Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	Total
CfD	0	0	0	19	19
TfD	0	0	0	0	0
MfD	0	0	0	6	6
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	0	24	24
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 4 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 2 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 0 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 2 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 133 sockpuppet investigations
• 9 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 4 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 19 requests for RD1 redaction
• 102 elapsed requested moves
• 4 Pages at move review
• 23 requested closures
• 111 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 14 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (36 out of 7633 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin April 2024 Israel–Hamas war protests on United States university campuses 2024-04-24 00:16 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C Nasser Hospital mass graves 2024-04-24 00:15 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C Grind Time Now 2024-04-23 20:52 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: previously at Grind Time Ymblanter Cheaper by the Dozen 3: The White House Wreck 2024-04-23 20:46 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP, recent consensus for salting Ganesha811 Bella Bathrooms (company) 2024-04-23 20:45 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP, recent consensus to salt Ganesha811 Aegis Limited (BPO) 2024-04-23 20:43 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP, recently found consensus Ganesha811 Deepak Narwal 2024-04-23 20:30 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ohnoitsjamie Wally Francis (CBSO) 2024-04-23 19:12 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Cabayi Over-the-top media services in India 2024-04-23 18:33 2024-10-23 18:33 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry Ponyo Ullu 2024-04-23 18:31 2026-06-26 06:28 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry Ponyo The Merchant of Venice 2024-04-23 18:16 2024-04-25 18:16 edit Edit warring; placing EC for two days Valereee Palestina 2024-04-23 16:19 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish User talk:Leonidlednev 2024-04-23 15:14 2024-10-08 05:50 move Persistent vandalism Acroterion William John Titus Bishop 2024-04-23 14:32 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ohnoitsjamie Zach Wilson 2024-04-23 00:42 2024-04-25 00:42 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts ScottishFinnishRadish Ilyas Qadri 2024-04-22 22:09 2025-04-22 22:09 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry Ponyo Russia under Vladimir Putin 2024-04-22 21:17 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:RUSUKR Ymblanter Afghanistan national futsal team 2024-04-22 20:48 2024-07-17 17:25 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry Ponyo Sport in Afghanistan 2024-04-22 20:48 2024-05-17 17:25 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry Ponyo Visa policy of Peru 2024-04-22 19:45 2024-07-10 23:38 edit,move Ponyo Visa policy of Russia 2024-04-22 19:41 2024-06-27 22:04 edit,move Ponyo Visa policy of Belarus 2024-04-22 19:39 2024-07-11 21:20 edit,move Ponyo Benzinga 2024-04-22 16:40 2025-04-22 16:40 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts, see ticket:2024021310006181 Joe Roe Module:Params 2024-04-22 14:20 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: see also talk page Xaosflux Draft:Pagal Khana 2024-04-22 10:20 2024-10-22 10:20 edit,move Persistent block evasion Yamla Narayan Vishnubhat Apte 2024-04-22 07:44 2024-04-25 07:44 create Repeatedly recreated Liz Bhonsle dynasty 2024-04-22 02:37 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/IPA; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Grand Mufti 2024-04-22 02:25 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/BLP; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Vivienne Martin (actress) 2024-04-21 20:07 2024-05-05 20:07 edit Socks all appeared to be autoconfirmed so adjusting to ECP and extending period to 2 weeks Xymmax Jobbykrust 2024-04-21 19:59 2024-05-05 19:59 move Repeated, disruptive page moves during AFD discussion Liz Template:Page views 2024-04-21 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2500 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Kaimla 2024-04-21 17:03 2024-05-05 17:03 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: previous page protection apparently was not sufficient EurekaLott 2023–24 Montreal Canadiens season 2024-04-21 04:38 2024-05-05 04:38 edit Persistent vandalism HickoryOughtShirt?4 Sinhalese people 2024-04-21 03:41 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: Sri Lanka has been designated a contentious topic per a recent Arb´com motion. The article has been troubled by the appearance of nationalist edit warring EdJohnston 2024 Columbia University pro-Palestinian campus occupation 2024-04-21 00:09 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Nilesh Patel 2024-04-20 08:10 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry Liz

Off-wiki brigading regarding Uyghur genocide- and Chinese Communist Party-related topics

Hello. I'm not sure if this is the appropriate board for this (and if it isn't, please summarily close this/move this to another board), though I don't really know where else to post this considering that likely applies to a number of pages and it contains information on off-wiki brigading that is being planned by a the subreddit /r/genzedong on articles pertaining to the Uyghur genocide and the Chinese Communist Party.

1. As far as I can tell, the brigading has been ongoing since a little over 5 months ago when a redditor by the username of /u/FuckedByRailcars, who describes themself as an Undercover commie wikipedian here noted that they had an extended-confirmed account. The user called upon others to join them to defend the motherland and noted that they knew that doing so would be in violation of wikipedia policies.
2. The discussions of making edits to wikipedia on the subreddit have accelerated in recent weeks. One month ago, a post was made that encouraged individuals to sign-up and edit random wikipedia articles in order to gain edits (and privileges) on the site, with the eventual goal of coordinating a campaign to remove what the OP and their fellow brigadiers deem "anti-Chinese bias". The editor also encouraged individuals to reach out to them in order to facilitate this stated goal (which seems to be improper off-wiki communication).
3. Discussions on the subreddit have alleged that Horse Eye's Back, myself, and oranjelo100 are CIA shills. Other comments in the thread note from members of the subreddit have stated that we've made a decade long mistake with wikipedia. we should have targeted admin roles there. now we're fucked and trying to catch from behind and Let’s start editing it 👍.
4. More recently, the subreddit has discussed trying to infiltrate wikipedia and redditors appear to have responded with interest. One redditor stated that the would have a discord server and kick ass project name for a psy op that can be this influential.

I'm a good bit concerned about what this means regarding the potential for tenditious editing in the topic area, which is obviously an issue of international political controversy. I also would not be surprised, owing to the timing of the posts on the subreddit, if the subreddit has been the source of brigading IP that have engaged in personal attacks against me and other editors. The subreddit also appears to be actively monitoring edits in the area (tagging Chipmunkdavis since they are also targeted in this post), and appears to think that there's a CIA conspiracy to make the page the way it is. I'm not exactly sure how to proceed, though I'm generally concerned regarding the potential for this sort of coordinated brigading to move articles away from compliance with WP:NPOV in line with tendentious goals. I'm especially concerned regarding the comments that appear to want to target admin roles and specific articles, and I wanted to post this here to see if any admins have suggestions for a way forward in light of the evidence of coordinated brigading. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, I'd forgotten about those pages. I'm not really involved in this area, my edits in the above images part of a larger clean-up, but the pages in question could definitely use a lot more eyes. This off-wiki canvassing possibly relates to the accounts that popped up at Radio Free Asia last month (previous ANI discussion). CMD (talk) 07:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: I think you’re mostly involved in this through sockpuppet work, Ineedtostopforgetting is one of the main POV pushers in that space. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Considering the allegations against User:Oranjelo100 in the subreddit, which Mikehawk10 mentions, it's a little worrying that Oranjelo has recently been indeffed per this ANI thread. They have responded, but without using the unblock template. (We know templates are alarming.) I have now put their comment into a template so it'll be considered. Perhaps somebody would like to review it ASAP, or possibly unblock them for the purpose of replying here? Pinging Drmies, the blocking admin. Bishonen | tålk 09:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC).

That is actually a little worrying, I hadn’t thought much of it at the time (probably because Oranjelo can be a bit annoying) but a few of the editors who wanted to deep six them I hadn’t seen around those parts before and I felt that the proposal was just odd given the zero block history. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it should be taken a look at, although the participants in the community review look mostly like long-term active editors to me.

Regarding the proposal, it was an admin who had suggested the CBAN route to me in such situations because of the long tenure and type of issues. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Not trying to cast shade on you or other editors who voted for a CBAN, there was a clear case for it. I just wish an admin had blocked them at least once over the years, I never got the feeling that they realized they were over the line. As Dmries said with no defense they dug their own grave and the many people Oranjelo100 pissed off can definitely explain why so many people chimed in against them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bishonen: Unfortunately, WP:CBANs are a bit harder to overcome than a normal block. Needs community approval at its own discussion. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I can't help Oranje100; they dug their own grave. That discussion was open for eight days, and many of the "aye" votes are from longterm users--it was hardly a reddit-inflected sock fest. Having said that, obviously this is a matter of grave concern, but the Oranje100 ban is another matter. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

This isn’t a new thing... Its been going on for a while and has tainted a number of discussions (particularly around whether or not mainland Chinese sources are WP:RS), [1]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

This is pretty concerning, and may explain the several new editors that appeared almost weekly at Talk:Uyghur genocide/Archive 6 and Talk:Uyghur genocide/Archive 7 for example.

Are there appropriate remedies for this beside increased admin attention? General sanctions? In this area, I think that currently there is just WP:AFLG. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, nothing has gone to arbitration on this more broadly thus far. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@MarkH21: Actually, the more I look at this, the more I think that this ANI thread should be reopened. There was considerable support for a WP:CBAN owing to WP:NOTHERE, and this sort of stuff might make those who were on the fence tip towards supporting some sort of sanction. Is there a way to request administrative review of the thread regarding whether there was a consensus on the issue?

My alternative idea would be to make a proposal that imposes a semi-protection on all articles/templates related to Uyghurs and/or Xinjiang, broadly construed, though I don't know what the right venue would be to propose that. If we're getting organized brigading and clear efforts to coordinate POVPUSHing, it might be the most narrowly tailored approach for now, though the members of the self-described psy op seems to be sophisticated enough to understand that they can edit other articles to get around this limit pretty quickly. I know that this is something typically done by ARBCOM, but I don't see any immediate reason why the community couldn't decide to impose it (via consensus) without going to arbitration. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I worry about restricting access or trying to identify “infiltrators” or whatever those guys want to be... We have to be careful to avoid a red scare or dissuading good faith wikipedia editors who are socialists or communists from participating in the topic area by giving the idea that they are unwelcome. Semi-protection might be an option, but as you said there are ways around that and I don’t think thats new editors/IPS who would be restricted from editing are causing major issues at the moment. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I also don't think we have evidence to connect specific editors to particular users of /r/GenZedong (as of yet), and I'm not sure that doing so would be in line with wikipedia policies anyway. My worry is more that they are... continuously monitoring (archive) the discussion on the topic and also my talk page (archive). My point regarding protection is more that a semi-protection doesn't really impose a burden on legitimate editors (on these topics), while it puts up a barrier to IP vandalism that we've seen (both on talk pages and in articles). Additionally, I think that the ANI complain should probably have been given a close rather than turned into an archive, and I am wondering if an admin could review it.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

My first guess would be that someone is simply monitoring your contributions, hence for example the activity on the Chen Weihua article you created just over a week ago. While I don't have a link to hand right now, I remember there has previously been discussion about discretionary sanctions for China/Hong Kong/Taiwan related articles, with there being no agreement that there has been enough disruption to implement such measures. (I haven't seen that much IP vandalism, but again I don't actually edit much in this area.) CMD (talk) 02:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Mitchen Mackvid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) certainly needs a block promptly... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

  It's been blocked by Canterbury Tail. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:15, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

As an additional heads up, the users now seem to have targeted (archive) Horse Eye's Back and are attempting (archive) to falsely smear the editor as a paid contractor. There also appears to have been some coordination beginning at least 8 months ago at /r/sino (archive), including the creation of a discord server to protect the image of China in Wikipedia, both professionally and swiftly. The same subreddit has attacked (archive) Amigao for their past edits, while other posts on the subreddit may have inspired additional brigading in related areas (such as the article for Adrian Zenz.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

It appears to be escalating, we may need to 30/500 the whole space. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

To add onto these findings, it looks like the recent move discussion regarding Uyghur Genocide was also brigaded by /r/aznidentiy. Overall, it looks like there is a lot of brigading on this sort of stuff, including brigading that targets talk pages. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• One of them in a previous thread raised concerns about if several admins here would send messages to Reddit admins about the brigading from that subreddit and getting it shut down. The implication was that something like that had happened before for some other subreddit? Either way, it's an interesting idea. Since their threads and actions are a pretty clear violation of the Reddit TOS (not to mention our own rules here). Silverseren^C 06:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

There has been a lot of activity today I've noted on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ineedtostopforgetting (mentioned above), and I thought it was just following me around, however one new account has appeared to revert both myself and the article S. Ramadoss, which I have never edited but Mikehawk10 has (and it is a revert of their edit). That, and the diversity of related IP addresses, makes me feel it may be related to this situation. CMD (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• Another thread today, celebrating the ban of Oranjelo100 [2]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @Horse Eye's Back: You and I appear to be mentioned there too in the comments. The title "includes only one more CIA to go," which implies that they may be planning to ban another user (the OP on the Reddit post keeps calling me one, and I have definitely seen random IPs engaging in personal attacks over the past few weeks or so). It's a community with an extremely online focus, so I do not expect this sort of stuff to go away any time soon.

