assam [50], [51] and even used WP:PERSONALATTACKS against me at the same time displayed WP:OWN. They have been called for their WP:CIR behaviour before [52]. They either need to take time off Wikipedia or remove themselves from the WP:ARBIPA space. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked one week for NPA. Any admin should feel free to modify or unblock w/o prior discussion. A ping would be nice. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
• My block of the user should in no way be taken as a total remedy. The community may wish to explore this user's edits further. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
• They should be tbanned under ARBIPA for going around calling everyone a "Bengali nationalist", if not just sitebanned. From looking at the history of blocked users editing Assam, the page this account had its first significant edits to, seems they may be related to The Black Truth. Or any number of sockpuppetry cases that have been active on that article. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
• Whilst I can support a topic ban wholeheartedly, I have no tolerance for racial/religious/ethnic epithets. If they are not indeffed at this juncture, they should be given to understand that the next such would result in an indefinite WP:CBAN. @Tizen03:, if you can do so civilly, feel free to participate via your talk page. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
• I so no indication of them receiving a DS alert. Seemed petty of me to give them one after I blocked them. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
• It's not the reason we are here, but they also have a problem with copyright. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ivanvector and Deepfriedokra: I did file an SPI, the diffs posted in it looked very similar along with the style and ORs. Some more that I found. Also note the interaction. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Assistance regarding a friend and some Wikipedia troll

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Anomic111 (talk) 17:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello i have had some issues today with a friend of mine accusing me of changing our schools wiki to his name and he has stated that the police are being involved [Not sure if he actually is] Anyway i am here to try contact a staff member to help me prove that i am not editing the wikepedia what so ever there's been a grifer who has been multiple times changing the wiki page of our school named Greenwood Academy [Located in Scotland, irvine] Whenever something happens he starts to blame me and now he has blocked me and if someone can please help me on who is doing it i don't need their information and such but at most if you can respond stating that it isn't me you could find out by most likely looking at my ip and the dude who changed it today to find a difference to maybe prove that it's not me since i don't want to lose a friend i can also provide proof of him saying police etc are getting involved and such— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anomic111 (talk • contribs)

Anomic111 Wikipedia does not have a staff. There are no edits associated with your account so it is difficult to know what situation you are referencing. If the problem involves the use of Wikipedia on your end, that is a matter for whomever is in control of your computer usage or network. 331dot (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

The article in question is Greenwood Academy, Dreghorn, where there's been some fairly standard juvenile school vandalism recently which has already been reverted. The account Anomic111 (talk · contribs) has not edited it, but we're not in a position to confirm or deny who's done what - the history of the article shows it's been edited by a few different accounts. It's very unlikely the police are going to do anything via Wikipedia, if there's been abuse on the school's network then that will be their issue. ~ mazca ^talk 18:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added pending changes protection to that page; I think that's generally a good idea for school pages that are attracting juvenile vandalism. That should prevent such vandalism from being visible to the general public. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

"the police are getting involved" - if the person in question is on Wikipedia wouldn't that fall under NLT? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

If it were an actual editor stating that to them, then it would indeed be a No Legal Threats violation. However, if it's someone off-wiki saying it, then that wouldn't be relevant. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Template:Whois question

I asked a question at Template_talk:Whois#Wording_of_the_template regarding the wording of this template. Since it is administratively-related (and that template barely watched) I thought a cross-post would be appropriate. Please give your thoughts there. Primefac (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Concern about an admin

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

---

• Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries)

I kept hoping I didn't have to write this thread, hoping it was just me being overly picky, but I'm getting tired of seeing the same things week after week posted by other users as well, and today was the final straw.

Anthony Appleyard is without a doubt one of our most prolific and well-known admins involved in the realms of technical move requests and histmerges, to the point where often people will just ask for histmerges on his talk page. However, in the last year or so I've seen an alarming trend of him not giving the proper due diligence to his actions. For every request or "thanks" on his talk page, there is a concern about one of his moves; at his current talk page there are threads about RM/TRs that went against consensus (Sections 8, 42, 66, 70, 88), moves that broke things (Sections 53, 69, 76), and quite a few where extra cleanup was required (Sections 26, 28, 43, 47, 52, 59). There's also an unreplied query about multiple declines I made at WP:RFHM (which for the record he practically owns) which was subsequently ignored when a user put a {{histmerge}} on the article. There are also multiple instances (most archived) of histmerges that were performed because someone asked rather than there being any actual need (occasionally I stepped in to stop it).

Basically, this is me being frustrated with Anthony Appleyard not taking the time necessary to properly evaluate requests before performing technical moves and history merges. Multiple users have asked him multiple times to do better, and he either gives nonsensical, non-committal, or non-existent replies. I'm not sure what should be done here. Primefac (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Primefac: Please list in detail these incidents, so that I can see what went wrong. Thanks. I will try to be more careful in future. Thanks for pointing this out. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

  This is me genuinely curious, do you want me to provide direct links to the sections I mentioned above in the permalink of your current talk page? Primefac (talk) 00:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

  @Primefac: Yes please, or tell me how to access these sections while only knowing the numbers that you list above. I do check up on requests that I get :: that can be seen by the amount of history merge requests that Ihave rejected as seen in Wikipedia:Requests for history merge#Rejected requests. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

  @Anthony Appleyard: You can find the sections through the TOC. Here are the links, though: 8, 42, 66, 70, 88: [53] [54] [55] [56] [57]. 53, 69, 76: [58] [59] [60]. 26, 28, 43, 47, 52, 59: [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66]. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks Kevin. Primefac (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Primefac and KevinL: Thanks. I see that they are:
  • [67] a requested move for Cal State Northridge Matadors
  • [68] request to move Asynchronous transfer mode to an acronym.
  • [69] Sunoco to Sunoco LP :: I felt that adding " LP" was needed to disambiguate
  • [70] Walk off the Earth to Walk Off the Earth
  • [71]. Manipur (princely state)
  • [72] Template:Infobox Switzerland municipality :: I realized my mistake and I reverted it as soon as I could.
  • [73] AFC : a template.
  • [74]. About saffron : as User:TheAafi says, I realized my mistake quickly and I corrected it.
  • [75] Move Talk:Ziaur Rahman to an archive :: afterwards, GeoffreyT2000 told me in more detail what to do, and I obeyed him.
  • [76] Move to Climate change : I corrected my mistake quickly, and User:Certes admitted that it was a complicated job.
  • [77] About a diacritic on Diego Brandão's name.
  • [78] Merely that I forgot to remove a "{{histmerge}}" after a job. Sorry.
  • [79] About archiiving Wikipedia:Requests for history merge by page move
  • [80]. About that I did not remove the "{{NZ politician draft}}" template call.
    • Anthony Appleyard (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
• @Primefac and KevinL: Bear in mind that I have many times down the years found an uncontroversial-type move that I felt to be queryable, and I turned it into a "move?" discussion, and the verdict showed that I had noticed something significant. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

  As I said in my opening statement, you're one of the old guard that is well-known for working in this area, and with good reason. I'm not talking about years ago, though, I'm talking about this year. You've done a ton of great work in the past, but I'm concerned that you're starting to go on cruise control with some of these requests. Primefac (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC) As a minor point, I do watch AN so I don't need a ping on this thread.

• Thanks for listing my mistakes, to remind me, to keep me alert. Thanks. Sorry. I realise that any horse on a haulage job may need a jab with the spurs sometimes, even me. I know, I have ridden a horse once a week for a while. I better go to bed :: it is 1.25 a.m. here by British time.Anthony Appleyard (talk) 01:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
• I was going to be WP:BOLD and close this thread, but instead I'll be meek and just suggest it be closed. Anthony Appleyard has acknowledged the errors and stated their intention to be more careful in the future. I'm not sure what more we need to do here. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
• Before closing, maybe this is a good opportunity to ask other admins to step up and help out WP:RM/TR and WP:HISTMERGE occasionally. I know I was just asked to do a history merge and because I've never done one, I referred the editor to another admin. But I think it doesn't help the project when there are just one or two editors/admins basically running a particular area. It's great that people develop expertise in doing certain procedures and we can refer inquiries to them but it's even better when there is a larger pool of people that regularly check in on different admin areas and help out when they can. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Wikieditor19920

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

---

Wikieditor19920 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was already under a partial block from the closely-related Andy Ngo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (whose major target is Antifa), and continues to conduct debate via edit summaries not on Talk, and has been engaging in apparently tendentious editing at Antifa (United States) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) so I have added Antifa to he pageblock and extended it. This is in lieu of requesting an AP2 TBAN, which I think is defensible based on the lack of introspection displayed at user talk:Wikieditor19920 in response to the original pageblock, and noted by several well respected and calm editors, but I think we should be engaging in minimally aggressive controls right now due to the US political situation and associated elevated emotions. I encourage review and discussion of this, and this is without prejudice to action against the OP, Bacondrum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is absolutely not blameless here. I noted this at WP:ANEW where the original complaint is lodged. I suspect Bacondrum may also need some kind of restriction here - it's getting silly. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I made a few sets of bold changes to the lead at Antifa (United States), and contributions to the talk page with detailed explanations of my edits. There was disagreement and these edits were reverted - but some edits of my suggestions, such as removing overcitations and pointing out where sources did not in fact support the provided language -- caught on and were later restored. Each of my edit summaries have been as detailed as my contributions on the talk page have been, and while they have not been met with unanimous agreement, they have resulted in minor changes to the lead that seem to be an improvement, including the removal of those overcites as well as small pieces of other redundant information. This is how WP:BRD works, and none of this is tendentious. I will note that my changes were intended only to make the lead more concise and did not involve the addition of any controversial information.

@JzG:, who had repeatedly used terms like "fash," "neofascist apologist," and "grifter" to describe the subject of the page Andy Ngo, something I asked them to tone down because of the obviously inappropriate and unproductive nature of these remarks,[81] has now banned me from that page until 2021. When I brought this up with JzG, they accused me of some sort of anti-Muslim animus for my edits at Linda Sarsour over a year ago, which helped elevate the page to GA status. If this doesn't show an obvious bias by this admin at the subject in question (specifically their language in describing the subject of a BLP), I don't know what does, and I can't think of a clearer case for admin abuse than here. I'm not even surprised, I'm just disappointed. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

As for the other user mentioned here, this is an editor who I've avoided and who has repeatedly sought me ought, for some inexplicable reason to either snipe at me at the talk page by calling my edits "blatantly POV" or to violate 1RR. An admin claimed that they "couldn't find the violation," despite my report showing two distinct reverts within 24 hours. The user went on to open an ANI. So that's how it goes. When you are on the "right" side, 1RR violations are ignored. When you are on the "wrong" side, as apparently JzG disagrees with my edits, both at Antifa and the "grifter's" page, then violations are contrived and used as a reason to limit your access to those pages. I stand by each and every one of my edits at those pages -- I never engaged in an edit war where I directly reverted someone's removal of my changes, I always did partial reverts and attempted to account for objections, and indeed, some of my edits ultimately remained in the article.