On a separate note, the thread also appears to be smearing the now-banned Oranjelo100 by posting pictures of another thread involving a vandal IP and attributing it to Oranjelo100. They also say I have proposed to twice ban edits(???) on the Uyghur genocide page for a year, when I don’t think I have ever requested full protection on the page for a year. If it isn’t incompetence (and the amount of digging through Wikipedia and citing policies by u/No_Static_At_All doesn’t appear to indicate that incompetence is likely) it would seem like an attempt to rile up the base towards some WP:NOTHERE end. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

To update the above, a couple of posts over the past five days have been made that seem to be directly targeted at me, and both of which are spreading disinformation regarding my editing habits. One of the posts (reddit archive) is regarding yet another topic sensitive to the Chinese Communist Party, the Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China. The other post just appears to be a straw man post (reddit archive) that wants to smear me by making false sockpuppetry and CIA operative allegations and vaguely pointing to Operation Earnest Voice. Again, this is from the same redditor, /u/No_Static_At_All. The following of my edits by a non-Wikipedian would be rather strange, so I'm having suspicions that the user may be an editor that following around my edits and using the subreddit to try to stir up their reddit buddies. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Semi-protect articles pertaining to the Uyghur genocide for a period 1 year

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

---

As has been shown above, there are multiple off-wiki communities that have engaged in targeted brigading of articles pertaining to the Uyghur genocide, and others that have engaged in brigading on other topics sensitive to the Chinese Communist Party. These include several reddit communities that have formed discord servers for the purpose of promoting their point-of-view on these pages, as well as twitter users with relatively large followings. Editors have been made the subject of personal attacks, and this off-wiki behavior appears to be resulting in a lot of article editing and commenting on talk pages that screams WP:NOTHERE. I propose that all articles (and their respective talk pages) (amended per below discussion) relating to the Uyghur genocide, broadly construed, be semi-protected for a period of one-year in order to prevent additional damage to the project that this brigading causes and will continue to cause if these pages are left unprotected. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion: Semi-protection of articles pertaining to the Uyghur genocide for 1 year

• Support retract as nominator. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
• Firstly, while there's evidence of upvoted reddit posts encouraging brigading, this shouldn't itself lead to either semi or 30/500. Is there evidence several wiki pages and discussions have actually and persistently been disrupted, far greater than is the norm in other topics (noting that many topic areas occasionally experience canvassing and brigading and require no such strong measures)? Is there evidence normal community processes (ie ANI and NOTHERE blocks) are unable to handle the excess workload caused by the disruption? If the answer to both these questions suggests further measures are required, I think it'd be better to allow admins to, at their discretion, more freely protect pages they believe are of concern, similar to WP:GS/PAGEANT, rather than a blanket protection of a topic area as proposed, which will probably result in unnecessary protections. Talk page protection should be employed conservatively on single pages and for no longer than necessary; even WP:ARBPIA4 doesn't restrict the talk namespace. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Fair point regarding the talk space. My thought was to bring this in line with the recent discussion on COVID-19 misinformation, though that conversation is much more narrowly tailored than this one. I've amended the proposal to exclude the talk space. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Proposal: place the Uyghur genocide and any articles relating to it, WP:Broadly construed, under community discretionary sanctions

What it says on the thin. This would be a first step to allow uninvolved administrators to dispense adequate actions when required. Or it could alternatively be sent to ArbCom for resolution by motion, though at this stage the disruption mostly appears to be from mostly NOTHERE accounts so it maybe does not require ArbCom intervention. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  @RandomCanadian: how would one send it to ArbCom for resolution by motion? Would this be after community discretionary sanctions are imposed, or would this be in lieu of this proposal? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Mikehawk10: In lieu of. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  @RandomCanadian: Honestly, I think that ArbCom might be a good option at this point. There appear to be a lot of WP:NOTHERE accounts that have popped up in this space, and this is probably going to be a mess even with community discretionary sanctions if we don't address that issue. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Mikehawk10: In that case there's nothing stopping you from making a case request there. I have only very minimal involvement in this (having noticed only one sock recently while patrolling something else), so I guess you or somebody else would be the person with the most relevant background to make a coherent request so it can be dealt with minimum fuss by ArbCom. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  Makes sense. Thank you for your time on this; I'll stop pestering you with questions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  Would it be appropriate to ping the users who have contributed to the discussion above but haven't specifically commented on this proposal? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support community discretionary sanctions. I believe that this is much more narrowly tailored than my (withdrawn) proposal and it would allow for additional administrative oversight in the area, though I do have concerns that this may not be enough at the current moment. However, it's certainly a step in the right direction, so I will give it my support. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support due to persistent disruption from new accounts, particularly the deletion of references and repeated addition of poorly sourced material in many Wikipedia articles within this field. Homemade Pencils (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose portion of my comment above applies here too. Discretionary sanctions should not be applied lightly, or solely because a topic area is experiencing (or has experienced) disruption. Probably every topic area on Wikipedia has experienced some degree of disruption at one point or another over the past 20 years. Community discretionary sanctions should be authorised when the volume/nature of disruption is too much for WP:ANI to handle, or where there's a need for admins to skip steps in the protection policy when protecting pages. There needs to be clear evidence presented that these measures are necessary, and that existing measures are insufficient. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support. This appears to be an area where easier access to administrative action would be helpful. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
• I haven't read the whole thread, so don't put much stock in this, but I'd rather not add another DS/GS category right as ArbCom is trying to rework the system. Like PR was saying, there are a lot of hot-button issues that experience disruption when in the news cycle, but generally these can be handled through our existing policies and tools. Would it be enough to just tell admins to be aware of this situation and keep it in mind when determining protection and block durations? I'd even be open to more specific restrictions similar to 4/10 or 30/500 protecting the area or central articles, but a general sanctions regime feels too bulky for the problem. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Why not? If adopted here, that would be a community sanction, and Arbcom would not have to do anything with this. But the individual admins would be able to do a lot more. My very best wishes (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support It seems like the right solution at this point.Jackattack1597 (talk) 16:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: administrator investigation

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

---

Some accounts active in the Uyghur genocide topic area are also active in the COVID-19 origins topic area, and their views are very much aligned with the Chinese Communist party’s narrative. There needs to be an administrator investigation into what is going on here. Tinybubi (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Tinybubi (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what specific data or other non-public information that admins would have access to that would enable an investigation, and I'm also not sure what the scope of an investigation like this would be. Do you mean to suggest a sockpuppetry investigation, or is there something else you had in mind?

  I'm also not sure that supporting the natural origin hypothesis of COVID-19 (if that is what you mean by the Chinese Communist Party's narrative) is evidence of malfeasance, especially given that various versions of that hypothesis appear to be clearly within the mainstream scientific views on the matter. Do you mean to suggest that somebody involved is spreading misinformation relating to a non-China origin of COVID-19, or is it their spreading of one of the standard natural origin hypotheses? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Possible new tool/technique/procedure

I would like to discuss a possible addition to the "bag of tricks" an admin can use to deal with various situations. I am not advocating the following. I am asking whether the idea has merit.

Normally when a page is semiprotected, nonconfirmed users get an automatic invitation to make a semiprotected edit request. For the vast majority of pages that is well and good. Alas, certain pages are the targets of off-wiki campaigns. Most recently OpIndia and the Discovery Institute have launched such campaigns, but it has been an ongoing issue. The sign of this happening is new user after new user flooding the talk page with near-identical semi-protected edit requests, none of which even attempt to follow the...

"This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. 'Please change X' is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form 'please change X to Y'."

...instructions.

I propose that on selected talk pages we disable the automatic creation of edit requests and instead send the unconfirmed user to an edit window with a new section on the article talk page. I wouldn't want just anyone to be allowed to do this to a semiprotected talk page, so I would like to make this something an administrator would do.

My first question is, is this a good idea or a bad idea?

If the answer is "good idea", what are the nuts and bolts of making this happen? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you're suggesting that on the talk pages of certain semi-protected articles, a non-confirmed user attempting to make am edit request would be forced to provide the required full statement of what is being requested. Is that correct? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

No. They're simply suggesting the removal of the edit notice on certain semi protected pages. The edit notice includes a button to make an edit request. It makes it easier to make an edit request and explains what you're supposed to do including saying editors need to make a full statement of what is being requested. Incomplete or unclear edit requests are generally rejected but the problem with these sort of pages isn't so much this although many such edit requests are incomplete. The problem is even if the edit request is complete, it's something already rejected 100 times over and clearly lacks consensus. The message does explain that edit requests are only for simple or uncontroversial changes and to make sure there's no discussion, but such messages are either not understood or ignored. If editors here are still confused about what Guy Macon is referring to, I suggest they check our a semi protected page like Chauvinism without being logged in e.g. private mode in their browser. If not an admin, they can also check out a fully protected page like Jordan Lawson as the template on the page (but not the edit request) is very similar. The hope seems to be the removal or change of the edit notice will make it less likely editors will make useless edit requests since they will need to figure out how to find the talk page and post. (Well to make an actual edit request they will also need to figure out how to use the template but frankly for the sort of pages and edits Guy Macon seems to be referring to, I don't think it matters if the template is used. I'm fairly sure most of them are dealt with by page watchers rather than those looking into the cat or whatever.) The whole point of the edit notice is to encourage edit requests by making it easier for editors to figure out how to make them, but this is maybe undesirable with a small number of pages. Nil Einne (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. Here are some examples:

[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]

All of the above were handled by the editors on the talk page.

They should have been normal comments, not edit requests.

There was no need to needlessly fill up the edit requests category with the above requests.

The user should not have seen a button to make an edit request.