This latest accusation of a violation was for merging two sentences about the group's protest activity to note non-violent activity as well as violent (both were already in the article before I made any changes, just in two separate sentences) Because, in merging the two sentences, I removed "against those who they identify as the far right," apparently it was tendentious, but JzG does not realize that this language was objected to by another editor in the talk page, Aquillion, and my removing it was a partial acknowledgement of their objection. Of course, actually reviewing my edits and their compliance with WP:BRD and giving me the benefit of the doubt is much more difficult than simply swinging the admin hammer and throwing around phrases like "tendentious." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, you made several "bold changes" all of which appear to have been reverted, by more than one editor. You did this in the context of an existing pageblock on Andy Ngo. Did you not pause at any point to reflect on the wisdom of this, or whether you should first seek consensus for changes to long-standing text? I look forward to seeing you contribute to a consensus building process on Talk (of both articles). Guy (help! - typo?) 01:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: No, they were not all reverted, as I just explained. My removal of citations was initially objected to, and then, coincidentally, agreed with by Bacondrum, who partially restored my changes. My last change was to merge two sentences and, as a show of good faith, remove language objected specifically to by Aquillion here, which was to qualify their protests against the far-right with "those that they identify." He called that language "weak." I disagreed, but I removed it nonetheless in my subsequent edits to the page -- I thought the sentences about their protest tactics went better together, and, in the process, I incorporated a specific request by another user who had previously taken issue with at least some of my edits. Only in an alternate reality is this tendentious editing, but, per usual, when you don't have the benefit of the doubt by admins who substantively disagree, then everything is cast in a negative light and used to justify extraordinarily stringent bans that aren't even issued for actual, severe violations (such as 1RR). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, so you won't have a problem with achieving consensus on Talk then, and demonstrating that you are in fact the good guy, despite past history. Great. That will be a decent result all round. I do recommend RfCs as a good way to settle intractable disputes. Guy (help! - typo?) 01:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: I don't need to demonstrate that I'm a "good guy" to you. My work speaks for itself. You have misconstrued my contributions at this page in justifying this poorly explained ban, and forgive me if I have a problem with that. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. Nobody needs to demonstrate anything to me, personally - I'm just zis Guy, you know? - but my advice to you, as an editor whom I respect regardless of personal differences, is to make it really easy for admins to see who's here to improve the encyclopaedia and who's here to right great wrongs. With that I will duck out, as long experience indicates that therse disputes go better when people are prepared to step back and wait for the dust to settle. Guy (help! - typo?) 01:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Wikieditor19920 rightly points out that Bacondrum is also under the same pageblock, it seems to me that equity might best be served by applying the same revised pageblock to both parties. What do others think? Guy (help! - typo?) 01:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
• I did not go past 1RR so I respectfully contest the idea that I should also be sanctioned. If I am to be sanctioned I request the diffs demonstrating that I have crossed the line...failing that I want to know exactly what I have done wrong, otherwise this is completely unfair. I'll be being sanctioned for having been targeted by a disruptive editor. Bacondrum (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Diffs showing the editor violated 1rr: First revert, Second revert, both in 24 hours. Here are the reports for the past three times in the last year and a half the user has the done same exact thing: 1, 2, 3. That's just to substantiate what I said when I pointed out the user was disregarding 1RR, something I very politely broached with them on their talk page (and which had absolutely no effect -- they continued making changes after claiming to have self reverted).

When I filed a report, Bacondrum, consistent with prior reports, offered a mix of faux apologies and crying wolf about being "harassed" claiming to be blameless, and that apparently worked; Inexplicably, this was closed without any action. For good measure, JzG, an admin who clearly agrees with this user about the page in question — I referenced above that JzG used the term "fash" and "neo-fascist apologist" to describe the subject Andy Ngo, and for the record, Bacondrum has used similar language at Talk:Andy Ngo -- unilaterally imposed a two-month ban, claiming I should have had notice about not editing at Antifa (United States) because of a page block at Andy Ngo. Apparently the same did not apply to Bacondrum, who violated 1RR at that page while under the same block, which seemingly is fine, but I should have known not to make any bold edits at that page or ones that other editors might possibly disagree with, no matter how minor. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, you won't win much sympathy here with your continued attacks against JzG here. You made your point that you disagree with how they have handled this dispute but you continue making personal attacks that can result in a sanction in itself. Diffs are more convincing that sharp language. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Liz:, Not one aspect of what I wrote is a personal attack, I am referencing specific comments by JzG and my issues with their action here. But thank you for the reminder that any criticism of an administrator is liable to be misconstrued or just misrepresented.

• Springee, well, yes, because without it nobody would know or care who Ngo is. His popularity among the fash is entirely down to his crusade against Antifa and his apologia for neo-Nazis. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC) [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andy_Ngo&diff=prev&oldid=984654558&diffmode=source Diff
• Wikieditor19920, which I did, but the RfC is specifically designed to discuss a single word, whereas most of the sources I have seen (and all the recent ones) either don't use it, or qualify it. Because, you know, he's a grifter. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC) Diff

And the other user involved mirrored those same comments in kind:

• Ngo is the very definition of a Hack writer - nothing more, nothing less. This is a ridiculous argument. Bacondrum (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Apparently, my mistake was suggesting that maybe we shouldn't use such language. My life would be a lot easier if I hopped on the boat and bashed the subject. But because I don't, I'm treated like an enemy by admins like JzG, and the burden is on me to prove I'm a "good guy" or on the "right side." Absolutely ridiculous. And in the meantime, when you happen to agree editorially with the admins about this kind of stuff, magically 1RR violations are written off or ignored. This type of behavior and misuse of admin tools does harm to the credibility of the site as a whole. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

And let's just be clear about what exactly JzG has presented as the basis to justify a 3-month topic ban on two pages. I changed this:

• Antifa political activists are anti-racists who engage in protest tactics, seeking to combat fascists and racists such as neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other far-right extremists. This may involve digital activism, harassment, physical violence, and property damage against those whom they identify as belonging to the far right. Much antifa activism is nonviolent, such as poster and flyer campaigns, delivering speeches, marching in protest, and community organizing.

To this:

• Antifa political activists are anti-racists who engage in protest tactics, seeking to combat fascists and racists such as neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other far-right extremists. This may involve digital activism, harassment, physical violence, and property damage, and nonviolent activities such as poster and flyer campaigns, delivering speeches, marching in protest, and community organizing.

There is absolutely nothing ban-worthy about this edit. I had not made any similar or partial reverts in the past 24 or 48 hours and it was a limited change. And yet, for a 1RR violation, he happily accepts false denials from Bacondrum that he did nothing wrong regarding 1RR and is technically correct, despite diffs obviously showing otherwise and the fact that this user has repeated the same conduct thrice before. This was an abusive block stemming from an editorial disagreement over a bold edit. This is exemplified by the unjustifiably lenient and chummy treatment towards an editor engaging in actual violations of DS but who happens to be on the "right side" of the disagreement. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

That is disingenuous. The history of the article shows a pattern of non-trivial edits by you, which are then speedily reverted by others. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:40, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Question:User:JzG Maybe I miss something but aren't you WP:INVOLVED in AP? --ְְShrike (talk) 07:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Shrike, Not in this article, to my knowledge, but that is why I brought it here for review by other admins. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:40, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

JzG, I think the best course of action is too ask a sanction here or at WP:AE and then impose it by uninvolved admin if it justified --Shrike (talk) 08:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why that'd be necessary, or how Guy is too involved to enact a sanction themselves?

As far as the sanction itself goes, am I correct in thinking that there are no individually problematic diffs here, rather the issue is persistent large-scale bold additions to controversial parts (eg the lead), which are quickly reverted for being bold, and a lack of awareness that their approach may not be best for this particular article? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Because they involved in the same topic and have opposite POVs --Shrike (talk) 10:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

JzG, why don't you point to these "non-trivial edits." Was it where I removed a total of about 12 words from the lead? Or where I removed sources citing WP:CITEOVERKILL, and was reverted by a user before the exact same change was re-added by Bacondrum? Because you have not provided a single diff either here or on my talk page, but you seem to rely on false representations by Bacondrum that 1) his making two reverts within 24h isn't "technically" edit warring, and that my making changes to same page over the course of a week is? @ProcrastinatingReader: And can you point to any of these "persistent, large-scale" additionals to controversial parts, or are you aware that my largest edit merely removed 15 words? As with JzG, who is 100% WP:INVOLVED, you did not read the diffs.

Shrike You are exactly correct. Not only do JzG and I apparently have different points of view about the article, I'm insufficiently committed to his points of view about the subjects themselves. And as for AE, What's the point? It's an obviously unjustified ban, but when I reported Bacondrum for his persistent edit warring, another admin, Black Kite, just closed it without explanation or action and suggested there was "no violation" despite diffs. Totally incomprehensible. And yet, JzG presents innocuous a completely contrived violation here -- rehashing baseless arguments by Bacondrum -- and boom, three-month ban. If we can find an admin to ignore Bacondrum's obvious edit-warring and JzG can use admin tools with impunity against editors whose views he considers incorrect, whose to say another admin won't just come in and rubber stamp whatever he does? That's pretty much how it works around here. I also find it hilarious when JzG claims he "respects me personally," yet accuses me of anti-Muslim bias for editing Linda Sarsour (which I got to GA status), when I called him out on his outrageous comments at Andy Ngo. This is a WP:INVOLVED admin using their tools granted by the community to punish an opposing editor for a frivolous, contrived violation, even as they ignore open violations of discretionary sanctions by others. And he's not the only one. But I'm afraid the likely outcome is another admin will come in, draw some artificial distinction to justify it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 11:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of anything - I'm trying to clarify the TLDR of the reason for the ban in the view of the sanctioning admin.

However, And can you point to any of these "persistent, large-scale" additionals to controversial parts, or are you aware that my largest edit merely removed 15 words? seems quite inaccurate. I just looked at the history at a skim which shows sets of major changes to the lead from you (eg Special:Diff/988739848/988769763, Special:Diff/989452230/989455729, Special:Diff/990109873/990137392, or Special:Diff/990687183), and each being swiftly reverted, by 3 different editors.

And, as some advice, the walls of text above are not helping, and such format may be more suited for WP:AE. Take the appeal there, or if you'd rather the conversation happen here, could you please actually let other people converse? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: That's fine. But just realize that all of those "major" changes are removal of citations and minor changes to wording, which were reverted as a knee-jerk reaction by one user until the talk page realized that my suggestion might have some merit and accepted the same changes from another user. My edits were fully within WP:BRD, and each set of changes I made sought to account for points articulated at the talk page by others, which, contrary to what JzG represented, I was an active and regular participant in. And the kicker here is that the other user in fact violated 1RR but has been allowed a pass for it by two admins now. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 11:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it's better for everyone to be on the same page first before anyone starts trying to make an argument which may not even match with Guy's reasoning for the sanction. Somehow, 4 diffs has been turned into all of the text above, which is somewhat hard to navigate. You're also kinda repeating the same points and trying to turn this into something that is, in my view, irrelevant to the matter of whether you or anyone else should be blocked or unblocked here.

As far as 1RR on the other editor goes, I presume you're referring to Special:Diff/989462509/990109873? If so, whilst that rewording is perhaps technically within the scope of the definition of a "revert" if taken very literally, from a quick glance it appears it did not revert your actions (which were wholly reverted in Special:Diff/989462509 by another editor) or anyone else's in recent time. Unless I'm mistaken there, and I have only quickly glanced, I don't particularly believe in sanctioning someone for technical violations which show no intent to edit war. You link to User_talk:Bacondrum#Antifa above, and the editor seemingly tried to communicate with you and seems confused, and you did not respond? Seemingly the editor tried to resolve your concern in Special:Diff/990139380 but had no clue what you were talking about. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Ugh. I have just found Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Bacondrum_reported_by_User:Wikieditor19920_(Result:_Closed), and now I'm mildly frustrated at my time being wasted here. This seems quite disingenuous to me, and trying to get another editor sanctioned under a legalese, technical definition of revert (aka, a copyedit), after it has already been resolved, is quite inappropriate. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: You should either follow accurately what's going on or stay out of it. You claim you don't believe in a technical violations which show no intent to edit war. 1RR is not a technical violation, it's edit warring. I filed a report only after asking the user to stop, politely. They said they would, then continued to edit war, and lied about it on the AN3 page. This editor is not confused in the least -- they acknowledged the 1RR violation, continued it, and then denied it after being reported. This is their third time being blocked or warned for the same violation, as I linked above, and yet editors like you still give them the benefit of the doubt based on an unconvincing set of claims of ignorance. Of course, when I make changes to language, it isn't written off as a copy edit, but when this user does so outside the limits of 1RR, it's copy editing. So you hate "legalese," but apply it for me and not this other editor? These are exactly the phony distinctions that I was talking about earlier. You're right about one thing: I'm not going to keep re-explaining myself to editors who arbitrarily pre-judge a situation without even looking at what transpired, or selectively choose to ignore facts. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Three uninvolved administrators have rejected that report there, and one further administrator has criticised your approach here. Your tripling down is greatly unfortunate. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

And they are wrong. I'll provide the diffs again. First revert., Second revert. Two distinct reverts interrupted by another user's edits within a 24 hour period. But when you're just looking for a post hoc justification to nail someone you don't like or disagree with, what do facts matter? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know you or the other editor, and I couldn't care less for the Antifa article. So perhaps a good start here is to acknowledge that every admin and editor who says your assertions are false aren't all conspiring against you. The first edit is not an obvious revert, as multiple uninvolved admins at ANEW have told you. I still don't have a view on your original block, but I take a very dim view of this persistent, meritless attempt to pull down another editor, at least on this "1RR" charge. It is unacceptable, and you should stop. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: I'm not going to continue arguing about this with you. You have no idea about the situation and are another jumping on the bandwagon. But just so we're actually dealing in reality, the first edit is a direct revert of this previous edit.Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - Administrators might want to look at their conduct at the Pit bull article, including edits like this and their numerous talk page edits where much of the same behavior is demonstrated - discussing bold edits through edit summaries, removal of sourced content, introduction of NPOV language, etc. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

discussing bold edits through edit summaries. Do you mean in addition to discussing my changes on the talk page? It's really interesting where a detailed edit summary is contrived as a violation. See this RfC on sources, where I directly discussed concerns at that page with arguments/content presented by PearlSt82, which I was only briefly involved in, and where other users agreed with my points. Shame on you for misrepresenting that, PearlSt82. "Introducing NPOV language" and "removing sourced" material" is a one-sided way of presenting editorial disagreements as if they somehow show wrongdoing. I'm also presuming you meant to say "POV language," which is just false; my changes in fact added what I saw as genuinely NPOV language, which is precisely what we should be doing. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Further examples of bias and inappropriate commentary between JzG and Bacondrum at Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory

So that it's clear I'm not the only one who's encountered this problem: At another page, these two users exchange barbs over a discussion of sources that went well beyond the line.