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Let's assume that we have a consensus to take away the edit request button on the minecraft talk page (looking at the examples above I don't see how anyone could oppose that). How would that work? Is it even possible, or is it "baked in" to the Wikimedia software? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

This could be done with a protection notice. Examples here. I think any user with tboverride rights can create one of these. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, nobody has come out and said it was a bad idea, so I am requesting that the edit notice that creates a button that generates extended-confirmed-protected edit requests on Talk:Minecraft be removed. There are a couple of other talk pages that are being flooded with edit requests but I would like to see how taking away the button works on the Minecraft talk page first. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'll take care of it if nobody gets to it before I can log in to my admin account, I agree it's worth a try. A while back I recall asking about an edit filter for empty edit requests, but I can't find the request now and it's possible I just dreamt it. So, how about an edit filter to block empty edit requests, or to throttle too-short requests on pages with heavy request activity, or something like that? Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 19:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

  On second thought, there have not been any edit requests on that page in over a week, and the two that have appeared since April 24 have both been in good faith. Is there a page currently experiencing a problem we could try this on? Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 19:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think you are going to find a page with 100% bad edit requests. The question is not whether nonconfirmed users sometimes make good suggestions but rather whether they will continue to do so if you take away the button, and whether the suggestions are responded to by those who are watching the talk page or by someone summoned from the list of unanswered edit requests. How about replacing the button that creates an edit request with one that simply opens a new section on the talk page? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

This suggestion and especially its background cross off one of my personal WP-mysteries regarding the vast amount of empty or severely incomplete edit requests. I had no idea that's how it worked. I cannot but support something like what Guy Macon is floating. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Here are some examples on other pages:[14][15][16][17][18] --Guy Macon (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

So, should I post an RfC on each individual talk page that is being flooded with edit requests because of our "one click" button? Or can we just try it on the Minecraft talk page and see how it works out for us? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

(...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 02:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Wow. another one.[19][20] What a shock. Who could have predicted that this would happen? Related: Attractive nuisance doctrine. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not strictly opposed to removing the click-and-save method of spamming help requests for high-trafficked pages (and/or pages that are repeatedly spammed) but I haven't had an opportunity to look into the issue enough to know exactly how to enact that. I feel like it would need to be a dev-level change. I also feel like it should be required that any such changes be logged somewhere, so that there is a record of currently-active we've-removed-functionality articles and pages. Primefac (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. The entire edit request system is built using local templates and modules, so this can be done locally. In fact, any template editor, page mover or admin can override the entire message shown when editing a specific protected page by creating "Template:Editnotices/Protection/<page name>". Just to make sure I understand the proposal correctly, it's proposing that the "submit an edit request" button omits the usual preload and editintro and just goes to the same place as clicking "New section" on the talk page? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I suppose then clarification would be indeed needed, because I wasn't necessarily referring to the specific "request an edit" template that we use (I do know how to do that) but rather the page message that is displayed when an IP tries to edit a protected page (at the very least, it feels like it would be in the MediaWiki: namespace) but I don't know where it is or how it's set up. Primefac (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

That message is MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext. That MediaWiki page first checks if it is transcluded a cascade-protected page other than itself (and produces no output if so; the message that one sees when trying to edit a cascade-protected page is MediaWiki:Cascadeprotected). Then, it checks to see if the appropriate protection notice exists, and if so calls it, and if not produces a standard message based on the level of protection (Template:Protected page text/semi for semi-protected pages, Template:Protected page text/extendedconfirmed for extended-confirmed-protected pages, etc) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes. That is my request. As I wrote before, "How about replacing the button that creates an edit request with one that simply opens a new section on the talk page?" --Guy Macon (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I've made an attempt at implementing the technical side of this. First, an admin needs to carry out my request at Template talk:Submit an edit request#Protected edit request on 21 May 2021, and then any template editor, page mover, or admin can carry out this proposal by creating the appropriate editnotice (for Minecraft: Template:Editnotices/Protection/Minecraft) with {{subst:manual edit requests}} * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

(...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

(...Chirp...) --Guy Macon (talk) 06:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

(...Chirp...) --Guy Macon (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I much prefer cricket (note that this is also a time consuming enterprise - if England don't pull off that thing which only they are capable of doing (being terrible at a game they invented), they've still got 3 more days to go against NewZealand...) to crickets, so agree some action should be done: @Ivanvector: (or anybody, really)... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I've got it. Izno (talk) 05:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Purposely implementing user-hostile design to discourage unconfirmed editors from making any edit requests with no replacement is WP:BITEY and is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, specifically that "anyone can edit". I hate this idea. This is just a band-aid "solution" designed to circumvent community consensus by ensuring that anyone who might actually use an edit request on certain pages are unable to do so due to a lack of knowledge. In essence it's just blocking edit requests for certain semi-protected pages.

Maybe we should be focusing on implementing a better solution that actually directs users seeking to edit semi-protected articles to potential options other than "submit an edit request". Looking at the editnotice, I see a big wall of text full of boring stuff about what protection is and wikibureaucracy. Then I see a big blue button saying "submit an edit request". The average person is going to assume the only way to propose changes to the article is by clicking the big blue button. They are usually not going to click on the wikilinked "discuss this page with others" that doesn't really clarify that a normal talk page thread is where controversial changes or less specific ideas should be proposed. And even if they do, I have to scroll down through a bunch of hatnotes, see sections, etc etc and have no idea how to do any of this talkpage etiquette without reading wiki help pages that aren't linked anywhere for me.

I would like admins to consider potentially changing the template to make the blue button "open a talk page thread" (which directs the user to create a new section on the talk page) and shift "edit request" to a white button, as well as a brief explanation as what opening a talk page thread entails. This makes it clear that the preferred and normal option is to open a talk page thread while still allowing users to make edit requests. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply)Template:Z181 09:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

It is not up to admins to make such a change, it would have to be a community decision. Admins are entrusted with tools needed to perform certain chores. Policies, guidelines, and procedures are set by the community as a whole. You can start an RfC to change the template yourself, and any Wikipedian can comment on it. - Donald Albury 13:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Donald Albury: If it's supposedly "not up to admins" to make changes to this template then why wasn't this proposal given an RfC? Why was the only discussion on the talk page of the template in question an edit request (ironic isn't it?) and on the administrators' noticeboard? Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply)Template:Z181 03:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I will be happy to post an RfC; this is the first hint that I have received that anyone might find this template change controversial.

Just to make sure that I ask the right question in the RfC, as I understand it the request at Template talk:Submit an edit request#Protected edit request on 21 May 2021 only makes changing the "edit request" button so that it opens a talk page section possible but does not actually change anything, right? So the objection is to making this an option? Or am I misunderstanding?

Note that I specified in my original "possible new tool/technique/procedure" question that we require an administrator to evaluate whether edit requests are disruptive on a particular page and make the decision to change the "edit request" button to a "post talk page comment" button on that page. We also discussed trying it on Talk:Minecraft to see if it causes any problems. Given those restrictions is there still someone who objects?--Guy Macon (talk) 04:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Re the comment above:

"Purposely implementing user-hostile design to discourage unconfirmed editors from making any edit requests with no replacement is WP:BITEY and is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, specifically that 'anyone can edit'. I hate this idea."

That would be a valid objection if that was what was being proposed, but the "with no replacement" bit is factually incorrect. I proposed that on certain pages, determined by an administrator to be experiencing disruption that we take away the one-click edit request button and replace it with a one-click open a new talk page section button. We aren't "discouraging unconfirmed editors" doing anything. They simply click the button, say what they want to say, and the comment gets handled by the regulars like any other talk page comment. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Template talk edit request

May we please have an admin evaluate Template talk:Submit an edit request#Protected edit request on 21 May 2021 and either accept it or reject it? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 03:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Ayurveda just got protected, and now Talk:Ayurveda is being flooded with edit requests by editors who did not follow the "specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it" instructions. That button is an Attractive Nuisance.[21] --Guy Macon (talk) 06:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Wow. Another edit request and another "Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y' format and provide a reliable source if appropriate" reply. What a shock. Who could have predicted that if you give unconfirmed users a button to push they will push the button no matter what instruction you put above it?

• Talk:Minecraft#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 May 2021: Involving abbreviation for "MC"

--Guy Macon (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Three more:

• Talk:Marjorie Taylor Greene#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 May 2021
• Talk:Marjorie Taylor Greene#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 May 2021
• Talk:Marjorie Taylor Greene#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 May 2021

Does anybody here think that the above examples need to clog up the edit request queue rather than being ordinary talk page comments handled in the normal way by the editors watching the page? (Taps microphone: Hello? Is this thing on?) --Guy Macon (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that, except on a very few pages, the disruption is usually temporally limited and is dealt with rather rapidly. On many talk pages, the request are not disruptive (just not policy compliant), and then there's the occasional, rare, good ones. I think what we need is a firmer (policy/guideline page) which would give scope and guidance for admins or template editors on when to override the default template edit-notice when the edit requests become spammy and disruptive. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Both the bad and the good would still appear on the talk pages if the button simply opened up a new section on the talk page. The only difference would be not annoying those who monitor the list of unanswered edit requests.

Before we can create a policy or guideline on when to do this someone with the ability to edit protected pages needs to respond to Template talk:Submit an edit request#Protected edit request on 21 May 2021. It has been a week, and nobody has responded, not even to say "no". --Guy Macon (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• Although it would be a good thing on Talk:Project Veritas... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
  • And on Talk:Indian Medical Association:[22] --Guy Macon (talk) 04:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Different IP sock per edit

Various socks of WP:INDEFfed User:Hoggardhigh have, for years, waged a campaign of largely pointless changes to articles. Though occasionally mildly positive, their edits largely needlessly alter perfectly well-expressed text to a fashion they prefer, often the forcing of one valid WP:MOS choice over another perfectly valid one. A characteristic example is their insistence on the MOS:OXFORDCOMMA, rarely, if ever, in a context where it is actively required for disambiguation or for internal consistency within an article. I know that @BilCat: and @Ahunt: have also been combatting the individual's campaign and may have a perspective, particularly in regard to edits on aircraft-related articles.

Hoggardhigh's tactics have evolved from a succession of user accounts, to the use of a particular IP for a period, to recently the use of a different IP address for almost every individual edit, sometimes mere minutes apart. The recent history of Kelly Murphy, The Amazing Rhythm Aces and Where Have All the Flowers Gone? (film) are illustrative. (Further examples can be found if my contributions are searched for the edit summary "WP:EVADE, User:Hoggardhigh".)

Watchlisting a vast list of articles with previous activity uncovers new edits but newly-targetted articles will be less easy to spot. Rangeblocking may be appropriate and the most effective tactic but a perspective on that is outwith my expertise and I know there may be collateral effects. Does anyone have a view on the best way to proceed? (Pinging @RoySmith:, @Callanecc: and @Sro23: as you discussed the issue in the last two SPIs here and here.) Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes this sockmaster is annoying, many of the edits are detrimental to the articles and almost all have to be reversed. Because this person constantly opens new accounts and also IP hops I am not sure what can be done other than revert on sight. - Ahunt (talk) 13:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Those IPs are all on the same /64 range (2603:6081:7840:FA00::/64 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), which can generally be treated like a single IPv4 address. Blocking that, even for an extended period of time, should not incur any meaningful collateral. --Blablubbs|talk 14:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Blocked for a month. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all! Ah, is there any way of checking for further edits made in this range prior to the block? Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Would this be the range's full list of edits, per the "contribs" link noted in Blablubbs post above? Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mutt Lunker, it would indeed, though it looks like almost everything has since been reverted. For future reference: If the IPs you are looking at all start with the same first four groups (2603:6081:7840:FA00 in this case), then you can cut everything after that, append ::/64 and get the range (2603:6081:7840:FA00::/64) that way. It's generally a good idea to do this whenever you look at an IPv6 address since people tend to float around on /64s rather quickly. Some providers (especially in Asia) do not assign /64s, but it's common practice in large parts of the world. --Blablubbs|talk 09:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for a month? Would need longer then that, unless the individual behind the socks were somehow restrained from his/her computer, phone, etc. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking that too. This person has been carrying on a concerted sock campaign for years. A one month block will not have much dissuasive effect. I was also going to ask if this sort of block will just stop him IP editing or will it stop him creating new accounts? Because he is likely to just do that, based on past experience. - Ahunt (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

A characteristic example is their insistence on the MOS:OXFORDCOMMA Insisting on the Oxford comma is a blockable offense? Did an Oxford comma shoot your dog or something? --Calton | Talk 10:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Valid style choices should not be changed based on the user's personal preference alone, it's a waste of everyone's time; particularly not in part of a years-long campaign of abuse and evasion. The same applies to someone removing Oxford commas on the same basis. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Many of them are used wrongly by this person, too. It seems to be done more to create chaos than as any sort of style issue. It all means they have to be assessed, tracked and reverted. - Ahunt (talk) 14:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The edit summary of this second re-imposition of Hoggardhigh’s work has not grasped the points being made above. I will take it as a misunderstanding, though more hesitancy about making accusations would have been appreciated.