• Davide King, cultural marxism moved into the media mainstream the same way that climate change denial did: through motivated reasoning by grifters. Being part of the mainstream doesn't stop it being bullshit. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• JzG Hit the nail on the head. Spot on. I think the issue is that some people are rightly embarrassed to find out they have been regurgitating a Nazi era antisemitic conspiracy, so they get upset about it and make up excuses. Bacondrum (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Without delving into the complexities here, both editors apparently use hostile, aggressive language in reference to editorial disagreements between editors and vitriolic accusations are thrown about casually in the same manner I pointed out at the Andy Ngo article, from these same two editors.

• In another thread, in response to another disagreement, Bacondrum replies to the opposing editor in the dispute: Oh my. What a tantrum. Oh well, bye...WP:NOTCOMPULSORY That thread makes me want to quit, what a bunch of whinging bullshit. Bacondrum (talk) 20:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

It is laughable how some commenters here are trying to pin the blame on me for "pulling down a good editor" for calling out Bacondrum's edit warring. This editor calls names and attacks others the moment any kind of disagreement arises, in a brutal and personal way. Despite seemingly distancing himself from this behavior from Bacondrum at the start of this thread, JzG either participates in the conduct or gives a symbolic wag of the finger and a wink for what should be a patent violation of WP:CIVIL and grounds to ask the user to take a break from the page. If this isn't either incompetence or bias by an administrator, I don't know what is, and JzG's actions against me are just one part of that pattern. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• You're pretty clear about your take on JzG, but, reading the above, I don't see a single editor who agrees with you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• The evidence is posted above says all there is to say. But knocks like yours, Beyond My Ken, have absolutely nothing to do with substance and everything to do with making someone feel isolated, regardless of whether or not they bring up a valid point. I'm surprised that's the only thing you have to say, given your past issues with Bacondrum mirroring mine, but everyone's entitled to their opinion. (And yet, Shrike seems to understand exactly what I'm saying, so your observation is also not correct.) Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Actually, you should read Shrike's comments again, because they have little to do with your complaint, and are more general in nature. Not every possible criticism of JzG means that the person agrees with you. Nor do my past disagreements with Bacondrum -- we're now on good terms, BTW -- have anything whatsoever to do with this case -- but I guess you're just grasping at straws and striking out at anyone who comes here to comment because your complaints are not getting the least bit of traction. That possibly also accounts for your WP:BLUDGEONing this discussion with repetitive WP:BATTLEGROUNDy walls of text.
  I suggest that the Law of holes applies here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Call it whatever you want. I stand by what I've said about the severe and arbitrary nature of this block by JzG and the evidence I presented. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Fine. Could you please learn how to properly indent discussion comments? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: suggests my documenting a 1RR violation is "harassment," yet did not even look at the diffs or my attempts to broach the issue with the editor beforehand, and proposes a ridiculous and punitive ban. They claim that I have a "track record of personal attacks," yet provides no such example. That's because I do not attack editors. You will not find one comment by me calling an editor "whinging" or calling their argument "bullshit" as in the diffs above, but yet again, this behavior is of no concern, nor is the fact that a clearly WP:INVOLVED admin imposed an excessive and arbitrary restriction on a page we've both been working on. This "circle the wagons" and "death by a thousand cuts" to anyone who dares question authority or the house point of view is what drives editors away.

It's easy to dig diffs, talk page notices, or disputes from the past four years and claim whatever you want and ignore my contribtuions, but the fact is any editor involved in AmPol has butted heads with others and engaged in passionate debates. When you are on the "wrong" side of those debates, it always seems to attract "warnings" and other sort of attention. The way that editors pull years-old threads out of context is just silly. @Bishonen: cites a thread where I asked another editor, who repeatedly appeared at pages I was editing to revert me, to not WP:STALK my edits if they were doing so, as "illustrative." The user got hostile and filed an ANI, which was ignored and archived. Other users who had followed the situation at that thread noted that I did absolutely nothing wrong, but Bishonen presents it here as damning evidence of I don't know what. I'm familiar with Bishonen's work and respect them, but this is just so one-sided and misleading.

If I had used the phrase "grifter" or "(insert negative association)-apologist" to describe any mainstream, popular subject, without providing a source, I would have been indeffed without question, as would any regular user. And that would be the right decision against any editor coming into AmPol with that kind of attitude. But again, you would never find one such example of any statement by me. But if I criticize those expressions coming from an admin -- especially one who just banned me from a page we've both been involved in -- then apparently that is a "personal attack" or "battlegrounding." I never claimed perfection, despite the accusations that I've never shown introspection, but apparently it's much easier to simply resort to punitive and extreme ban proposals and avoid an uncomfortable discussion about why the conduct I highlighted above is either tolerated or encouraged by admins freely and what kind of problem that creates for a productive atmosphere. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

You can dig up diffs or disputes from the past four years Anything you'd like to disclose? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: Sorry, are you asking for something specific or just every time I've had a disagreement, made an edit that was reverted, or objected to something in an article? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

You know what, there is. Bishonen outrageously accuses me of "POV" without a shred of evidence, even as I've presented multiple examples of here, in the specific conduct I took issue with, of admins and users actively deriding and expressing negative opinions about the subject of a BLP. This ridiculous double-standard reminds me of a comment raised by a user at the thread Bishonen provided:

@Bishonen: One of the complainants here has told another editor in an American politics related MfD: [309] How about you and your whole busybody crew fuck right off!! Back when that happened, it was mentioned at AE etc. and nothing was thought of it. Now you are warning Wikieditor19992 for far, far less. It seems that there are two sets of standards at play. Different rules are applied for different editors depending on whether they follow the house POV. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I meant that your account is from 2018, but you say four years, so I'm just curious what you were editing on beforehand? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: None, that is my rough guess about how long I've been editing Wikipedia for (i.e. been using this single and only account). It's not something I keep track of, and it may be 3 or 2.5. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

So, you're saying that your "rough guess" about how long your tenure on Wikipedia has been (2 years and 8 months) is 4 years or 3 or 2.5? That's believable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

That's right. I just checked the diff again, it was September 2018. Congratulations. It's not something I sit around and think about or keep track of, but I would figure you to assume bad faith or infer something nefarious. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

As with much of your editing, it probably wouldn't hurt you to think a little more about what you're doing before you do it. Perhaps then you might realize that there's no reason for the 14th repetitive wall-of-text argument because the previous 13 pretty much said what you wanted to say, and you're only creating a bad impression by saying it again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken That was obviously an honest mistake. Nonetheless, clearly you have a point, since my communications are being pretty quickly disregarded. Regardless, I think I brought up a few legitimate issues:

• Use of admin tools by a WP:INVOLVED admin to impose a three-month ban for an extremely minor edit
• Concerning expressions used about a BLP
• Seemingly arbitrary standards applied in resolving an editorial dispute with sanctions

Could I have expressed myself better? Sure. But the proposed WP:PUNITIVE block addresses nothing, and it feels like retribution for my having criticized an admin who subsequently requested a desysop. I don't know if it's related, but the fact that this administrator did so immediately afterward raises an obvious question about the propriety of the intial block. And rather than addressing this point, ProcrastinatingReader brings up talk page notices from 2018 to aggressively lobby to have me blocked for bringing it up. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, @Slywriter:, just to clarify, are you referring to me when you describe American politically conservative editors? If so, I'm going to ask you to strike that, because you are a) mischaracterizing my views and b) you really don't have any information to characterize my views, party registration, or personal beliefs in the first place. My concerns about disparaging a BLP extend to all pages regardless of any ideological spectrum they fall on, as I already indicated. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, @Slywriter:. Agree that that kind of material is frustrating, disagree that I went lower by bringing it up, but appreciate the feedback. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

May not be my finest use of the english language but my point is if you keep finding yourself dragged onto the drama boards by other editors/admins then you should take a step back and ask why and how can I avoid it going forward. Now unfortunately, the community may force that upon you but I do think it would be a net negative to Wikipedia for that ban to be a complete one that drives you away from the project Slywriter (talk) 02:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Appreciate it! We'll see what happens. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

For those who seem to suggest my only positive contributions have been outside AmPol, this is untrue. I helped bring Linda Sarsour to GA status as well, one at the intersection of AmPol and PIA. It's far more difficult to make those kinds of changes on a page where every edit is challenged and argued about, as opposed to that of a small college or little known academic, but I accomplished it, why? Because my edits were neutral and well thought out (as were those of the others who I was working with). So it's simply wrong to dismiss my work in that area of the encyclopedia based on a few unfortunate encounters. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment

I appreciate the overall message and tone of Wugapodes's comments, while I disagree with the suggested remedy. Even so, I'm seeing several editors attributing to me supposedly persistent battle-grounding, personal attacks, and everything in the book. While I don't think anyone who's edited AP-32 (including myself) can say they never once said something that they wish they had phrased differently, I resent the rush to judgement on topic bans and indeffs, severe and punitive remedies, without a single diff showing me disrespecting another editor, attacking another editor, or making an unfounded accusation. ProcrastinatingReader accused me of "parading attacks" against the user Bacondrum and filing a "frivolous report" at WP:AN3. I disagree but accepted the outcome. The response by Bacondrum was to:

• File a report against me titled "Using noticeboards to get revenge"
• Post a long comment criticizing me on the Talk:Antifa (United States)

This is not me "attacking" the user, this is what happend. It was then that JzG decided they would unilaterally, and without warning or notice, ban me for three months at two pages where they have been WP:INVOLVED, while letting Bacondrum off with a mere warning for the 1RR matter and their follow-up comments about me on multiple talk pages. Even the edit by me that JzG supposedly premised this on was exceedingly minor: I merged two sentences, removing a phrase objected to by another editor, and removed sources, something that others including Bacondrum agreed with on the talk page. This is not the kind of conduct that should lead to a T-ban. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Block proposed

• Indef for ongoing attacks and frivolous litigation against Bacondrum, a few steps removed from harassment, here and at ANEW; plus their track record of incivility and personal attacks from a skim of ANI & their talk page history; plus battleground behaviour; persistent bludgeoning -- all of which are on display above. That includes [82][83][84][85] (warned by Bishonen), multiple warnings for such conduct [86][87][88], prior sanctions [89][90] by @TonyBallioni and Black Kite. Regular throughout their tenure [91][92][93], gaining the attention of no less than a dozen totally different admins. Too many issues, regardless of any content merits. @Liz and Swarm: gave advice for self-reflection on your approach to collaborative editing on Wikipedia and ask yourself whether this is an environment you can work in one month ago, and at the heart of this dispute is not reverts but battleground behavior across several forums [...] if this dispute between you and Bacondrum continues [...] you will face a more serious sanction; this advice apparently hasn't worked. This kind of conduct drives editors away, which we are already in short supply of, and wastes the time of others, whilst deteroriating the editing atmosphere, and hence should not entertained for this long. Unfortunately, I feel another AP2 TBAN (their previous, 3mo for battleground behaviour, expired) will be insufficient, especially given the lack of introspection above, plus narrow editing interest and the broadness of the issues. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support indef. ProcrastinatingReader offers an impressive/depressing collection of diffs and links, including noticeboard threads illustrating the way people are worn down by Wikieditor19920's wordy and untiring POV-pushing. As I'm always saying, the time and patience of constructive editors is Wikipedia's foremost resource, and this editor is depleting that resource. This thread, which slid into the archives without a close, may be the most illustrative of all. And the warnings and sanctions, such as a three-month Am Pol T-ban, seem to have had very little effect on the user's style and attitude. If the proposal for an indefinite block doesn't gain traction, I suggest another T-ban from American politics, but this time not time-limited but indefinite. That does not mean forever, but it does mean there has to be constructive and useful editing in other areas, probably for at least six months, followed by a convincing unban request. I actually think it's time for an indefinite block, though. Bishonen | tålk 21:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC).
• Support indef After reading PR's diffs and especially, Bishonen's pointer to the January thread, I think an indef block is well-deserved to protect Wikipedia from WE19220's disruptive and harassing behaviors. Like Bishonen, I also support an indef AP2 Tban if there is no consensus for an indef block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support AP2 TBAN; Oppose CBAN An indefinite block after a community discussion is essentially a community ban, and I don't think we're at that point yet. I think there's enough disruption to warrant a broad topic ban from the more contentious parts of the encyclopedia though, and a TBAN let's us see if WE19220 can contribute positively or whether a CBAN should follow. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

  FTR, the issues extend to PIA also (see many of the links), so a ban would also have to cover that topic area imo if going TBAN route. But didn't you tell me these discussions are hard to do again? ;p That discussion blocked that editor for far less issues. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

  Sure throw in PIA too. An indef TBAN (like this) is different from a time-limited one (like in the example you give). A time-limited TBAN means that even if there's still problems we have to have a whole new conversation which--in that specific case--was unlikely to happen since the original thread had to be resurrected from the archive just to get sanctions in the first place. Meanwhile, any admin can indef WE19220 if they continue to be disruptive--we don't need a community discussion for that--and especially if they violate the TBAN. WE19220 seems to be productive outside these areas--they've started articles on academics and alumni and brought Goucher College up to GA. Jumping straight to an indef CBAN is a lot when they can clearly behave just fine outside these areas. That's what TBANs are for. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

  I'm usually the one who supports lesser sanctions, but for this kind of behaviour, which is a cancer to any collaborative environment, I genuinely do not see why anyone wants to allow this. You see one GA, I see the GAs that didn't happen because the editors were driven away. The editor says above the discussions I linked are from 2018, when most of them are from 2020, some not even a month ago. They think every uninvolved admin was against them. They do not get it; can you honestly say this conduct is rehabilitatable?

  Sorry, I cannot get behind your idea that any admin would indef themselves: nobody did so to date, instead opting for slaps on the wrist. Neither whilst this editor paraded their attacks on Bacondrum above - the very thing they were warned against doing - on the administrators noticeboard, one of the most watchlisted pages on this site. That a community discussion is now required is an administrative failure. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

  Our blocks aren't punitive, they are preventative, and since the disruption seems limited to defined topic areas, we can prevent disruption by banning WE19220 from those topics. I'd support a CBAN if those were the only areas to which WE19220 contributed, but it's not. I can come up with tons of hypothetical GAs that might have been written, but it doesn't change the fact that WE19220 actually wrote some and a CBAN won't magically make those hypothetical GAs or editors suddenly appear. The GAs and creations by WE19220 aren't even in the area of conflict; I'm not going to support a CBAN because someone thinks WE19220 will be disruptive outside of the TBAN areas since we have clear evidence that WE19220 can contribute fine outside of this topic area.

  People can change, even between topic areas, and we have many editors--even some admins--who started their careers with indef vandalism blocks or successfully appealed CBANs. In fact, I make it a personal goal to welcome back every contributor who successfully appeals a CBAN (e.g., Mar 2020, Nov 2020) per meatball:WelcomeNewcomer and meatball:ForgiveAndForget. So to your question can you honestly say this conduct is rehabilitatable? Yes, because I've seen it multiple times. It is far better to try and retain and reform editors where we can rather than kicking out people we don't like and hoping others magically appear. It is hard to get people to contribute, I say having run edit-a-thons and doing outreach with academics. You can wax philosophic about editor recruitment and retention, but kicking WE19220 out won't magically solve our problems and it is unfair to make them a scapegoat of a problem they're barely even part of. We have tons of editors who simply cannot contribute well in certian areas--Beyond My Ken, who is supporting a CBAN, is under an editing restriction himself. The Rambling Man has a topic ban and multiple interaction bans. We literally have TBANs for this exact reason and we should use them before resorting to more drastic measures like complete removal from the community.

  Finally, speaking as an admin, slapping an indef on someone in the middle of a community discussion is usually frowned upon per WP:SUPERVOTE. The ban discussion you started is why admins are hesitant to dole out sanctions because it could be seen as circumventing community discussion. Is that right or good? I don't know, but it's certainly strange to fault all admins for not taking action sooner on something we found out about literally a couple hours ago and which is actively being discussed by the community. Could the admins in the past done more? Sure. But they didn't and I'm not going to punish WE19220 now just because other admins were too kind. I'll certainly look at the blocks to find out where disruption is likely to continue to occur and take action to prevent that disruption, which is why I oppose a CBAN and prefer a TBAN: WE19220 seems fine outside of politically contentious areas. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose CBAN / Support TBAN (Broadly) The leeway given to certain editors in how poorly they treat subjects of articles on talk pages can be frustrating for american politically conservative editors (Though I stand by the original statement, Wikieditor is right that I lack the information to apply said statement to his specific circumstances). It even gets to the point where you believe that they are out to get conservatives editors that disagree with them. However, when they go low, you go lower is not the wikipedia way and Wikieditor needs a break from AP2 for everyone's sanity and so that they can understand wikipedia is ultimately not a battleground for supremacy of ideology. Reliable Sources, rationale debate and avoiding personal attacks is a much better way to improve articles. Slywriter (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support indef I haven't seen this editor before, but reading through this thread and linked discussions I can see a history of battleground editing which many warnings, noticeboard discussions, topic bans and blocks haven't been able to stop. The editors we actually want to retain on these articles are the ones who don't engage in battleground editing, and we're not doing them a service by tolerating this. I suppose a topic ban from modern US politics would take care of the immediate problem, but these are issues which are likely to crop up elsewhere. If we have to impose multiple topic bans, as suggested above, then that's definitely a situation where we should be looking at an indefinite block. Hut 8.5 08:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose JzG's descriptions of Ngo as a "grifter" and Ngo's actions as "apologia for neo-Nazis" are inappropriate. Wikieditor19920 has been right to scrutinize such BLP treatment, and I think it would be dangerous BLP-wise to remove editors who make sure that stuff like this doesn't get a free pass. Sadly, too often discussion in the AP32- topic area is hostile, and certainly Wikieditor19920 could do his part and improve. But it seems biased to ignore JzG's track record or consider criticism of Bacondrum as "frivolous litigation" when he has multiple blocks for edit-warring and battleground attitude. At that point it becomes sniping for POV. --Pudeo (talk) 08:56, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support TBAN / Oppose CBAN. Pretty much per Wugapodes; it appears that 19220 can contribute positively to the encylopedia in areas that aren't contentious; it would seem a shame to lose that. Black Kite (talk) 11:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support indef as first choice per Hut8.5, second choice TBANs from AP and ARBPIA - indefinite with appeal possible after 6 months. This is based on what I've seen of his edits over time and nothing to do with NGO or JzG. --Doug Weller talk 11:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose We have to see the full context here yes I think user should take a step back but admins shouldn't take actions in discretionary area that there are WP:INVOLVED even if they didn't edit certain article there are proper procedures for this --20:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrike (talk • contribs) .

• (1) It's far from clear that Guy was "involved" as defined by WP:INVOLVED. (2) People should actually read WP:INVOLVED once in a while, especially the part that says: "...the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion." (3) Guy brought his action here for consideration as to its appropriateness. The fact that we're now !voting about a possible sanction for Wikieditor19920, in which a number of admins have endorsed a sanction stricter than Guy put in place, and a reading of the section above indicates that the community's consensus as well as the consensus of admins is behind Guy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - Not seeing enough for a indef. Most of the examples above are overlaps and links to the same thing over and over. I am concerned with the same people showing up over and over with warnings and threats. That gets less and less productive every time it happens. PackMecEng (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  • That cuts both ways. The same people show up to defend... Just sayin'. --Valjean (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Not so much actually if you look at the overall people involved. Sure there are a few that show up defending them, but the vast majority are on the other end. Your comment reads more like WP:FALSEBALANCE. PackMecEng (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support CBAN, with TBAN second choice Time is precious here, and I don't have much patience with editors who are timesinks. Miniapolis 23:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support TBan (AP2) per Black Kite and Doug Weller. -- Valjean (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support CBAN first; broad TBAN second per Doug Weller.--Jorm (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, Wikieditor19920 should be more succinct, but other than that he is a constructive editor. 11Fox11 (talk) 06:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support CBAN as first choice. PR's links above show sufficient disruption that I believe this editor to be a net negative. Support INDEF TBAN from AP2 & PIA as second choice. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support indef as first choice, with TBAN as second choice per the concerns raised by Miniapolis and Doug Weller. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support indef and AP2/ARBPIA topic bans. Whereas I don't see any knock-out diffs that alone would warrant an indef, persistent arguing-to-death is very corrosive in a collaborative community and that is worse than a knock-out incident. Johnuniq (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose CBAN Personally, I find myself disagreeing with Wikieditor19920 frequently. I think his problem is with WP:BLUDGEONing the process, WP:IDHT and Wikilawyering which I don't think at this point warrant a community ban. If they could just take some of these criticisms on board and drop the persecution complex, they could continue to make worthwhile contributions. But I think their persistence here and refusal to drop the stick will result in some sanctions. Their complaints about a relatively limited page block (two articles?) might result in a topic ban or community ban. Not a smart move to take it this far. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support ONLY AP2 TBAN, oppose indefinite ban, I think that a lot of this editor's contributions are really good. He just needs to refrain from bludgeoning discussions where he is too passionate. At this point, we should try a limited TBAN. Kate Riley2019 (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support AP2 Ban Same reasons as above. Danielyng (talk) 14:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Request for closure

The request for sanctions has been open for 10 days, and the last posted comments is now 5 days old. Could an admin please evaluate the discussion and determine if a sanction is in order or not? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Just want to point out that 20 editors !voted in this discussion, 8 of them admins, so it deserves a formal close and shouldn't just scroll off. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Unblock request for Truth gatekeeper

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

---

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

Truth gatekeeper was originally blocked on March 20, 2019 by @Bishonen: for "persistent tendentious editing, misuse of sources, and BLP violations". The next day, @Doug Weller: check user blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Truth gatekeeper. They lost TPA and have requested unblocking via UTRS appeal #37213. Check user by @Ponyo: showed no recent socking/blockevasion. The unblock request is fairly detailed and hopefully addresses each of the reasons for their block. It is carried over below. I have restored TPA so they may respond to concerns there.

Dear Sir/Madam, I made an appeal with the key:- (Redacted) However, the appeal was DECLINED. I'm appealing again after improvements based on the last feedback I got. Here are some of my own mistakes and how I will address them, in eight sections (I - VIII):

I). Edit-war and tedious edits:- I will not break the three-revert rule which was one of the things that got me blocked. If by some chance I get a comment to fix something, I will carefully do so, instead of getting into an edit-war and reverting. I will also avoid any tedious edits from now on. Surely I will avoid edit-war from now on, after being blocked for almost two years.

II). My wrong assumption about block:- Two years ago, I thought a block was not serious and that I could always create a new account and bi-pass it, so I was careless in my edits. Now I have seen that the Wikipedia block evasion detection system is quite robust, so I will be extremely careful not to break any of the Wikipedia policies so as not to get blocked again. I have not blocked evaded for over a year and a half now and I will never do so. I have also matured, and I will be careful not to break any of Wikipedia policies.

III). Sources/reference:- I have learned that I must only use very reliable sources. Even on my WP:EVADE a year and a half ago, I have started only using reliable sources. I will even be more careful from now on, and use sources that are very reliable and easily verifiable. I have also for example learned to include the exact quote from the source/reference, I'm using the quote attribute of the "ref" tag ( that is, <ref |quote= EXACT TEXT... ). I started using this in my WP:EVADE a year and a half ago, to make the reference verification easy for the overseeing Admin and for the readers.

IV). Violations of WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE :- I have not done WP:EVADE for over a year and a half now. If I get unblocked now I will of course not do WP:EVADE. As for the WP:SOCK, I only engaged in WP:SOCK after I got blocked, mainly as a block evasion. However, I never engaged in WP:SOCK before I was blocked, so I will of course not engage in WP:SOCK if my block is lifted. I never at a time had more than one account and WP:SOCKed, before I was first blocked. I started to WP:SOCK so hide my WP:EVADE. I have understood that I have SOCKed while trying to EVADE, and that it was extremely wrong of me. But I never SOCKed before I was blocked, and I will not do so if I get unblocked. I will neither EVADE nor SOCK anymore, and I have not done so for the last year and a half.

V). POV issues:- I will be very careful not to do any POV anymore. And I will only use very reliable sources that don't have POV issues like Reuters and British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), and state things as exactly they are.