There has never been a suggestion that Oxford commas are prohibited. The point is that an absence of Oxford commas is not prohibited either, as Hoggardhigh is seeking to impose. They have mounted a sustained campaign for at least 4 years, a prominent part of which is to impose their preferred, valid style to the exclusion of another equally valid style. That is plainly disruptive. Again, the same would apply if their campaign was to conversely impose the removal of Oxford commas.

This is far from the only aspect of Hoggardhigh’s campaign but it is a highly characteristic one, highlighted to indicate the links between the multiple socks.

I'd like now to do what I intended to earlier; to check and address Hoggardhigh’s latest IP sock edits, without the concern of their will being re-imposed. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Mutt Lunker is right, the issue here is disruption, not Oxford commas. - Ahunt (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Indeed it is the issue. Question is, is it possible to ban the sock-master, indef. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Fairly sure the sock-master is already banned under WP:3X since I counted 5 confirmed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hoggardhigh/Archive. Frankly even if they weren't, there seems no point imposing a Cban. Realistically no one is going to unilaterally unblock a globally locked editor with a large SPI, and it doesn't seem to me the lack of a formal ban is making it more difficult for us to deal with the socks. Of cause dealing with the socks wastes a lot of time since as often happens, there's no simple way to stop block them before they edit without a lot of collateral so it's mostly revert. Nil Einne (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Not sure I follow that. Per @Blablubbs: "Blocking that, even for an extended period of time, should not incur any meaningful collateral" and if a means can be implemented where the time spent countering this individual may be better spent, why would we not do so? Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mutt Lunker: My statement was poorly worded but you seem to be talking about something else. I wasn't trying to suggest we should refrain from blocking any particular IP or IP range. However this editor has been here since 2017. Either we've all be utter idiots and it has been trivial to block them but we never did. Or as with most sufficiently persistent socks, they have access to enough IP ranges that it is impossible to block them successfully long term. Especially when the use of accounts, and the cost of blocking editing from accounts from those IP ranges (i.e. non anon only) is considered. While blocking account creation will help with accounts, it can have a cost and more significantly, they just have to find some IP they can use for account creation. It could be some Wifi they come across while out and about, or something else. They can then disrupt Wikipedia from the leisure of their home until we detect and block it. This doesn't mean we shouldn't do our best, but it does mean we should be realistic and understand that as with many socks, we our best hope is unfortunately probably going to be that they give up whether because they get annoyed with our blocks or for other reasons, rather than believe that we will find a way to completely block them from editing. Nil Einne (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I skimmed through your opening statement and you mentioned how their tactics have evolved over the years, so I think we are in agreement that it's not realistic to expect we will ever be able to completely block them from editing before they edit. Again this doesn't preclude making some blocks which help, but they will still be back if they wanted to be. Nil Einne (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

For further clarity, note my reply was intended as it was indented as a reply to GoodDay's comment. I found their comment difficult to parse. As I pointed out, the sockmaster concerned is already defacto banned. The sockmaster account is also globally locked and probably blocked. So there's no question "is it possible". It is, we've already done it long ago so it didn't make much sense to ask about it. It occurred to me that maybe what they were really trying to ask is whether there was any way we could completely to block the editor from ever editing. My suggestion is it was not possible. We can and should do what we can, but they will continually evade if they really want to. That is the unfortunate reality of open editing and persistent socks with sufficient resources and know how. Nil Einne (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not sure I'm any clearer about your point. What is the "cost" you refer to, particularly when it has been stated that, in this case, there is none, meaningfully? Nobody is saying any measure is guaranteed to completely stop a sock but if we can reduce their options and make it onerous for them to continue, why wouldn't we? They would have fewer options to return and if they do, we can address that if it arises. Or are you advocating allowing them free rein? I think GoodDay's point is pretty plain and simple and clearly a longer term or indef block will be more of an impediment to the sock than a shorter one. Your attitude seems defeatist.

Incidentally, I notice the block has been extended to 6 months. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

RuPaul’s Drag Race (British series 2)

Has anyone looked at this properly? This is the only one in hundreds of Drag Race articles that has had its progress chart removed. I came to look for this season and it was goneShontal Smith (talk) 05:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I guess you mean RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 2). This is a content issue and should be worked out on the article talk page though I see there has been a discussion, an RFC, on this matter already. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The "Summary of contestants' progress in each episode" and "Lip syncs" sections on this and all related pages were removed as being unencyclopedic and vandalism/disruption magnets. As can be seen here[23] these charts have ended up at ANI again and again. Enough is enough. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I think one of the issues is that this is being handled on an "article by article" basis, whereas instead this should be a project wide formatting issue. Lots of people end up using the "Every other article does the wrong thing, why can't this article do the wrong thing too!" argument the OP is trying to use repeatedly to argue against the changes made to this one article; it's a common and understandable (if spurious and invalid) argument. I would recommend (if anyone who regularly edits in that area is watching) that a broad-based, project wide RFC be held to establish standards for format, sectioning, layout, and whatnot for those articles, so that if they really do need to be stripped of the cruft that Guy Macon notes above, there is a firm footing to stand on. Taking on a single article in a set of largely identical articles and changing the formatting of that one only is likely to raise questions about why it hasn't been done for the others, and really there should be some consistency here. Other Wikiprojects, like for example WP:USRD or WP:UKGEO, have well established format and organization standards for groups of similar articles, and while there is often much variance in practice, once you've established a good article template that has broad consensus, you at least have a place to point where you can say "this is how we should do things". This kind of one at a time scattershot method of cleaning up all of these articles isn't helpful. Other than that rather ranty bit of advice for anyone who might want to implement a good plan for fixing the problem (do it or don't, I don't really care) this is NOT an admin issue, as noted above. There is nothing for admins to do here. --Jayron32 23:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Is this a real series of Ru Paul's Drag Race? Oh. How boring. Imaginary series of Ru Paul's Drag Race in sandboxes are a recurrent topic at MFD, and are deleted. A real one is so boring, and can be left alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Admin issue or not (probably not) I'm not sure an RfC would resolve the problem as ime most of the disruption is newbies who don't even know about RfCs let alone care about the outcome. I first heard of this through RfPP where pages were experiencing disruption from newbies changing colors or changing placements. I tried to come up with an obfuscation solution using {{Drag Race contestant table}} and Module:Ru Paul's Drag Race tables hoping that it would (1) standardize design and (2) make the code obscure enough that newbies couldn't effectively mess with it, but that effort stalled out because of my limited knowledge of Lua. there might be some content disputes among more experienced editors on the finer details of data presentation, but I think normal editing has generally handled that alright. See, for example, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race#RfC: Proposed progress table for all RPDR shows which I used to inform the template and module design. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: That seems to be what is being asked for here, although of course that doesn't do away with the existing RfC. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

That might solve the problem of those tables being vandalism/disruption magnets (although I doubt it) but it would do nothing about them being unencyclopedic. Play-by-play details don't belong in an encyclopedia. We don't have tables in our world series articles detailing every pitch and whether the batter hit it. We don't have tables in our NASCAR detailing every time someone took or lost the lead. We generally only document the results of contests, not who was ahead partway through. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Those aren't really accurate comparisons; this isn't a NASCAR race or baseball at-bat. Our articles on television series routinely give a synopsis of the episodes within that series (e.g., the featured article Homicide: Life on the Street (season 1)). As a competition reality television show, each episode features an individual, discrete challenge that participants are judged on and which they may win or lose. Besides the loser being eliminated, the results of these challenges have no direct outcome on the final placement, unlike NASCAR lead changes or baseball at-bats. Even if they did, comparing a reality television show to a sporting event doesn't make sense. Tables like this are part of how we cover competition reality television shows, for example, choosing random seasons of competition reality shows I can name off the top of my head: Big Brother (British series 8)#Nominations table, Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains#Voting history, The Biggest Loser (season 7) (pretty much the entire thing is week-by-week stats tables), The Amazing Race 11#Results (where we do list every lead change), A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila#Contestants, The Bachelor (American season 25)#Call-out order, Opposite Worlds#Game history, The Great British Bake Off (series 6)#Results summary, and Skin Wars all have tables showing episode by episode placement of contestants just like Ru Paul's Drag Race articles. There's a strong consensus among those who know and edit this content that these tables are encyclopedic considering nearly every similar article has one, and for good reason: the outcome of each episode is important, encyclopedic information about that television series which is easily and helpfully presented in tabular format. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Mea culpa for starting all this mess. In short, I noticed an edit request (patrolling CAT:ESP [or was it CAT:EEP, I don't even remember]) to update the table there because of some poor argument that it was inaccurate back in March, seeing instead that what needed to be done was just removing the whole table (reasons for succinctly summarised by Guy above), of course facing some opposition and disruption, then ending up with an RfC on that page (instead of a more central page). Anyway, if there are some objecting that this hasn't been consistently applied to other pages, the simple solution is either A) fix it helpful primer or B) start yet another RfC (at some place like WP:VP or the like) about this particular issue. Of course I'm all for A, since I don't think there's a reason why any of the other series are different, but again it's all my fault for noticing that something could be improved... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Community review of the closure of the RfC at Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 2)#Ground rules

On behalf of an IP editor who has asked for it, I'm making a formal request for review of the closure of the above mentioned RfC. Thanks for your input on the matter, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• (Disclaimer: I'm involved.) This appears to be an example of a closer taking an RFC that was leaning one way, closing it in the other direction, and justifying it with MOS:ACCESS. I mean, I guess that's justifyable from a WikiLawyer perspective... ignore all the IP votes that didn't cite a concrete policy in favor of some votes that mentioned MOS:ACCESS. Doesn't mean that this close is going to be popular or good for the encyclopedia though. We now have a full protected article that is missing its contestant progress chart, in contravention of the WP:SILENT consensus of several hundred other articles that include contestant progress charts (Survivor, Big Brother, the rest of the RuPaul's Drag Race articles, etc.), and a bunch of upset IP and newer editors. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
• After further thought, and Spa-Frank's argument below, I think this RFC should have been no consensus, and should be returned to the status quo ante. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended discussion between involved participants

(Disclaimer, if it wasn't obvious, that I am also involved) Silent consensus is only a very weak consensus, and cannot be taken to apply when it is objected to (unless the implication is that the existing RfC should have been shut down and re-opened as a more centralised discussion which can apply to more than just this article). Note that many (although not all) of the "!votes" for option A were new, single topic accounts (some of them have even been blocked as sockpuppets, I'll have to go through the RfC to confirm), and that their justification was sometimes as weak as the obvious appeal to tradition, i.e. "this is how it's always been done", without either justifying why that is so or why the new concerns raised would not be valid. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC) Sorry, I'm not convinced. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC) Of course. Not surprising. I obviously disagree with the above biased summary. For one thing, WP:SILENT does not and cannot ever override explicit consensus. To stand on SILENT in this case is highly misplaced because the very circumstances that led to the RfC are fulsome documentation that there was not a consensus to make the progress tables standard. Even if there is a silent consensus on a group of articles a talk page discussion at one of them overrules for that particular article. This is settled procedure. Also, closers are explicitly instructed to consider not merely quantity of arguments but their quality so there is no case of a "RfC leaning one way" except on the most superficial headcount grounds. I didn't count the votes wrong because those statements aren't votes and I didn't count, which is also settled procedure. Further, the arguments for inclusion were almost entire WP:ILIKEIT while the exclusion arguments were at least policy based. That this results in a lot of poor arguments being dismissed is not merely sanctioned, but actually instructed. It is not a bug of the close but a feature. That the poor argumenters are upset is no surprise but that dismay does not mean the close was inadequate in summarizing the discussion. There has yet to be a policy-based reason given to suggest that the close was inadequate, just a lot of statements that it was wrong or miscounted or somehow oppressive to a minority. This has all been explained, starting with the closing statement that many of the upset parties have not apparently read. It has also been re-explained many times since. I stand by the closing statement because the only cognizable reason for the objections (including yours) has been: "This makes that one article inconsistent". Consistency is not a reason to overlook the concerns of either well-documented disruption or disabled access. If consistency is desired so strongly, and obvious and simple solution presents itself. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC) @Eggishorn: I don't think anyone is suggesting that issues were not present: the consensus was not to remove the table outright. As I noted in the RFC, simply nuking the table would not solve this issue, and it seems I have been proven right. I am not making an argument to say what the consensus was, merely that, very clearly, no consensus existed to remove the table, or indeed to change it at all before all this blew up. The RFC should have been closed as status quo ante for that reason. No consensus for a future direction of the table emerged. Editors arguing for a table different to those in other articles were misunderstanding the colour guidelines. Information should not be solely portrayed by colour, not that colour should not be used at all. I did propose a compromise (although I admit a mock-up may be helpful): SAFE1 and SAFE2 to note when a contestant received feedback from the judges; Change "ELIM" from black to white, on its red background; Add footnotes for different types of elimination. No policy reasons became apparent for rejecting this proposal, merely WP:IDONTLIKEIT. WP:FANCRUFT was repeatedly, and incorrectly, cited, as justification for squashing high, low, safe w/ critiques, safe w/o critiques, into one. FANCRUFT is an essay and arguments citing it should carry no weight for that reason, but they have unduly been given weight. In short, I believe the closure should be no consensus, and (a separate debate) returned to status quo ante. Spa-Franks (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC) Edit: something like this mock-up in my sandbox, for instance. Spa-Franks (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC) You are correct that no policy reasons were given for rejecting this proposal. In point of fact, however, there was almost no support for it, either. That there was no consensus for that sub-proposal does not mean the there was no consensus for the discussion as a whole. At least, not as WP:CONSENSUS is defined by policy: Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The concerns that the upset parties expressed were explicitly taken into account, read the closing statement. (I seem to keep saying that.) The concerns that the table was non-compliant with disabled access concerns was addressed by the proposal you made but that did not sway more than a tiny minority of discussion participants. The concerns that disruption attends the table mattered more to the discussion participants, and this is backed up by policies and guidelines. Dissent with a consensus does not mean that no consensus exists. It just means that the issue is contentious. That was amply demonstrated before the RfC and there is nothing surprising in its continuation afterwards. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC) The mock-up still violates WP:NOR (FANCRUFT, material of relevance only to passionate fans of the subject, is often OR based on primary sources, and this was no exception). This is not the place to relitigate the RfC, in any case. This is for review of the closure. People can read the RfC and come to their own conclusions. Let's stop arguing and leave uninvolved editors a say. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

After 60 hours with no input beyond involved participants, it seems clear that no administrator has yet felt it is necessary to comment here. Could somebody kindly close this and allow everyone to get back to doing something productive? Thanks in advance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

More eyes

• Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_May_24#Template:Constlk

In the spirit of 3PO, and "there's always another admin", I'd like to please request more eyes on this situation. Thank you very much. - jc37 20:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Gaggan (restaurant)

Any clue why this is suddenly attracting large numbers of brand new editors? It's been coming up on my watch very regularly for the past couple weeks, and it doesn't seem like edit-warring or vandalism. Just...suddenly a ton of interest from new editors. —valereee (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

It has {{copy edit}} at the top, so it's probably coming up on suggested edits or something like that. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm fairly certain that that's the best explanation. A few months ago I tagged New River Railroad as needing copyediting; over the course of the next three months it had a bunch of random vandalism, copyvios, and mysterious nonconstructive edits. After the tag's removal, it's only had a single edit in the following four months. In that case, I can rule out some external explanation because I added the tag. Vahurzpu (talk) 03:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: User:Vahurzpu and User:Sdrqaz are right I'm sure. If you check out Wikipedia:Basic copyediting#Find articles that need copyediting mentions that the Wikipedia:GettingStarted process suggests copyediting articles. I think I remember people complaining about this so guess I did know about it once, but completely forgot it was a thing until now. You can try the process yourself via [24]. I never actually got that article to show up before running out of suggested articles but possibly the system only chooses a random subset of articles or something. There use to be a tag "gettingstarted edit" for these edits but for whatever reason it seems to have disappeared possibly back in 2014. Nil Einne (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

While most of it were simple good or not so good copyedits and changes, some do appear to be vandalism [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]. Someone also needs to find a source for when the owner moved to Bangkok (I had a quick look but didn't see anything) [31] [32]. As to what's going on here, maybe some sort of off-site campaign? I was thinking someone trying to develop socks, but while I could imagine someone getting many of them to edit the same article, I can't imagine them doing the vandalism and it seems unlikely a random vandal came across an article someone else chose to use to develop their socks. Edit: Campaign may not be the best word. I don't mean it's necessarily malicious. It could be e.g. some introduction to editing course that suggested that article. Nil Einne (talk) 23:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Very interesting! Thanks, all. Huh. How unfortunate. That makes me think twice about that particular tag. —valereee (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken

The user is using 'modern liberal' biased techniques in documents related to American politics in the English Wikipedia. In many cases, he criticized me maliciously to justify such biased technology. (I said I wouldn't edit the US political document for three months because I didn't want to cause trouble with this user. But looking back on my edit, I don't know what the hell I did wrong in contributing to American political page.)

• Although the Blue Dog Coalition is commonly referred to as the "Conservative Democrats" and the Republican Governance Group is generally referred to as the "Liberal Republicans", the user denies it and makes a POV statement. #, #
  • The Blue Dog Coalition page even carried out serious original research. Without any source, the user described that there was a "right-wing" in the organization's "Blue Dog Coalition". I thought this was an obvious original research before, but it was hard to point out that the user was maliciously selling me at the time. See history of page in the last three months.#
  • In addition, while the Republican Governance Group has no source referred to as "moderate conservatism", the user maintains the POV view that the former is right and the latter is wrong, despite numerous sources referred to as "liberal".

In addition, the user lacked a very good understanding of East Asian politics, but he also decided that my editing was inappropriate and reversed it. Still, Beyond My Ken are attacking me for my lack of understanding of American politics. However, I have never used biased techniques in American political page.

• User:Beyond My Ken also twisted my argument and maliciously criticized me in the Talk of Law and Justice page.#
• User:Beyond My Ken interrupted my legitimate Wikipedia editing countless times. #, #, #, etc.)

I think it's actually a threat to a new user, me, to repeatedly mention in Talk that the user will post me on the Administrators' Noticeboard. Although I'm not perfect at editing American political documents, Beyond My Ken has conned me to justify his no source POV contribution. --Storm598 (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken always threatens to put me on the Administrators' Noticeboard, saying I lack understanding of American politics when Beyond My Ken justifies Beyond My Ken's no source POV views. On the other hand, I have never done this to Beyond My Ken.--Storm598 (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Storm598: it says in ultra-large bold writing in a coloured box at the top that you need to notify subjects who you make a thread about. I have dropped BMK a line for you. Please do not forget again, as it clearly indicates you didn't read the instructions before posting Nosebagbear (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it is more likely that as Storm598 is banned from BMK's talk page, he did not think he should. Maybe he forgot that notifications required by policy are one of the exceptions. P-K3 (talk) 12:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

That's exactly what P-K3 said. Thank you for understanding me. I just sent it to BMK's talk.--Storm598 (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

That's interesting, because when I notified you that I didn't want you to post to my talk page anymore (for reasons that are probably obvious to the readers of this laborious thread), I wrote: ...unless, of course, you are required to by Wikipedia policy. If you are required to post a notice on my talk page, please clearly indicate in the edit summary what policy you are doing so under. [33] Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Storm598: Why are you posting this complaint? What outcome do you hope to achieve? SPECIFICO talk 13:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: BMK often goes back almost reflexively every time I edit some pages on Wikipedia. Clearly, even if it was my reasonable editing, it is often deleted by BMK's arbitrary judgment. Every time I edit American politics, they keep bothering me that I don't understand American politics and that they'll take issue with my editing on the Administrators' noticeboard. In fact, he mentioned me in the 'Administrators' noticeboard' before, exaggerating or distorting me. I'm not saying that we should sanction BMK within Wikipedia, but please refrain from doing so. I want the BMK to stop denouncing me with Xenophobia. I have a certain understanding of American politics, and BMK often does original research on American politics without sources on some pages. That's why I don't want BMK to branded or interrupt my editing. --Storm598 (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• I refer readers back to this discussion from March, in which Storm598 avoided an AP2 topic ban by voluntarily imposing a 3-month "block" on himself, which he later interpreted as a 3-month topic ban from articles about American politics. Nevertheless, he has broken this voluntary TB several times since [34], [35], [36], under the impression, apparently, that the 3 months was over. (Since he imposed it on himself on March 16, it will be over on June 16.)

The essential problem -- reflected in Storm598's editing throughout Wikipedia, not just in the AP2 area -- is that they get their political information from an unnamed South Korean blog, and then uses that information to make changes on a wide variety of article throughout the encyclopedia, most of which concerns who is conservative, moderate and liberal. I'm not familiar with politics outside the US, so I cannot say if their changes to those articles are good or not, but I do know that when it comes to American politics, their definitions do not match up with those in conventional use, and the changes they make are therefore not helpful.

I continue to believe that Storm598 should be under an indefinite AP2 TB until they can show that their understanding of American politics is more grounded in reality than it currently is, but I'm not going to make the case for that. Those who are interested can read the discussion from March, Storm598's talk page, and their contributions to form their own conclusions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

BTW, I call on Storm598 to provide specific diffs of when I have reverted their edits since March 16, 2021 that did not involve American politics. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Can someone please explain what Storm598 means when they write "The user is using 'modern liberal' biased techniques in documents related to American politics in the English Wikipedia." What are "'modern liberal' biased techniques"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

What is the evidence that I get political information from the South Korean blog? I look for major media outlets in English and South Korea.--Storm598 (talk) 14:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

You said it yourself in one of our discussions. I'll dig up the diff. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Here you go: "I live in South Korea, the largest Korean wiki classifies the U.S. Democratic Party as a social liberal and social democratic party and the Democratic Party of South Korea as a social liberal and social conservative party." [37] This is the source you cited on Talk:California Democratic Party for making changes to that article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

# Is this what you're looking for? I didn't mention anything about the South Korean blog. For reference, I mentioned the major wiki of South Korea and only once mentioned how South Koreans perceive the California Democratic Party. The California Democratic Party is not considered a centrist at least in the context of U.S. politics, as there are many democratic socialists, and this is what many have pointed out before.--Storm598 (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Wiki/blog, same thing, they're both self-published sources, and you're clearly taking your views from one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not true that I don't understand American politics, it's just that you're blaming me. BMK did the original research without any source just by looking at the 'Republican Governance Group' page or the 'Blue Dog Collaboration' page. I'm not the only wiki user to protest your 'modern liberal' bias statement.--Storm598 (talk) 14:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The reason for describing it as a modern liberal biased technique is simple.