VI). Wikipedia policy violations (like NPOV & BLP):- I have gone through the policies, I promise to be very careful from now on. I will follow all of the Wikipedia policies carefully. I will not use sources that have NPOV issues. I will even be extra careful if I edit a Biographies of living persons (BLP), since I have understood that it is a very sensitive thing. I even started making little improvements on this on my WP:EVADE edits a year and a half ago, I will even be extra more careful from now on. And like I said above, I never did WP:EVADE for over a year and a half now, and I will never do it again.

VII). Though I made many more mistakes, few of them are from the Editors. For example, I correctly changed "almost a million have been displaced" by with the correct figure "1.5 million", but I was wrongly accused of distorting the figure ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Truth_gatekeeper/Archive#18_April_2019 ). But even the current Abiy Ahmed Wikipedia-page version says "1.5 million" (like me) backed with many reliable references; furthermore, here is also another source link from a speech quote of Abiy Ahmed himself on the legitimate AfricaNews media that quote him say "After I came, an additional 1.5 million people were displaced." ( https://www.africanews.com/2019/03/29/one-million-displaced-ethiopians-return-home-abiy-meets-press/ ).

VIII). I have a wide range of IP addresses as you saw on your Sockpuppetry-investationgs back then, so I couldn't be blocked by IP-address. I abstained from block evasion for the last year & a half since I personally want to follow Wikipedia's policies and make contributions in the right way. This also shows that the current block is not necessary, because if I wanted to disrupt I can do so even from the computer I'm now writing you this from (since my computer's IP address is not blocked). This shows that I do NOT have the intention to make a disruption, since there isn't any IP block currently stopping me even now if I had the intention to disrupt. Kind regards,Truth gatekeeper.

Thanks, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Weak Support everyone deserves a second chance and this is a well written appeal. However, WP: WALLOFTEXT. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• Barring CU evidence to the contrary, i support unblocking on the basis of the good appeal above. I do, however, have two suggestions: First, what appears to be the special area of interest/conflict ~ Ethiopia and the Tigray Region ~ is obviously at the moment even more appealing to those of one side or the other, so i suggest Truth gatekeeper stay away from that area consistently and carefully, at least until a better track record is established in contributions; second, i highly recommend a name change, as editing with the perspective that name suggests is like editing as User:World's Greatest Wiki-editor ~ just setting one's self up for a fall; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 19:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - An editor who chooses "Truth gatekeeper" for their screenname is not going to change their stripes, no matter what they say in their appeal. I am not in favor of returning PoV editors to the fold without some sort of safeguard, such as a topic ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment You're saying that CU by User:Ponyo showed no recent socking. May I ask on what grounds the check was performed? I'm asking because our policy explicitly prohibits checks to "prove innocence." Iaritmioawp (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

  Requests by individual editors to have a check run on their account to prove themselves innocent of a sockpupptry charge are declined. Checking an account with a history of socking as part of an unblock appeal is absolutely permitted by policy (and is often expected).-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Users who are blocked for sockpuppetry are routinely checked for ongoing block evasion when they make unblock requests. This is nothing new, and the usual unblock request template includes a link to checkuser which pre-fills the reason "User talk:Username, unblock request" (we have to give a reason for all checks). The prohibition on checks to "prove innocence" relates to checking users when no reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry has been established. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

  Because I could not have proceeded with an unblock appeal w/o checking with a check user first. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

  Without first consulting a CheckUser, administrators must not undo or alter any block that is specifically identified as a "checkuser" block, such as through the use of the {{{checkuserblock}}} or {{{checkuserblock-account}}} templates in the action summary.[7] If an administrator believes that a checkuser block has been made in error, the administrator should first discuss the matter with the CheckUser in question, and if a satisfactory resolution is not reached, should e-mail the Arbitration Committee. A reversal or alteration of such a block without prior consultation may result in removal of permissions. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• I have no opinion that I wish to express on whether this person should be allowed to edit here, but I agree with others above that the use of this user name can only end in tears. If the appeal is allowed a change of user name should be a condition of returning. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

  I must confess that when I saw that user name I was skeptical. Perhaps appellant can address this issue. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support unblock. It's been a year and a half, they understood what they did wrong, and they've refrained from socking all this time. Let's not second-guess future behavior based on a username. If they want a new username, that's cool, but making it a condition of unblocking seems just plain silly. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblock – per Roy. The username accords with WP:U policy and I don't think my personal opinion about the username should affect whether or not the user can edit. Otherwise I see no reason not to unblock per the principles of WP:SO and WP:ROPE. Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblock per RoySmith and ROPE. Truth gatekeeper: I think you should strongly consider changing your username to something unambiguously innocent if you are unblocked; think of it as a new name for a (hopefully) clean start. Your current name will only lead people to be skeptical of your intentions and motivations. Best wishes from Los Angeles,   // Timothy :: talk  04:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblock per above. starship.paint (talk) 05:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock this addition is one of few medium/large additions, https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Tsegede&diff=prev&oldid=884471780 and they all appear to be uncited cut and copy and the few actual content additions they have actually made all appear to be copy paste from the www. I can't see that there will be usefull contributions from the user and so whatever username they edit under I do not support unblock. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support Unblock Well written appeal. As you mentioned, you say you have matured over the period that you were blocked; and I can see that from your appeal. Danielyng (talk) 14:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support Unblock per RoySmith and ROPE. Reading their unblock request they appear to have matured and are now fully aware of what got them blocked and what not to do in future. –Davey2010^Talk 19:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

replies from Truth gatekeeper

• special:permalink/991611957#UTRS 37213--

I). About my user-name ("Truth gatekeeper"), I have already tried to clarify this on my answer on 20 March 2019 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Truth_gatekeeper#Timesink ). I meant the "Truth gatekeeper" user-name the other way round; meaning that I only want the truth to be written on Wikipedia, and that I want to expose or remove false (and un-referenced) information that has been written on Wikipedia. I meant it like a guard, who only lets "truth" come-in. I obviously did not mean it the other way round, (as most of you seem to interpreter it). However, I have decided to change my name once (or if) I get unblocked, to another not confusing/misinterpretable user-name (like Loves_VirginiaWoolf1882, or something even more simple).

Anyhow, I'm very sorry for creating a confusion with the "Truth gatekeeper", but my desired meaning for the user-name is being misunderstood.

II). Sorry for the WP: WALLOFTEXT on my appeal, it was due to lack of awareness, and from improving & reusing of text from my previous appeal; (but it was not intentional). Truth gatekeeper (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Carried over by me --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

{u|Truth gatekeeper}} There is no "confusion" over your username, what you describe as your motivation is precisely what we don't want on Wikipedia. We do not add or delete things on the basis that they conform to our personal definitions of "truth", we do so on the basis of whether they are verifiable and supported by citations from reliable sources. Those things we take as being "facts". Facts are mutable, they can change as more information or evidence becomes available about them. "Truth" is immutable, it is what it is to the beholder.

We really don't need or want a "Truth gatekeeper", what we want is an editor who will follow our policies and improve articles by the addition of verifiable information and the removal of unverified information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Truth gatekeeper Re-ping. See my last comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

My "I am not here to promote a POV" t-shirt .... --JBL (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

To be fair (and disagreeing with BMK, something i do with reluctance), in the real world the word "truth" is often used in exactly the way that Truth gatekeeper seems to be using it ~ for what BMK is describing as "fact". For that reason i'll reaffirm my support for an unblock, nothing in either one of Tg's replies makes me change it; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 06:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Truth gatekeeper Reply #2

• Update permalink --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi everyone (@Deepfriedokra:, @LindsayH:, @HurricaneTracker495:, @RoySmith:, @Ponyo:, @Phil Bridger:, @Beyond My Ken:, @Levivich:, @Starship.paint:, @TimothyBlue: and the rest),

Thank you all for your support and for reviewing my appeal. @Beyond My Ken:, I saw your last comment and yes I understand, and I made those same points on my appeal text (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Unblock_request_for_Truth_gatekeeper). Furthermore, what I meant by "un-referenced" is "unverified" (i.e. follow Wikipedia's policies and improve articles by the addition of verifiable information and the removal of unverified information).

Truth gatekeeper (talk) 09:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Carried over by me --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Request to close

• Been open more than a week. Last edit was four(?) days ago. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

  {{checkuser needed}} to close this. To note I see consensus for an unblock per WP:ROPE, but as I am not a checkuser I cannot undo checkuser blocks. Therefore, the closing admin for this should be a checkuser, so they can perform the unblock if they see consensus. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

  Check was already completed; see above. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• Just to make sure I'm crystal-clear: Ponyo's findings/this discussion qualify as consulting a checkuser first, and Deepfriedokra you don't object to an unblock but don't feel you can finish the UTRS by unblocking yourself? —valereee (talk) 15:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

  @Ponyo: just to confirm, but I agree with Ivanvector. @Valereee: I'm not neutral, really. (I'm for unblocking). It would be better if someone objective who has not dealt with this request close the thread. Thanks for your time. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

  Deepfriedokra, I'm happy to handle as long as no one's going to take me to ANI for unblocking a CU block! :D I'm completely neutral on it. I'll likely make it conditional on a rename per concerns, but TG seems quite open to that. Ponyo's not edited in two days and Doug Weller hasn't expressed any opposition, so I'm just crossing my fingers. —valereee (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

  @Doug Weller: Yea or nay? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

  Deepfriedokra, ok, with a name change (and the old name made clear on their userpage. Doug Weller talk 19:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Harsher copyvio blocks needed, and request for help at CCI

Given recent incidents involving two users that led to the backlog at Contributor copyright investigations getting much larger and the massive flood of cases we've seen there over the last few months, I'm asking other admins to get much tougher with copyright blocks- they shouldn't be anything other than indefinite, should happen within 3 or so violations, and appealing them should be much, much more difficult.

I also ask the community to help out at CCI- the situation is getting urgent, as the backlog has grown to over 100k articles over the last few months, the overall cases is now close to 200, and only about 3 users other than me are regular editors there. You don't need to be someone deep in the scene to help, I've written a guide (User:Moneytrees/Money's guide to CCI) and have sorted the CCIs by where they copy from (User:Moneytrees/CCI Sort). Since 54 cases have under 100 articles to check, the backlog can be decreased, but a lot more attention will be required. Thanks to those who will help out and feel free at ask any questions. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 18:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Moneytrees, I see what you're saying. Copyvio is a habit, likely unrealized as an issue in otherwise well-intentioned editors. If we find it in one article, the likelihood is very high we'll find it in that editor's other contributions because that's how they edit. And it's possible this is the only thing this editor is doing that would draw attention to their edits, so a lot of it could fly under the radar because no one has otherwise any reason to scrutinize those edits. —valereee (talk) 22:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Horn of Africa

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

This case request is provisionally resolved by motion as follows:

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes) for a trial period of three months and until further decision of this Committee. After March 1, 2021 (or sooner if there is good reason), any editor may ask that this request be reopened for the purpose of evaluating whether the discretionary sanctions have been effective and should be made permanent or if a full case should be accepted to consider different or additional remedies.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Horn of Africa

Spitballing - autoprotect bot

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

---

There were a few of us discussing this the other night on IRC, and I just saw there was a similar proposal at the meta wishlist, so I thought I'd bring it up here. Background: we got hit by a vandal the other night, and for whatever reason we ended up with over 110 edits and reverts in the span of an hour before the page was locked down (and yes, it was reported to RFPP, just not seen quickly enough). While we don't really want vandalism sitting about until an admin can appear (i.e. "I've already reverted them five times, I guess I'll wait for a sixth"), we also don't want to be clogging up edit histories with this level of back-and-forth. Hence, the thought for an autoprotection bot.

Since we have the "Revert" tag now, our thought was that if a page experienced more than 5-10 "Reverted"-tagged edits in a span of say 10-20 minutes, an adminbot automatically protects the page for an hour or two (whether semi- or fully-protected is up for debate, since the warring might be between two AC users). This would give us mere mortals a chance to investigate the issue and hand out any blocks or extended protections as necessary, without the messy result of potentially dozens of edits to clean up.

I know this is a bit more of a BOTREQ, but since the bot would be an AdminBot (and on that subject, I think it should be a dedicated bot for this specific task) it would need to be discussed here first anyway. Primefac (talk) 13:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

As an idea I think this is great, but I would like to see some constraints on the admin bot before I would give my support. I would want to see that self reversions be excluded from the count, especially if this applies to more than just mainspace pages. Some questions:

• The reverted tag does not detect all reversions, as there is a limit as to how far the mediawiki software goes back to find out if a edit is a reversion. I think this limit is 10 previous revisions. It is possible, but unlikely due to the 10-20 minute timeline, that some reversions might go untagged if the edit rate is very high. Would the bot also check for reversions which were not detected by the software? If so, when would be the bot be prompted to do this on a page?
• What namespaces will this bot monitor? I would argue that there is a case for all namespaces to be monitored and protectable, but only if self reversions are not included.

Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

As near as I can tell every vandal edit linked above was tagged, so I'm not too concerned about the system "missing" something; either way they were up to almost 20 reverts (and 40 edits!) in the first ten minutes, so if an edit or two gets skipped it's unlikely to matter. I don't see any reason why it couldn't monitor all namespaces, but obviously article space is the reader-facing space that would need it the most. Also, if someone is self-reverting that quickly (especially in the articles space), they should be CIR- or DE-blocked for being disruptive. Primefac (talk) 14:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

As a technical note (I'll probably raise this at BRFA, but in case I forget) maybe it should maybe check for undo/rollback/manual revert rather than reverted: N number of consecutive edits that are reverted once will have N many "Reverted" tags, even though it's just one revert. Alternatively, some logic to count a consecutive set of "reverted" tagged edits as a single revert, to ensure the reverted edits were recent and also check what kind of editor made them. Makes sense to only do it for IPs/non-autoconfirmed and to semi-prot I think, and then perhaps the bot reporting protections in the last day to WP:RFPP in a separate sub-section.

For the record, Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Automatically_report_highly_reverted_pages_for_page_protection is also slightly related. Worth adding that 249 usually catches these, and User:DatBot usually reports them to WP:AIV already, but some timezones have more admins active at AIV than others. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I support this, but I'm concerned that someone who knows what they're doing could game the bot into locking an article with a gross BLP violation visible. I'd like to make sure that if the bot is going to protect a page, it first reverts to the latest non-reverted revision. It might also be useful if the bot would list any pages it protects this way in a new subsection at RFPP so that there's a central place for admins to review. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Pretty sure if we've got a bot locking pages, it'll be posting it somewhere for review. I do also see the potential for gaming, and that's a pretty good solution. but if it's being reviewed faster due to a post from the bot, it will likely be fixed faster (WRONGVERSION and all that). Primefac (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC) struck and added to following PR's comment below 15:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

it first reverts to the latest non-reverted revision What's the best way to determine that, though? See [94] for example. The first set of reverted edits aren't actually tagged. One could assume the editor with rollback has reverted correctly and that revision can be trusted, but perhaps they haven't reverted far back enough, so someone else comes along and reverts further. How would the bot know which one to go with? Also a tricky assumption to just go for the earliest revision before that single editor edited, in case it's a case of multiple IPs/accounts causing issues. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

And we need to consider the following scenario: a user prepares, in advance, 3 different accounts. Account #1 inserts vandalism or BLP violation. Accounts #2 and #3 immediately edit war over a different part of the page. The bot kicks in. Yes, a simple CheckUser would expose this, but it probably wouldn't be done immediately. 147.161.14.35 (talk) 16:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

We could have a second bot do an automatic checkuser. Then a third bot would come in behind to ... EEng 15:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

(non-admin) but I'm concerned that someone who knows what they're doing could game the bot into locking an article with a gross BLP violation visible couldn't this be solved quite easily by just having the bot use either extened-confirmed or semi protection? Usually these kind of vandalism wars are done by either IP's or new users Asartea ^{Talk Contributions} 17:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

(responding to all the points above) I interpreted the proposal as intended to address this problem: an article is generally stable with incremental edits when Editor A comes and makes a bad edit (in good faith, vandalism, BLP vio, just debatable, whatever) and is reverted by Editor B; instead of WP:BRD discussion Editor A hammers the undo button, Editor C reverts again, Editor A restores, etcetera. Yes, reverting to the most recent non-reverted revision is a weak solution, but it would work in this scenario (which in my experience is the vast majority of simple RFPP requests) and it's better than nothing in any more complicated instance anyway. There will always be very dedicated POV pushers and other disruptive editors, we will never program an automatic solution to that problem, and we should stop throwing out good proposals because they don't solve those very complicated issues. For this run-of-the-mill edit warring (which is a very widespread problem but tends to be low-impact) this is a good solution. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, just a thought about that phenomenon: when your edit is reverted, you get a notification that reads "Your edit on [page] was reverted." When you click on the notification, you're taken to a diff of the reversion, which displays the undo button right at the top of the page; if you have rollback there's a second option for reverting, and if you use Twinkle there are three more revert buttons. But there is no "discuss" link anywhere on that page, which perhaps could take you to the talk page editing a new section titled "revert of revision [xxxxxxxxx]" or something. Maybe we should address that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The issue is, I think, that it is quite hard for the bot to determine what revision to revert to. In your case, assuming everything is tagged and whatnot and only includes one account reverting it may be simple, but there are still various other cases that can happen (such as the cases above) and the bot needs to know either what to do in them, or at least know not to do anything (which is somewhat a corollary of the first). This distinction seems quite hard to technically make, and could very easily false positive in restoring a bad revision which needs to be cleaned up by hand anyway. So I think it's a lot of effort for what is probably going to fail much of the time anyway. imo it's better for such a bot to just protect, then let the reverter do a final cleanup edit by hand. Since there's reverting going on most likely there's human eyes on it anyway, so I don't think the bot should second guess them. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

See, I think you're overthinking it. It's obviously not going to be perfect, but if the trigger (as I understood the proposal) is for some number of revert-tagged revisions, the bot simply walks back from the current revision when it arrives to the next one that isn't flagged as a revert, restores that one, and protects the page. It doesn't need to review that revision or do any thinking at all to determine if it should ignore that revision and keep walking back. All that is is the revision prior to the chain of events that triggered the bot in the first place. If the bot protects that revision it's at least reasonably predictable that it will be a "safe" revision, whereas if the bot just protects on arrival the odds are close to 50/50 (and weighted in favour of the editor who clicks the revert button fastest) that the protected version will be harmful. If the bot is just going to blindly protect then I'm against the proposal; in that case I'd rather the bot just detect revert warring and report it for admin attention. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. See, for example, link I sent originally, [95], for some reason (I don't know why) the original edits Materialscientist reverted didn't get the "Reverted" tag (even though RB was used). If I understand you right, and it walks down the tree and picks up the first one which isn't "Reverted" at some point when this was going on, the first revision meeting that criteria would be "15:00, 1 December 2020‎ Metaveroo", which is exactly the revision which shouldn't be restored? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I think everyone's overthinking it. Not many people watch RFPP, but loads of people (as evidenced by this discussion) watch AN, and there are dozens of folks on IRC that have custom notifications that trigger based on specific bots, users, and/or filters (within five minutes of the IRC crew finding out about Fishburne's page, everything was locked, blocked, and RD'd). I don't necessarily see the point of this bot to hide the vandalism itself, but to stop the vandalism. If the WRONGVERSION is on the page for five minutes until someone at AN/IRC/RC sees the edit and reverts, that's not the end of the world (even if it is something like one particular LTA who likes to call famous men paedophiles). there are OS-able edits that are on pages for hours (if not days) at a time, so this idea that a few extra minutes of vandalism is a tragedy seems somewhat silly (to me).

Now don't get me wrong, I have no issue with wanting to make a bot that can revert to the (hopefully) last-good version of the page (ideally pre-vandalism), but at the very least I would think that such a bot protecting the page to prevent similar 100-edit-vandlism-sprees from happening would be a good thing (and, as evidenced by this discussion, finding that last-good edit can be problematic). Primefac (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• I'd certainly back the listed articles being on RFPP - I wouldn't want it on a dedicated page, for example. I'm sure the normal process will bring it up, but if this is trialled, could we get that dropped on AN as well, so those of us not normally deep in the bot creation could see how it's going? Especially since people reviewing the bot's actions normally will be mostly standard RFPP admins, not bot-focused admins? In terms of the general concept - I'd say I'm very cautiously interested, but would need good answers for all of the issues and cases above. An edge case where it doesn't trigger is fine, but false positives could be really problematic. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
• Interesting idea worth pursuing. I share the "gaming" concerns (protection-on-demand-via-bot) but I think countermeasures could be developed to reduce that concern. Maybe start with a trial period with the bot posting to RFPP instead of protecting. I'd be curious to see how often the bot was triggered and in what circumstances. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  From a "gaming" perspective, I don't think it would work too well. The bot would lock down the page, make one (or more) notification(s) to highly-trafficked pages (and likely trigger various notifications at places like IRC or even the OS queue at OTRS), and the vandalism reverted (I would guess) within 10 minutes. The protection would also likely be short-term, maybe an hour or two, and could be extended if necessary (for actual gaming or repeat offences) or allowed to lapse once the relevant parties are blocked. Primefac (talk) 18:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  Sign me up for the red team :-) Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Interesting idea. I'd also cautiously support - maybe throw together a proof-of-concept that just posts "here's a page where I detected edit-warring and here's what I would have done" to a userspace page so that we can start hashing out the detection and WRONGVERSION issues. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• Sounds potentially promising for semiprotection in response to vandalism or other obvious disruption. Maybe it only protects if X edits by new/unregistered users are reverted by at least 2 experienced editors in a certain period of time (to stop one person from gaming it). Applying full protection sounds a lot more dangerous. I can just see one autoconfirmed user removing a BLP violation, another autoconfirmed user reverting them, and the page ends up fully protected with the BLP violation on it. Getting the bot to revert to a "stable" revision wouldn't necessarily help with this. Hut 8.5 18:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
• The Data, with > 5 reverts since midnight earlier today, for something to look at. Obviously would be tighter than 5 reverts in a day for a bot, but seems there's no ongoing edit wars of >5 reverts (with the exception of Liga MX Femenil, I guess). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  Some onwiki list following the same logic at User:ProcBot/EW. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• One thing to keep in mind is the principal that bots are just alt-accounts of their operator, so the admin running such a bot would need to be personally responsible for all the protections that they apply to ensure they are aligned with the protection policy. That being said, protection vs blocking is meant to be nuanced and a page should not be protected for example if 2 users are in a revert cycle with eachother - likely those users should be blocked. I'd like to hear from whatever admin would want to take ownership of this situation and hear what parameters they are thinking about using for their automated actions. Also keep in mind that bots should never be relied upon to make a future edit or action - so if this is the type of situation that would be better handled with the edit filter, that is worth exploring as well. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  @Xaosflux: are edit filters actually able to deal with this, beyond what 249 can do? Not sure if it's beans-y to say, but given that they can't see context or change tags, the method they deal with it is a bit easy to beat, plus they can only target the vandal. the bots can instead target the rollbacker, which seems better since the person reverting won't actively be trying to take steps to avoid being tagged, so they'll flag pretty much every case I'd think? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  @ProcrastinatingReader: right, EF can't "see tags" on an in-process edit, it's a bit of a chicken/egg problem but has been requested at phab:T206490. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• I'm cautiously optimistic about the bot, but share xaosflux's concerns. It might be better to set up an edit filter instead. I remember seeing a "non-autoconfirmed user rapidly reverting edits" tag which if defined by an edit filter would probably be a good place to start. Part of the problem too is that a number of admins who frequent RFPP (including me) haven't been very active these last few weeks so things are slower than usual. But if this gets off the ground, I'd like the bot to make reports at RFPP rather than a dedicated page. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  Re: a dedicated page: people keep saying that, but when I made the post I had no thoughts that it would post on a new board, and I don't think it should be on its own page. Primefac (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  @Primefac: "why not both?" ala WP:AIV/TB2 on WP:AIV....? — xaosflux ^Talk 23:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  Sure, I can think of a half-dozen good places to post, which is why I've been somewhat confused as to why people seem to assume we'd be starting a new board for it. Primefac (talk) 23:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  @Primefac: Sorry if this has already been thought of, but should there be a specified limit on the rate at which pages are locked? Like X-amount of pages per hour, removing the potential for the bot to be gamed into spamming whichever board it populates. The limit could be based on the number of requests received during busy times at RFPP, thereby only functioning as a safeguard rather than throttling the bot. Regards, Zindor (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

  Actually, ignore that. I can see now that would create a way to completely stop the bot working. Perhaps it could be throttled over a certain rate. Zindor (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Those who can see private filters may want to look at filter 1102 (hist · log) ("Rapid disruption"). It's loosely related to what's being proposed here, and I plan on proposing that it be set to disallow once I finish fiddling with the parameters. I'd rather not say exactly how it works, per the concern raised by Ivanvector; someone might try to game it into locking in the WP:WRONGVERSION. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

  Suffusion of Yellow, this is a work of art. – bradv🍁 18:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• A bot/edit filter for this is a good idea. I thought having a user trigger the protection manually (i.e. making some users able to protect the page for a limited period of time) might also be worth discussing, so I opened WP:VPIL#Unbundling for the millionth time. (I'm told there was a recent proposal along the same lines, but I haven't been able to find it; would be happy to close my discussion and bring it up in a while if that proposal was recent enough.) Enterprisey (talk!) 10:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