• You claimed part of the Blue Dog was 'right-wing', but you didn't provide the source.
• You did not suggest that the Republican Governance Group is not a liberal or moderate organization, nor did you suggest a moderate conservative organization. On the other hand, I suggested a credible source.

American media and English-speaking academic sources also refer to the Republican Governance Group as "liberalism". Can't American media understand American politics more than BLM, which is just a wiki user?--Storm598 (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

This is my last comment here, as this is not the place to discuss content disputes. (1) Do not change your comments after they have been replied to except by striking out. (2) We have "articles" on Wikipedia, not "documents". I have told you this numerous times, but like the definition of American liberalism, you refuse to take it in. (3) Please provide a citation from a reliable source which refers to the Republican Governance Group as "liberal", in the American definition.

I think that readers can see the problem with Storm598: they have fixed views which are demonstrably wrong, and will not take in any factual corrections to those views, but instead continue to edit in accordance with those inaccurate views. Their behavior in this discussion shows how frustrating it is to interact with them, which can be verified by looking at their article talk page discussions involving other editors as well as myself. [38], [39]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I couldn't confirm that you responded. So I tried to correct it, but this is my mistake.(1) If RSS is not liberal in the American political context, then Blue Dog is not conservative in the American political context. The Blue Dog's propensity to vote is not much different from the New Democrat Coalition. (3)--Storm598 (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

And I think it's certainly malicious that you mentioned the Law and Justice.[40] I made it clear that I thought Law and Justice was a far-right party, but you accused myself of making a biased statement. You also think Law and Justice are anti-liberal far right. I think so too. However, the Law and Justice document did not originally describe the far-right, and in the end, you and I did not disagree.--Storm598 (talk) 15:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Hatting this because it's an irrelevant discussion about a WP:TPO issue. If an admin feels that the hatting is inappropriate, please undo. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
And I'll ask you the other way around. Why did you erase what you wrote here?--Storm598 (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC) To my knowledge, I did not "erase" anything. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC) No, you obviously erased what I wrote. # --Storm598 (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC) See WP:TPO. You changed your comment after I responded to it. I corrected it back to the original version. We are not the Ministry of Truth, you dont get to re-write history and erase you mistakes. If you wanted to change it, the proper way to do so would be to cross out the "BLM" and replace it with "BMK", like this: BLM BMK. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC) Actually, no, Beyond My Ken. You would do that if the original text was "BLM BMK" and you were striking the "BLM" part. When you replace something with something else (i.e. "change something"), you strike the old and underscore the new, as "BLM BMK". If you correct an editor on something like this, please do so correctly. You not only gave wrong information to Storm598 but other editors reading this as well. A more "advanced" case is when you are merely adding text without replacing anything. Since some editors use underscore for emphasis (which is discouraged in the guidance, presumably because it creates this ambiguity), best practice is to strike the last word preceding the inserted text and repeat it, as "She said it was yesterday. yesterday. But she was mistaken." This practice helps clarify that the underscoring is for inserted text, not emphasis. To my knowledge it is not included in the written guidance, however. Apologies for this off-topic but I felt the error was worth clearing up with the same level of visibility. 68.97.37.21 (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC) I see you took a WikiBreak from 28 October 2011 until 15 March 2021. [41] It looks like practice may have changed somewhat during your almost 10-year absence. I'll stand by my explanation, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC) I expected you might; I have that much experience with you. Don't make the mistake of assuming that my editing history is contained in the contribs for this IP address. I just might be a longtime registered editor in good standing, recently 99% retired but very occasionally dropping in a comment here and there (quite legally). See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing own comments if you care. 68.97.37.21 (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC) I assume you won't mind revealing to an admin what your account is so that it can be verified that you've been editing with an IP, instead of with your account, "quite legally" - since you have nothing to hide. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC) I sometimes advocated requirements for such disclosures by IPs, but I always lost. It appears that we presume innocence unless there is tangible evidence of abuse; i.e. the burden of evidence is on you, not me. I never saw a logged-out editor provide more disclosure than required because they had nothing to hide. You are free to file an SPI, and you are free to advocate for improvements to the system. I'm sorry but not surprised that you resort to such attack because you resent being publicly corrected on a minor TPG point. 68.97.37.21 (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

"BMK" not "BLM".

You continue to confuse the classical definition of "liberal", by which almost every American politician is a liberal, and the very different definition used in American politics. By that definition, the modern Republican Party -- which used to have an actual liberal wing, more moderate than the Democratic liberal wing, but still verifiably liberal (Rockefeller, Javits etc.) -- no longer has any liberals in it: the furthest to the left it goes on the national level is a handful of moderates. You simply refuse to accept that a "liberal" in the US is not the same as a "liberal" in Europe or elsewhere. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

BLM is a typo. I'm sorry about that. I support Black Lives Matter.--Storm598 (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I thought it was possibly a reference to the Bureau of Land Management. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken:The RGG is a clear 'liberal' group. It's just your opinion that there's no 'liberal' in modern Republicans. Many sources call RGG a 'liberal' group, and it's an original research to deny it. Authoritative sources call RSS 'liberal'. I know that the context in which 'liberal' is used in America is different from Europe. In the United States, 'liberal' usually refers to 'modern liberal'. That's why I wrote center-right 'conservative liberal' on purpose. On the other hand, RSS is rarely described as a conservative organization. Therefore, it is the Original Research that calls RSS 'moderate conservatism'.--Storm598 (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

No, it is not only my opinion, but the fact that you think so is a very good indication -- again -- that you really don't comprehend American politics. If this were an article, and I was making a claim to insert into the article, I could find innumerable citations from reliable sources which would back me up, but for the purposes of this discussion I am comfortable that 40 years of closely observing American politics -- not a foreign "wiki" -- tells me that it is the case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I am obviously aware of this discussion, please stop pinging me. I have other articles to use my "'modern liberal' biased techniques" on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is unlikely to be productive, so it would be better not to write "ideology" on infobox. I think we can reach an agreement at this point.--Storm598 (talk) 16:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

No, RGG is still considered a 'liberal Republican'. An organization that is not conservative in general should not be described simply as conservative. It would be better not to write "ideology" at all on the infobox of the Republican Governance Group page as it is now. #, #--Storm598 (talk) 16:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is unlikely to be productive, so it would be better not to write "ideology" on infobox. I think we can reach an agreement at this point.--Storm598 (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of your opinion on the proper labels of these groups, what behavioral issue are you raising. Everything here is a content issue and this board does not determine who is right on content. It is not an appeals court or arbitrator or mediator. As far as I can tell, your only complaint is that BMK is telling you you are wrong on American political labels. That is an issue for the WP:DR process. The First law of holes also applies. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to add here that I do agree Beyond My Ken's edits in this area seem to display a basic ignorance of American politics. I was absolutely astonished to find that he did, in fact, add "right-wing" as a faction to the Blue Dog Coalition page; for reference, this is the most conservative faction of America's big-tent left-wing party. Right-wing is such a factually inaccurate label for this group that it boggles the mind - it's an astonishing factual error that is made even worse by the fact he did so without a citation and then edit-warred to try and force his change into the article. A similar situation is going on at Republican Governance Group, he straight-up removed several reliably sourced sections in the inbox, incorrectly claiming they were cited to a "Korean blog". This sort of editing has to stop. Toa Nidhiki05 19:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your assessment. Given BMK's great breadth of knowledge and long experience, I would argue that he displays not a basic ignorance of American politics as you claim, but rather a mastery of the topic area. The Blue Dog coalition is accurately characterized as the right-wing of the Democratic Party. The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies described it as such in their publications, as only one example. This is like calling the old Rockefeller Republicans the left-wing of the Republican Party (according to the 1985 political science book Psychological Perspectives on Politics). The more important question here, is why anyone could possibly view this as erroneous or controversial. BMK appears to know the topic and is editing based on a plethora of good sources. Viriditas (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

It's similar to the situation with the Strasserites. The Strassers were not leftists in any absolute sense, but they did represent the "left-wing" of the Nazi Party; that is, the left-most portion of an entirely far-right movement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The Republican Party is not on par with the Nazi Party. RSS, far from advocating totalitarianism, has a social and cultural liberal orientation. Strassism is basically against liberalism.--Storm598 (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

OMG!! That was an analogy about relative positions within political parties, not a comparison of the Republican Party (or the Democratic Party, which Viriditas also mentioned) with the Nazis. Do we have a CIR problem here?!