  Enterprisey, I like that idea a lot. But does it need a user group? It complements the policy that edit warring to revert actual vandalism is a 3RR exemption. Using it to trump in an edit war would be...well, edit-warring. —valereee (talk) 11:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• Wouldn't a better solution be to appoint a few more admins? Aside from protection requests, actual new admins would also be able to block vandals, delete attack pages and much more. ϢereSpielChequers 17:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

WereSpielChequers, a few more admins wouldn't likely have prevented the problem that opened this thread. Giving many editors a tool likely would have, if even one of the multiple editors whose time was wasted during that had had such a tool. —valereee (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Internal Error message at Draft:Richard L. Greene

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T269131

At Draft:Richard L. Greene I was revdel-ing some copyvio content. The page now displays the following error message:

[X9IyiApAICoAAJ7-xowAAABP] 2020-12-10 14:36:56: Fatal exception of type "TypeError"

It is still possible to see the source code, but saving a dummy edit doesn't resolve anything. I've not encountered this before, and am unsure how to proceed. Help!!!! Nick Moyes (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Filed on phab as phab:T269857 Majavah (talk!) 15:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Appears to be an issue with the page curation toolbar (which explains why some people below can't reproduce) that only occurs when the author of the first revision of a page has been revdel'd. This should be fixed in MediaWiki 1.36.0-wmf.21 which should be deployed later today if everything goes according to plan. Majavah (talk!) 15:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm seeing a normal-looking page when I click that draft link. ValarianB (talk) 15:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Same. I'm not seeing any error messages and I'm able to access it just fine Merry Christmas! Asartea ^{Talk Contribs!} 15:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Majavah: Thank you. I replied before seeing your response above, and Primefac's below. I was wondering if it was just a Chrome issue. The page displays ok in Firefox, Internet Explorer, Edge, Opera and in Chrome's incognito mode. (I did purge my cache in a normal and Chrome browser window, which made no difference to the error message being displayed in any new Tab.) Nick Moyes (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Not a Chrome issue, shows up for me on FF. I agree it's likely a page curation issue, since I can see diffs etc (which doesn't involve loading the 'bar). Primefac (talk) 15:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Just to note I see the issue. I use FF too. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Firefox here and it shows the error message for me. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Editathon centered on scientist biographies 08.12.2020, 1PM-6PM UTC

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

---

Hello,

I am an employee of Wikimedia CH. Tomorrow, Tuesday December 8th, we are organizing with the EPFL a small editathon centered on scientist biographies, from 1PM to 6PM UTC. The work list is visible here on meta. We will first be teaching participants contribution and then move on to supporting them as they edit. We have 9 participants registered so far, 8 of which are complete beginners, so there should not be a huge influx of new articles, but there should still be a few. I wondered if anyone with admin rights is interested in checking their work and publishing the articles that respond to Wikipedia's criteria during the workshop. If so, please let me know.--Flor WMCH (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Administrators' newsletter – December 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).

Administrator changes

Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020

Interface administrator changes

Izno

Guideline and policy news

• There is a request for comment in progress to either remove T3 (duplicated and hardcoded instances) as a speedy deletion criterion or eliminate its seven-day waiting period.

Technical news

• Voting for proposals in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding administrators and anti-harassment.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 7 December 2020 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

No idea who is responsible for the above, but any way; I have no interest in editing meta.wikimedia.org, but I hope some standards are upheld there? I followed the link to the survey, and I notice banned editor Slowking4 there posting "anti-social users that harm the project, i.e. Fram, and his enablers."[96], and this kind of rather extreme personal attack (on a discussion about how to deal with harassment!) is left alone for 4 days now. If the WMF can't even keep their own pages harassment-free, then perhaps they shouldn't try to impose a UCOC or to deal with supposed harassers based on secret evidence and so on? Fram (talk) 08:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The discussion has now been archived by a WMFer working on the anti-harassment team, without removing or addressing the offending comment. If they can't even patrol and act upon personal attacks and harassment on their own pages about the very subject, they have no business lecturing or supervising other sites. It won't stop them of course, it never does. Fram (talk) 08:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Fram: meh I regularly see worse on these boards with zero action including removal, and that's even been from you, so it seems lame to make a big deal over that one comment. Especially since it's on meta, which is a community site, rather than a WMF site, even if it was their survey and so I assume they retained the right to override the meta community if they desired. Nil Einne (talk) 12:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

It's a discussion started by WMF, closed by WMF, about actions to be taken by the WMF. Actions specifically directed against harassment, by an organisation which tries to create an image as if they care about harassment (in general, not just against their own) and is giving the strong impression that they will impose such rules and regulations (like the UCOC). I improved my approach after the whole framban thing, even though the WMF way of handling things was disastrous. I'm not trying to make a big deal about this statement directed against me (I've seen worse this week on enwiki), but to highlight the blatant hypocrisy of the WMF acting as our saviours against big bad editors, whenthey can't even keep discussions they started attack-free. It's not even part of a heated discussion, where people cross a line in a back-and-forth (not acceptable, but much more understandable), but an out-of-the-blue comment by an editor banned here (and elsewhere) since many, many years, who feels the need to insert a jab against someone not in the discussion, not even on the same site for that matter. Fram (talk) 13:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

From an uninvolved perspective, I see you as a minor martyr in the Big-Brother-action by W?F. Unfortunately, once your username becomes a shortcut for the whole situation, you seem to lose control of it. You are no longer User:Fram, but are now WP:FRAM. Once you become part of the language, part of the culture, it's hard to censor its usage. I don't see it generally as someone poking you, but instead poking the situation; however, in this case they appear to be poking you, but you've become a "public figure" so I guess no one considered it personal. IDK, once a username becomes synonymous with something on WP, like ESjay of RicKK, maybe it's best to drop the moniker alltogether? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 01:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Fifteen years on Wikipedia, and this is what it comes to. DFO

*For the amusement of my esteemed fellow editors, I will mention that it has come to my attention that I  – yes, Yours Truly – was mentioned in a similarly vague-wavish unflattering way ("serial harasser") in the course of a discussion on meta regarding this charming projected Universal Code of Conduct thingamajig which our WMF overlords have been cooking up [97]. Interestingly, the two complainants in that discussion are now indeffed or community banned (on multiple projects, in at least one case) for – wait for it! – outing and harassment! Huh. EEng 18:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• • Colour me shocked! Fram (talk) 08:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Who woulda thunk it!!! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
      • Fat people, depending on where they land. Primefac (talk) 13:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

        Not sure I quite get your drift. EEng 23:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

        • Every morning, I wake up and ask myself if I want to go on providing WMF with a living via the fruits of my labor. Every morning, I say, "I'm not doing this for them, but for the Community of volunteers that build and curate this encyclopedia." --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

          Say fruits one more time and I'll have you drummed out for harassment. EEng 23:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

          You've been waiting for years to use that. —valereee (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Time wounds all heels. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

• Time flies like an arrow. (Fruit flies like a banana.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:33, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Standard offer unblock request from SithJarJar666

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

---

• SithJarJar666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

SithJarJar666 is asking to be unblocked. SJJ666 was banned per WP:3X for sock puppetry and logged-out vandalism a while ago. Here's the request:

Greetings, fellow Wikipedians. For the last six months, I have been serving out my ban for sockpuppeting and deceiving the Wikipedia community. In that time, I came to believe that the ban was necessary to get me to change my ways. I understand now that socking is wrong, since it is basically lying to the Wikipedia communtiy and convincing them that I'm something I'm not.

Since then, I have disclosed all my sock accounts, made good edits on the Simple English Wikipedia, and avoided socking since June 2020, which the Checkusers can back me up on. (Full disclosure: I did sometimes log into those sock accounts up until mid-July, but that was solely for checking the watchlists and notifications. All those accounts have had their passwords scrambled, and I couldn't use them again if I wanted to.)

Therefore, I would like to ask that my ban be lifted through community consensus. I ask that the Wikipedia communtiy would welcome me back into their midst. I understand that I will likely never be trustworthy, and that every edit I make will be under extreme scrutiny, but I ask that I would at least be given another shot at the English Wikipedia.

I understand that what I did was wrong. I understand that I initially got block for vandalism, and then I tried to evade my block by socking again... and again... and again. If I am allowed back on enwiki, I will continue the antivandalsim and copyediting work that I did on Simple Wikipedia.

I will never sock again (I would even be willing to be placed on a one-account policy for the next six months, and even after that I would only have a disclosed alt account for test purposes), and I understand that this is my final chance. If I mess up again, it's over for me. Even with these conditions, though, I humbly ask for an unban.

Regards, --sithjarjar ^{(talk | contribs | email)} 21:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

There's no evidence of any recent sock puppetry. For what it's worth, I think the unblock request is genuine. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support with, of course, a restriction to one account going forward. A little over 1000 edits on simple.wiki without significant problems, and apparently no recent socking. SithJarJar may also want to continue helping out the Simple Wikipedia project, even if unblocked here. --Yamla (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support -- user seems to be acting in good faith; a vandal who created nonsense pages for 1 April, and has been socking as a way to try to contribute after being blocked. To be honest, it seems the initial extended block after 1 April was a bit of a mistake... user creates an unblock request to ask that the block be shortened; user is asked if they do not want to be unblocked, replies "Yes, because I just like to do minor edits", but then a few messages later, asks if there is an administrator who can unblock or reduce their block. If they had simply requested an unblock, this might have been completely avoided in the first place! sam1370 (talk · contribs) 23:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Yamla. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

  The basis for the standard offer is that people can change. And one of the recommendations for seeking the standard offer is Banned users seeking a return are well-advised to make significant and useful contributions to other WMF projects prior to requesting a return to English Wikipedia per this 'offer'. Appellant has shown that they can edit constructively and that there is little likelihood of the problem behaviors returning. It is not logical to believe that a user would make the effort to prove themselves on Simple Wikipedia in some mad scheme to vandalize the English Wikipedia. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support per Yamla. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
• So, someone chose the username "SithJarJar666" (this is StarWars-speak for "attention, I am going to fuck around on your wiki"), fucked around on our wiki, made over 150 edits to their talk page trying to get unblocked, socked, and... we want to welcome them back? VxFC should just copy this unblock request, I'm sure we'll welcome them back too. We sure do have weird priorities. If they're doing so great on Simple, why can't they stay on Simple? Just a warning that, if you're unblocked, do not even come close to fucking around again, even once, or I'll reblock in a heartbeat. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Careful, Floquenbeam, you're coming awfully close to harsh reality there. Such reasonable, logical, and insightful thinking could well be considered a violation of AGF. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @Floquenbeam: They've addressed all that. Non punitive, and they should be able to contribute constructively moving forward. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Does not punitive apply to the community? Johnuniq (talk) 06:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I must have missed the part of WP:ADMIN, WP:UNBLOCK, or WP:SO that suggests threatening users. Levivich ^harass/_hound 06:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
    • You seem to have missed understanding the meaning of the word "threaten", actually. --Calton | Talk 00:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support — per of course we give people second chances, WP:UBCHEAP, and the reason I don't want this editor to stay at Simple Wiki (not that I want to take them away from there) is because I'd like them to come make articles like this here. Levivich ^harass/_hound 06:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Not to get dragged too far down the rabbit hole when this seems to be a done deal, but... "come make articles like this here"?? They just copy pasted that article from our article here. (Interestingly, the person who actually "made" that article has been blocked too.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

    They did a lot more than "just copy pasted". You might want to strike that allegation. Compare simplewiki July 21 version with enwiki version a/o July 21. Levivich ^harass/_hound 00:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support per Yamla. Chetsford (talk) 07:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support allow me to talk from personal experience with this user over on simple wiki, where I am a regular editor. This user created a large number of high quality articles, was polite, and an all-round good editor. I can confidently say that the user has matured since their previous behaviour here and can be trusted to be unblocked. I disagree with some above comments that seem to assume bad faith and suggest that a vandal cannot be trusted to contribute again; people grow up and change and I don’t think any suggestions that the user will continue their previous behaviour appears valid, considering the contributions elsewhere since. Blocks are not punitive and certain users should be reminded of that. --IWI (talk) 10:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

  "Blocks are not punitive" does not address anything I've said. The purpose of the block is to prevent more fucking around on this project. It appears there's a consensus that they can be trusted now, so most people (not me) think it isn't needed as a preventative measure. Fine, consensus is consensus. But lazily mischaracterizing people who do think it is still needed as a preventative measure as supporting a punitive block is wrong. Par for the course at AN/ANI, but wrong. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• To answer Floquenbeam's question ~ ... we want to welcome them back?, why, yes, we do. As a community we have determined that we tend to believe people when they tell us something, particularly when the evidence supports it; i support unblock; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 13:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support People can mature and improve their behavior. This seems to be such a case. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Levivich. I would prefer an unconditional unblock, and I'm weakly opposed to Yamla's proposed account restriction since we can't meaningfully enforce it and their lack of socking makes me willing to WP:AGF that socking is behind us. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Support. Although I only really interacted with SithJarJar666 on their sock account, Total Eclipse 2017, they appear, as I've gleaned from this months-old thread on my talk page, to be genuinely keen in improving the encyclopedia. The GOCE did not have a problem with Total Eclipse 2017, and some of us were astonished that they were a sock puppet when that account got blocked. If there are concerns about relapsing into unwanted behaviour, perhaps mentorship would be a possible deterrent? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 03:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Microsoft Office 2022

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

---

There appears to be some sort of edit warring regarding whether Microsoft Office 2022 should exist or not between a couple of inexperienced users. I've procedurally closed an RfD and reverted to the last version as an article rather than half an infobox and some categories, but it would be useful if someone who is awake could keep an eye on it. If anyone thinks it should be discussed for deletion then nominate it as an article at AfD rather than as a redirect at RfD (per WP:BLAR). Thryduulf (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Thryduulf, I don't know why you restored that as an article. It's just a duplicate of Microsoft Office 2019. Enjoyer of World^(bother...) 03:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

That is a mess of no effort. IAR deleted. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Edit count of "1" ..?

Sorry if this is a stupid question. I just happened onto User:Crusio's page which shows an edit count of one even though he seems to have been active at least between 2008 and 2010 as documented here and here.

best regards, KaiKemmann (talk) 14:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

KaiKemmann, [98] - at some point old-Crusio was renamed...and then the same day someone created an account with the same name as a placeholder. I have no explanation for that. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

The simplest explanation is that old-Crusio created the placeholder post-rename to prevent anyone from usurping their old account name. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

My name change

Just to be clear, I am NOT changing my name to avoid scrutiny after being unblocked; I’m just changing it because I like the new one better. Also, I don’t want to have a username that is known as “StarWars-speak for ‘attention, I am going to f*** around on your wiki’”... also, I am a fan of The Matrix, that’s why I chose that name. --sithjarjar ^{(talk | contribs | email)} 19:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Posting this here because I didn’t know where else to put it, I just wanted to say it publicly... --sithjarjar ^{(talk | contribs | email)} 19:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

 Renamer note: Sorry,  Not doneThe chosen username is too similar to an existing username or it used to be username of someone else that got renamed: Neo Is The One. Please choose again. You can ping me. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Notification of proposed community ban against Sievert 81

There is an ongoing discussion regarding the proposed community ban of the user Sievert 81. Please post your thoughts on the proposal at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed community ban of Sievert 81. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 00:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Images deletition request

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

---

Can anyone delete these two files as they are clearly copyright violations:

• File:HUMAYUN SAEED.png it was first published here on 20 August 2018 before upload:https://mobile.twitter.com/aryfilmsary/status/1031792388786802688?
• File:FAHAD MUSTAFA.png it was first published on 21 August 2018 here before upload:https://mobile.twitter.com/showbizandnewz/status/1031959478231552004. Thank You192.142.150.23 (talk) 10:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I've tagged these files with the appropriate speedy deletion tag. Iffy★Chat -- 10:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done both deleted. Hut 8.5 16:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Unblock request for MindSlayer13

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

---

• MindSlayer13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• UTRS appeal #37905
• Related ANI thread.

MindSlayer13 was blocked most recently on 2020-10-28 By @Johnuniq: for disruption, unsourced edits, and non responsiveness. They made a number of uninsightful unblock requests, and @Voice of Clam: removed talk page access. They have requested unblocking at UTRS.

Starting with this post-

Yes with due respect I know what I have been blocked for. I have neen blocked disruptive editing, not adding sources & failing to respond to other wiki users. I can assure you I will be not doing the things I have done before. Will try to make wiki a better place. I know as users we have responsibilities which I have failed to sometimes. Everyone deserves a chance and I assure I will not be repeating the mistakes. Thanks

I asked for greater detail and user responded thusly-

It was unconstructive as I edited without mentioning source, failed to respond to users when they asked to clarify, in the future I when editing articles I would provide source wherever needed, & have a healthy discussion with the other users what to edit & what not.

As the block was imposed in response to the ANI discussion, I requested a response to that thread. User replied,

So I couldn't respond to those users because I was not active for some reasons, and to be honest I open the notifications very little, that's the reason I was unresponsive, and the thing they were telling about my name is a coincidence, The earlier name was a silly spelling mistake of my real name, later on instead of again putting my real name with correct spelling, I changed the username completely. They mistook it thinking I was changing my identity. Yes I agree I didn't give sources, the edit in Surchandra Singh, and moving Scott Neville to AFC player were actually true and genuine, the other user thought it to be disruptive cause I didn't put any source. The edit I did at Mohun Bagan page, I heard it from various websites so I did it which I shouldn't have as there was already a discussion going on the talk page. I am so sorry for the mistake.

Presented for your consideration. User does not have talk page access but is prepared to respond via UTRS. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I've restored talk page access to allow them to make another unblock request on their talk page. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 18:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to unblock, but VoC had expressed a preference for bringing it here. Certainly this unblock request is better than the prior unblock requests. I believe appellant has learned from this and will edit productively moving forward. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

  I may be mistaken but I thought the rule was that if someone was blocked after a community discussion, they could only be unblocked by another discussion. I may be wrong though, and I don't have time at present to look it up so feel free to overrule me. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 21:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

  This is where ANI can be confusing. Johnuniq blocked as an admin action, not as the result of a consensus building process, though it was headed that way. It was not closed as "block indefinitely. However, under the circumstances, it would be best to seek a consensus to unblock. What confuses me is saying user can post an unblock request on their talk page with this thread open. I'd prefer community input as to unblocking anyway. Reduces the risk of me unblocking in a fit of overexuberance. And having parallel unblock discussions is often nightmarish. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

• As Deepfriedokra notes above, my block was a simple admin action. The reason an unblock has not yet occurred is that the appeals have not given confidence to the reviewing administrators. It's a bit disappointing that my question at User talk:MindSlayer13#Sources has still not been answered but I have to say that edits like that are standard in fandom topics including sports. I have no objection to an unblock provided MindSlayer13 engages with other editors in the future. English is probably a problem but all that is required is that disputed edits are not repeated without first gaining consensus after discussion on article talk pages. Johnuniq (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
• This user has been actively socking throughout their unblock request, using both an account User:Hellowiki137 and via logged-out editing. ST47 (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

  1)Thanks, @ST47:. Good to know. 2) (from the bottom of my heart, and in my Samuel L. Jackson voice--) W T F ? . I guess I can just go ahead and close this and decline the UTRS. (sotto voce mumblings). 3) You gotta be kiddin; me. It's enough to amke me lose my faith in humanity. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Fifteen Years An Admin

Fifteen years of adminship, and all I got was this lousy edit. Cheers! BD2412 T 01:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations! jp×g 01:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Congrats and thanks for your work BD2412 Please double your salary immediately :-) MarnetteD|Talk 02:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Double it? I'm going to quintuple it! BD2412 T 02:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Don't be greedy. That's grossly excessive, and never mind that you can't set your own salary (this is Wikipedia, not the U.S. Congress). Granting a more reasonable 50% increase, and adjusting for 33% U.S. inflation (since the servers are in the U.S.), I think a fair calculation would be 0 x 1.33 x 1.5 = 0, with further salary review every five years. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Just for us newcomers, (2012 what a greenie) and for laughs, what were the admin requirements back in the day? Simon Adler (talk) 04:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

A heartbeat. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

(Just a joke, congratulations! Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC))

LOL! I echo BMK's congrats. It looks like you had a record number of supports at the time. The figure still looks healthy in 2020. Respect that you still have the RfA on your userpage. I wonder how many of those original voters are still with us? Simon Adler (talk) 04:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Thought this was about a possible film sequel. Congrats! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Film sequel? I assumed it was going to be Out of RfAica. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not much different from either of those. BD2412 T 16:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Don't lie, BD2412--I bet you got tons of abuse since then also. WP:HR considers that as fringe and knocks off 5% of your pay accordingly. DMacks (talk) 10:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

You have no idea how many keyboards and mice I have gone through in that time. BD2412 T 16:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations. And hey look you got an congratulation! Merry Christmas! Asartea ^{Talk Contribs!} 16:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oh you kids. :) Anyway, congrats from one of your original supporters (no. 29, I see). With your fifteen-year anniversary you are now up to one day of vacation per year and relaxed telecommuting rules. Hey, at least we don't have to Zoom into cabal meetings yet. Antandrus (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
• I've got you beat by a couple of months. I'm still waiting for somebody to give me my key to the men's room. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• That's a long time to hold it in! Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "Got you beat" is a relative term. I have the men's room key. I swiped one from Jimbo at Wikimania. BD2412 T 20:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. Thanks RoySmith as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• 2020 was my 15th year, as well! I want cake! El_C 09:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

  El C, here you go. And congratulations on your 15th anniversary! Merry Christmas! Asartea ^{Talk Contribs!} 10:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Targetted off-wiki brigading

Saw a large campaign on reddit to brigade and manipulate pages/voting in the India-Pakistan article space (under WP:ARBIPA sanctions) by Pakistani POVPUSHers (1, 2). They are looking to target articles by first creating legitimate appearing/"benign" accounts then getting to their real work, and have created private subreddits (1 (CTR=Correct The Record), 2) to discuss which specific articles to target. Payments/rewards such as PS5s and computer devices are being offered as well for successful brigading or targeting of articles. Should be on the lookout for such accounts (old/new) and edits in the coming days and months. Gotitbro (talk) 09:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Bradv, Valereee, Shirt58, NinjaRobotPirate and Primefac please see above. 2402:3A80:112B:1E91:C1DC:8842:F691:28E7 (talk) 11:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

El C, L235 and Deepfriedokra 42.110.223.239 (talk) 11:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure how "removeddit" works (presumably it scrapes the vote count/etc at the time of a link's removal from Reddit) -- that link shows the submission as having a score of 1 (on Reddit one point is automatically given to a submission by the person who posts it) -- that is to say, if I'm interpreting this correctly, it was deleted from the subreddit without a single person having upvoted it. However, the second link has about 250 upvotes, which may be of more concern (plus it links to this Poast, which seeks to organize people with the opposite POV and has ~150 upvotes). These are probably the ones we should be keeping an eye on. jp×g 14:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

TPA

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

---

remove tpa from User talk:BAN BREXIT --TheImaCow (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

•  Done by User:GeneralNotability, and I've semi'd it as well in case they are considering coming back under another guise. Black Kite (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

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

The most important correction

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

---

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

---

Mirza qadiyani is not a calipha of islam. You may have to research more about this topic.almost muslim countries are recognize qadiyani as a non-muslim so you must be change it. Thank you for read my msg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.178.143.107 (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

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

I know that this is closed, but just for general awareness - there appears to be some sort of off-wiki campaign regarding the topic of the Caliphate and whether or not this person was a genuine Caliph. There were a number of disruptive edits at RfPP, this comment here, and a veritable flood of tickets at OTRS (I haven't checked the articles in question, but I'm sure they've got their share of problems too). GeneralNotability (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Might be time to up the protection to ECP soon, since AC-accounts are now appearing on the relevant page too, and I assume this is only going to get worse for the time being. Blablubbs|talk 20:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Already done. Primefac (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Some extra eyes on related pages, i.e. everyone listed here and Caliphate, might also be useful. Blablubbs|talk 20:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

It looks like this is on google – they display his name when people search for "who is the present caliph of islam". Currently getting attention on Twitter and video platforms. Blablubbs|talk 20:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Stupid wrong answers on Google searches seem more common now? XKCD Twitter had some the other week. As noted, that really isn't Wikipedia's problem. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Google's algorithms are so flawed that they show the caliph of the Amadiyya sect as the caliph of all of Islam. The Amadiyya are only about 1% of Muslims and are widely seen as heretical. Google then displays the Wikipedia article, leading true believers to conclude that Wikipedia is responsible for the error. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

See Qadiani for some insight into the anger this stirs up. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Wrong information being displayed

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

---

If you search on wikipedia about the present caliph of Islam, it give the answer Mirza Masroor , which is totally false. It will be highly appreciated if correct research is done before adding in information, do your research and correct it ASAP. Thank You so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.209.154 (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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