In any event, my mistake. I was fooled by Viridtas' comment into thinking that there might be some rational discussion breaking out. Outta here again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I know exactly what you mean by bringing up the Nazi party. However, One Nation Conservatives (caucus) and Moderates (Liberal Party of Australia) pages mention "social liberalism" in addition to "conservative liberalism" or "liberal conservativeism" in the book Infobox. Similarly, what is the problem with referring to coservative "liberalism" in the infobox of RSS pages? Strassism is fascism, not socialism. However, RSS is a liberal organization. --Storm598 (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Hatting another discussion because it is partly unproductive, and partly irrelevant to the subject of the thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oh man, it's getting deep in here... PackMecEng (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC) That wasn't a terribly useful or helpful comment. Perhaps when you have nothing productive to say, you might actually consider occasionally saying nothing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC) No, you miss the subtlety of my comment. It was basically disagreeing with Viriditas assessment. Mostly by comparing the situation to getting knee deep in bullshit. Does that clear it up for you? PackMecEng (talk) 22:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC) Your comment was as subtle as one of Lady Gaga's outfits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC) Conservative Democrats are part of the right-wing of the Democratic Party. What part of this is BS? Likewise, Progressive Democrats are part of the left-wing of the Democratic Party. How is this erroneous or controversial? Just because the modern Republican Party is a cult that has chosen to eject and banish anyone on the left-wing, liberal side of their party, doesn't mean the Democratic Party has done the same thing. Both parties used to have left, center, and right-wing members, but only the Republican Party has all but eliminated this distinction. For an example of how far out of touch the Republican Party is with reality, simply look at their categorization of Obama, Biden, and Harris as radical, left-wing Marxists. The vast majority of academic political scientists and historians categorize Obama, Biden, and Harris as center-right leaning, pro-capitalist Democrats. The Republican Party repeatedly brands right-leaning Democrats as radical leftists to promote the false idea that they alone can call themselves right-wing. This is a clearly false and transparent attempt to shift the Overton window and make center-right policy positions appear to be on the far left. Reasonable and rational people don't fall for this cultist propaganda. Viriditas (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC) Obama, Biden, and Harris are considered centrist or center-left social liberal. Living in a welfare state is what some Europeans perceive as a centre-right. If Obama, Biden, and Harris are center-rights, many culturally conservative Asian countries center-rights should be considered far-rights. Moderate liberals in the U.S. are center-left in the U.S. standard and cultural radical left-wing to center-left welfare policy in the East Asian standard. They are centre-right by Nordic or Canadian standards and in fact, it is not an objective analysis at all that they are centre-right. Social liberalism is often considered a center to center-left even by global standards. (Clearly, East Asia is culturally very conservative. American politics and culture are not as conservative as you might think.)--Storm598 (talk) 23:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC) Only fringe, right-wing sources describe Obama, Biden, and Harris as center-left, social liberals. Obama's policies were often described as deeply conservative, with most academics describing him as a Rockefeller Republican, which makes Obama center-right as a Democrat. Enough has been written about Biden and Harris's extreme conservativism, that I feel you are either out of touch with the sources or are pushing a POV, such as the kind we find with the Unification Church or the Falun Gong. Viriditas (talk) 23:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC) In South Korea, major center-right politicians such as Oh Se-hoon also oppose homosexuality. Donald Trump, the far-right in U.S. political standards, has practically implemented a discriminatory policy against LGBT, but he does not openly oppose homosexuality. Then should we consider South Korea's center-rightists as far-rightists? People like Obama and Hillary are never center-right by American standards, never center-right by non-Europe. Nordic standard should not work to judge American political standards. Social liberalism is generally a center-left ideology, even in Europe, except in Northern Europe or France. East Asian politics, without exaggeration, is really very far-right. I hate East Asian politics. I've been subjected to countless discrimination as an LGBT.--Storm598 (talk) 23:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC) Only fringe, right-wing sources Oh gzz, it's getting even deeper! PackMecEng (talk) 23:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC) See The Washington Times and the The Epoch Times, both of which specialize in extremist, denialist rhetoric that falsely labels center-right Democratic policies and politicians as Marxist, radical left, and center-left. And both news sources are run and owned by religious cults, much like the Republican Party itself. If the shoe fits... Viriditas (talk) 23:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC) The Washington Post, one of the leading "modern liberal" journalists in the U.S., also describes Joe Biden as a center-left. # They are by no means center-right.--Storm598 (talk) 23:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC) The WaPo makes no such claim. The writer you cited argues that the party as a whole may have had to move center-left to subsume progressive Democrats, but the writer also says that this a major change from Biden's more conservative role in the former Obama admin. You're now twisting sources to support your claims. Biden has never been center-left and that article makes no such claim about Biden, mostly because it would be absurd. Viriditas (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC) I never thought Obama or Biden was a Marxist. They're basically a centrist or center-left because they support social liberalism based on the third path. Not all center-left are socialist or Marxist. Liberal center-left can also be established. And while social liberalism is generally not socialist, BUT it is clear that it is a centre-left.--Storm598 (talk) 23:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC) Obama was center-right, not center-left. Go review his policy history and what political scientists say about him. Viriditas (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC) Neat, now you are ranting into BLP territory. I would advice against that! PackMecEng (talk) 23:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC) I literally cited their sourced Wikipedia pages. Explain how citing facts is "ranting" or a BLP violation? Viriditas (talk) 23:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC) Weird I looked at their pages, Wikipedia is not a RS btw, and it does not mention that they are owned by cults(blp vio), that republican party is a cult(crazy talk), or anything about shoes(no idea what you are on about). Please do keep in mind the law of holes. PackMecEng (talk) 23:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC) Both media sources are owned by religious movements described as cults in their respective pages. Viriditas (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC) American liberals like Obama and Biden are never Marxists. But they are not even center-right. They are basically center to center-left Keynesian. And they are never culturally conservative either.--Storm598 (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC) Biden isn't center-left, and that claim is just absurd. As for Obama, I'll quote myself from 2015: "Obama's policies were criticized as that of a center-right conservative who gave lip service to progressivism but rarely deviated from the conservative agenda set by his predecessor. His failure to close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, the zealous prosecution of more whistleblowers than any previous administration, the continuing use of controversial drone strikes, the promotion of warrantless wiretapping against public opinion, the denial of the importance of the Snowden revelations, and the failure to prosecute Wall Street for any malfeasance beyond large fines -- all of these things led critics to note that previous administrations were far more open, democratic, and liberal than the current one. Some liberals questioned whether they had actually elected a Democrat in the first place. Strangely, even though liberals strongly supported a single-payer health care solution, Obama's legacy instead hinged on the passing of the Affordable Care Act, a health care policy in part designed by a conservative think tank in the early 1990s, a policy which failed to address the very health insurance reforms (such as controlling the costs) reformers had lobbied so hard for in the first place." Viriditas (talk) 00:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC) It should be taken into account that US politics is much more conservative than Europe. South Korean social democrats and socialists often view Barack Obama as a person similar to Roh Moo-hyun. Roh did not repeal the National Security Act, a legacy of the far-right dictatorship. In addition, Roh Moo-hyun severely suppressed the labor movement. And he showed social conservative views, such as not agreeing with homosexuality. Although Roh Moo-hyun was not particularly progressive during his time in power, he is considered a liberal center-left by South Korean political standards. Likewise, Barack Obama is certainly hard to be seen as a center-right by US political standards.--Storm598 (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC) Especially culturally, Barack Obama has been active in pro-immigration, pro-LGBT and autistic rights issues. It's a center-left and I'm one of Obama's most respected politicians in this respect.--Storm598 (talk) 00:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

As noted below, this the administrators' noticeboard, it's not a place for general discussion of a topic, or the details of a content dispute. Please stop debating political science on this noticeboard. Please address Specifico's request for specifics about what you want to accomplish. Acroterion (talk) 00:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think BMK is ignorant of American politics. I just think BMK is making biased descriptions in 'some' pages, not 'all'.--Storm598 (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Storm598 seems to be entering AP post-1932 TB territory. This is a timesink. Miniapolis 22:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Per my comments at the previous ANI discussion, I think it needs to be broader. The issues extend to East Asian politics. - Ryk72 ^talk 23:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ryk72: Pace Toa Nidhiki05's remark above‎, after 40 years of close observation, I'm pretty conversant with American politics, but I know little about the politics of East Asia. Can you describe Storm598's behavior in that subject area? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Well I think Storm is being a bit AP post-1932 TB, don't you think? SlightSmile 00:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Broadly the same issues that are evident in the AP2 area - engaging in OR, particularly with respect to categorisation & infobox contents. The addition of Cat:Identity politics in Japan is not necessarily harmful, just bizarre.[42] But there's also this, categorising a WW2 era Japanese politician as "fascist", when the article describes him in rather more moderate terms.[43] And this, adding "far-right" with neither source nor support in the article text.[44] The addition of a handful of cats, including "far-right" to a Thai political party here,[45], while also acknowledging that the sourcing doesn't exist.[46] Not isolated to "far-right", there's also additions and removals of "left-wing activist" here; again without sourcing or supporting text.[47][48][49] And these changes to a British Labour Party politicians are justified entirely by OR or personal viewpoint.[50][51] And these additions of "Anti-Zionism in South Korea", a new category created by Storm598, are just bewildering.[52][53] These additions to a Korean political party are unsourced OR.[54]; no justification is provided for this removal.[55]. This, to Kuomintang, is based on OR.[56] It's actually hard to find an edit in the broader politics topic which isn't pushing a personal POV or original research. - Ryk72 ^talk 07:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Reset

Enough with the sniping and content arguments, please. Acroterion (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Now, can the discussion be reset?
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think it is helpful at this point. It really illustrates the issues at hand. No need to stifle reasonable discussion. PackMecEng (talk) 23:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC) It's not helpful, please stop adding to the bonfire. Acroterion (talk) 23:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC) It is helpful, we can agree to disagree though. PackMecEng (talk) 23:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC) It stopped being helpful a few thousand bytes ago. I'm not interested in whether you want to have a meta-debate now over "helpful." Acroterion (talk) 23:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC) Suit yourself, then please stop disrupting dispute resolution with these off topic tangents. We are trying to get to the bottom of this issue and that will not happen with these silly arguments like this. PackMecEng (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC) This isn't a dispute resolution board - that's elsewhere. Are you now accusing me, an administrator who's trying to refocus this exceedingly painful wall of text, of disruption because I expect you to stop taking potshots at each other on this administrator's noticeboard? Acroterion (talk) 00:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC) Are you now accusing me, an administrator I mean yeah, that is what I said. So quit it. PackMecEng (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC) PackMecEng, your contributions to this thread have been completely unhelpful. If you have a point that needs to be made, please reconsider your approach. – bradv🍁 00:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC) @Bradv: Perhaps you are just misunderstanding like BMK was. Which one is giving you trouble and I can help you out. PackMecEng (talk) 00:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC) I'm considering a partial block from AN for PackMecEng for disrupting AN - this is argument for argument's sake. Acroterion (talk) 00:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC) Maybe, I mean using the tools to block someone for disagreeing with you does sound like a smart plan. PackMecEng (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC) Confronting disruptive behavior is what administrators do. I've taken no part in the discussion above, I am examining your conduct. Acroterion (talk) 00:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC) Well no. You made a general, and glaringly incorrect observation, I disagreed with your bad observation and then you threatened a block. Do not misrepresent the situation to play the uninvolved card. This is about our discussion here, not the one above my friend. PackMecEng (talk) 00:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC) Since I was considering the same thing when I left my warning above, I've gone ahead and blocked PackMecEng from this noticeboard for a week. Perhaps now the conversation can get back on track. – bradv🍁 00:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, let me try my hand at a reset. Here are what I think are the salient points:

• Storm598 came here with complaints about me which seem to boil down to his perception that I am using "'modern liberal' biased techniques" in my editing, but -- at least as I see it, although I'm clearly not neutral -- what he means by that is pretty vague, and he hasn't really made a very strong case for it, nor has he said what outcome he wants from filing the report. If I'm wrong, and he has indeed made a compelling case against me, then I should be appropriately sanctioned -- whatever that would be -- but if I'm correct that his evidence is less than convincing, then as the accuser with the onus to prove his charge, his case against me should be dropped.

• On the boomerang side, I see in Storm598's editing a fundamental lack of understanding of American politics, which manifests itself in mischaracterizations which are based on non-American political criteria inapplicable in an American context. On top of this he does not follow proper sourcing requirements, shoving in new information on top of existing citations which do not directly support the new descriptors as they are required to do. (See here) These are not new problems, they are continuations of the situation described in a discussion in March when Storm598 narrowly avoided an AP2 topic ban by voluntarily banning himself from the subject for three months, a ban he has broken twice since then. [57], [58], [59]

I think that is the core of this thread. Unfortunately, most of the bazillion other bytes of text are not directly relevant to these two points. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

The reason why I talked about AP2 topic ban for 3 months is because you bullied me. You've interrupted a number of legitimate edits that I have nothing to do with American politics. In addition, I said so emotionally because I was unable to participate in the debate because my mental health was seriously deteriorated at the time. But as I said above, the descriptions you made in some of the American political papers, including the Blue Dog, have not always been universal. When there was an editorial dispute on the page related to American politics, I always wanted to open a talk and solve it through dialogue. I have never made a major misstatement in American political documents. Do you think I don't know how the concept of 'liberal' is used in America? I just think that simply writing down RSS as 'moderate conservatism' can give political bias to those who read it. If RSS is not liberal, then BDC cannot be considered conservative. I certainly think that some of Beyond My Ken's political pages skills are biased.--Storm598 (talk) 01:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems that only the same words will be repeated anyway, so I will stop the argument here any more. --Storm598 (talk) 01:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

It's probably not very useful to you to make charges such as that I "bullied" you into doing something, when anyone can read the March discussion [60] and see that you were clearly heading toward a AP2 TB or worse, which is not something I can do by myself, but requires the Wikipedia community to enact. I never asked you to voluntarily do anything, I came to the community asking for action about your behavior, and the community was responding to that request. You may see that as "bullying", but it's how problem editors are dealt with here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposal

Because of a failure in WP:CIR, WP:TE and most especially WP:STICK, Storm598 (talk · contribs) is subject to an WP:ARBAP2 topic ban from all post-1992 politics in the United States. This thread should provide all the evidence needed for such a motion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

re: expanded politics topic ban. I proposed what seemed the minimum effective measure to address the current disruption. I think that this already represents a last chance for Storm598 and any further disruption in other politics topics should result in an indefinite complete block. I am not opposed to Ryk72's expanded proposal, however. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:59, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

for accuracy's sake, I also note that Storm has claimed to retire from enwiki. Given the lack of follow-through on previous claimed self-imposed restrictions, I think there is a need for a definitive sanction in case they unretire. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support "modern liberal biased techniques" pretty much says it all. Storm598 should find something else to edit. --RegentsPark (comment) 01:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support community-imposed topic ban from post-1992 American politics, broadly construed, notwithstanding any additional sanctions which may be considered in other subject areas. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• Just noting that the starting point for DS AP2 was changed from 1932 to 1992 (here) so it would seem to make sense that a community-imposed AP2 TB would use the same starting point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support Reyk72's expanded TB as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support as part of a community imposed topic ban from Politics (broadly construed). - Ryk72 ^talk 07:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support at the minimum, and I also support Ryk72's broader ban, because I fear that the problematic editing will be transferred to the politics of other nations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 14:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support the broader ban, per Ryk72's analysis. Quite a few simply odd edits, in addition to the ones that shouldn't be made without appropriate sourcing. I don't see evidence above that this need for sourcing is well-understood. CMD (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
• Abstain I'm not in favor of culling one or two members from the herd to sanction when there are a multitude of "bad actors" in a particular topic area. I'm not seeing any WP:NPA violations, or even WP:ASPERSIONS in Storm's posts. What I am seeing is a disagreement on the WP:POV end of political editing. I also don't assume that Storm598 is being deceptive in his intent to leave the topic area. So no, I can't support this as written at this time. — Ched (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• Ched The fact that Storm598 came out of his "retirement" three days after writing "I'm not coming back to Wikipedia again" in order to post the comments below is why it's appropriate to think that he has no intention of leaving the AP2 topic area. He did exactly the same thing the last time he was challenged, said he was giving up and going away, then came back to voluntarily take on a 3-month AP2 topic ban, only to break it well before the 3 months were over. I really do not believe anything that Storm598 says he is going to do, and would prefer to go by his actions in the past, and now again right here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• And in those comments below, Storm598 admits to sockpuppetry in order to avoid sanctions both in April and now, in June, with User:파란만장. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support American politics topic ban, Oppose broader ban. There's an awful lot of ABF going on assuming that editing issues with APOL will transfer to other countries; we should give Storm enough WP:ROPE to still edit politics of other countries.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• I just want to note that, according to Reyk72, it's not a question of whether Storm598's disruptive editing will spread outside of the AP2 area, but that his editing there is as bad as it is in American politics; so there's no ABF involved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support American politics topic ban, at minimum, on both competence and disruptive editing grounds. And no, despite what Ched says, there are not "multiple bad actors" here, there'S really only one. --Calton | Talk 13:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Ched. Blue Dogs might be "the right wing of the Democrats" but that doesn't mean it should be listed as "right wing" in the infobox, as in "the right wing of American politics." Blue Dogs are commonly described as fiscally conservative Democrats (eg see WaPo) and thus the right wing of that party, but not as "right wing" in the same way as, say, Donald Trump or Breitbart or something like that. The OP's report is valid: there was actual edit warring to include unsourced and incorrect information, and uncivil edit summaries to boot. I think the OP's complaint is valid and the boomerang is not. If there is some long term problem with Storm, let's see some diffs and a real report. Levivich 16:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  Please keep comments on-point and do not attempt to litigate content issues. If you want a diff, look at the opening of Storm's statement here which is a clear personal attack. The rest of this thread should amply serve as needed evidence without bureaucratic contortions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  there was actual edit warring to include unsourced and incorrect information, and uncivil edit summaries to boot is about conduct, not content, and please don't imply I !voted without reading this thread. No, it does not serve as ample evidence supporting a sanction, not in my view. Levivich 18:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support one-way IBan; weakly oppose Topic Ban from WP:ARBAP2. I don't think there's much here for a broader topic ban extending to all of politics (certainly this thread doesn't really say anything about Roman Politics or the like, so a proposal along those lines is too broad). I also don't think that the editor is incapable of editing articles relating to American politics, though I certainly have serious concerns. If we choose to move forward with a topic ban, I believe that it should be limited in time (rather than indefinite), since this appears to be a case of an editor becoming extremely hot-headed while on WP:ANI rather than substantive issues with the edits themselves. As a result, I think the most narrowly tailored approach would be to impose a 1-way interaction band that would prohibit Storm598 from interacting with Beyond My Ken for a period of six months. If the editor violates the interaction ban with malice, or if their behavior continues after this thread is closed, I would move to support a topic ban. The user has had issues with this area in the past, incurring a one-day ban for edit warring on this topic, so my current opposition to a topic ban is only a weak one. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• An IBan is not under consideration since it's not responsive to the situation presented -- but, in any case, whom do you propose to ban and in what direction? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken: My intent was to put forward an alternative (banning Storm598 from interacting with you; the ban should be placed on Storm 598). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• OK, thanks for the explanation. I do not see that Storm598's interactions with me are the base problem here, instead the concern is about their editing to articles, specifically in the American politics subject area, but also in other areas as well. An interaction ban will not solve this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• I just wanted to point out that nothing Storm598 writes about his intentions concerning editing Wikipedia can be trusted. He "retired" three days ago, and now he posts it again, with the edit summary "Now it's really retired," [61] as if we're supposed to believe him now that he really, really means it. So when he writes "I'm not coming back to Wikipedia again. I won't even create another account", [62] we can be pretty sure that he'll be back. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• And again he changes his intentions [63]. Also, WP:NOTTHERAPY. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• And now he's removed "retired". [64] Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• Originally, I didn't want to answer, but I'll answer this before I leave. The reason why I deleted "retired" is because it can cause regulatory problems. Because as you said last time, I remembered that I couldn't "retire". But I'm not editing Wikipedia any more this year. I don't want you to misunderstand me as a destructive editing. If you don't believe it, watch from now on.--Storm598 (talk) 13:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• I never told you that you couldn't retire. Please provide the diff of where you think I said that. In point of fact, you have "retired" -- either with a template or otherwise, and twice now in the midst of sanctions being considered against you -- a number of times, and each time you return to editing within a short period of time. That's called WP:GAMINGTHESYSTEM. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support american politics topic ban. I say we wait to see how that goes before considering a one way IBan. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

There is a reason why I am convinced that this is discrimination against new users.

One of the things I say when I doubt myself is that I'm a new user. To be honest, I have a reason to be sure that I am discriminated against because I am a new user.

I used to be active on another account for about 3 years.(User:삭은사과) Then, in September last year, I completely quit editing Wikipedia in October because I was on the verge of spreading my real name and personal information on other sites. And I created this account last December.

When I first started editing on Wikipedia in 2017, there were a few disputes, but since then, people haven't really taken issue with my editing. (Of course, at this time, I was more likely to source, and I didn't edit as many US political documents as I do now.)

Would my editing have been this suspicious if I had been on the 삭은사과 account since October last year? I was a 'verified user' back then. I have also received Barnstar from Korean Wikipedia.# Obviously, the atmosphere of 2017 or 2018 was not so exclusive to 'new users'. Am I wrong?

I would also like to refute some of the claims that I am doing OR.

• Adding corporatism to Kuomintang's pages' infobox is a violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability. There is not enough evidence to suggest that current Kuomintang pursues corporatism.
• Hideki Tojo and Fumimaro Konoe are representative leaders of the fascist-centered "Axis powers," and there is an academic controversy over whether totalitarianism in the Japanese Empire was fascism in the late 1930s and 1940s. I'm not the only one who put the fascist category in that page.
• Some say that I made an OR in American political pages, but in that sense, there is a reason why I don't hold Beyond My Ken responsible for making an OR in Blue Dog and other U.S. political pages. That's because Beyond My Ken is a person who has been using Wikipedia for a long time, not a "new user". Also, I often used Talk on many pages.

Of course, the current situation was so unfair that I created a new account and edited Wikipedia. This is my fault because it is a clear attempt to evade sanctions. # I'm sorry.

But I honestly don't think there's been a big OR in American political documents. If I'm going to label BDC's ideology as conservatism because many of the disputes in Wikipedia are called Republican Governance Group as "liberal Republicans" and Blue Dog Coalition as "conservative Democrats", then I'm just at odds with Beyond My Ken over the view that RGG's ideology should be labeled liberal. To be honest, I think I'm being treated as an unfair bias because I'm a new user. This is not an OP, just a difference of opinion.

I'm really going to say something as I really leave now. A large number of English Wikipedia users has certainly become quite exclusive compared to the past. I doubt the new user Be bold first. At this rate, I'm sure there will be fewer users editing English Wikipedia in the future.I'm sick and tired of this form.--Storm598 (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm genuinely sorry you feel this way, but you really have to approach English Wikipedia, at least, as a giant collaborative project, and that means with humility. People will disagree, and very few subjects are truly susceptible to logical proofs. If I could offer some advice, take a break and come back with the mindset to persuade. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• Storm598: Your previous account, User:삭은사과 was active for 4 years and 4 months, with 3,389 edits. Your current account has been active for 5 months with 1,347 edits. Throw in the nine edits from your sockpuppet account User:파란만장, and in total you have edited for 4 years and 9 months with 4,745 edits. You are in no way, shape or form a "new editor".
  And, yes, to answer your question, if you had continued to edit with your first account, and you had made exactly the same edits you made as Storm598, my response would have been the same. Bad editing is bad editing, period. I would have said to 삭은사과 the same thing I wrote to you in my very first comment on your talk page: "I would suggest that you re-evaluate your editing," something that you still haven't done. [65] Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood what I said, so I'm going to say this for the last time. That's right. I'm not a new user. But the reason you treat me like this is because you recognized me as a new user. Today, I revealed for the first time that I used to work under the account of '삭은사과'. Now that it's already happened, you're just trying to keep going. But if I hadn't created an account called Storm598 at all, and had used the account I'd been using since the beginning, you'd be much less suspicious of my editing. Don't you understand what I'm trying to say? --Storm598 (talk) 01:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I didn't need to reveal that I had previously been on an account called 삭은사과 and I just said it, even though it was against me. The Wikipedia atmosphere has certainly become exclusive from a few years ago. I wanted to make this clear to you.--Storm598 (talk) 02:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

In short, direct words: you are wrong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree. There is a huge leap from "Wah! I didn't get my way! Call Whine One One! I need a Wahmbulance!!" to "I am being discriminated against". --Guy Macon (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism

Palanivel Thiagarajan article recently encountered couple of vandalism. -BALA. R^Talk 04:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

You are the one deleting cited content and giving zero explanation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4072:6396:f8aa:bc5d:243e:ee0d:6694 (talk) 05:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I didn't delete any cited content. The citation was deleted by somebody else. The changes that you made was irrelevant to this article.-BALA. R^Talk 07:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Vloskim Kramář, Removing maintenance template, doing promotion and edit warning

Hi All,

Please look into the User talk:Vloskim Kramář, he recently created a page Treedom, i tried to move it into the draft twice here and here, as i found advertisement and undisclosed paid. But User:Vloskim Kramář tried to remove maintenance tags and publish the article without resolving the issues. He also involved in edit warning but start sending 4th level warning on my talk page in 1st attempt. GermanKity (talk) 04:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Vloskim Kramář also removed all notices from his talk page. please check here. GermanKity (talk) 04:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• While I won't comment on the general situation here, I think there may well be some paid editing issues here. Similar articles have now appeared on five different projects, created by "new" editors, over the last 2 months. Risker (talk) 04:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Please go through the talk page of GermanKity. Admin ReaderofthePack already asked them to be cautious about their own Conflict of Interest. GermanKity moves pages to draftspace indiscriminately and visibility they have troubles with every other editor here in Wikipedia. I doubt if they have sufficient knowledge about WP:GNG. They repeatedly created non-notable article even after deletion discussions. When I asked about the discrepancies in their communication, they decided not to answer and engaged in an edit war. Possibly they are paid editor and for that reason see every other editor as a paid editor. A clear case of WP:NOTHERE. As for my actions, apologies if I used wrong template message while using it for first time. Vloskim Kramář (talk) 04:35, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - As per WP:DRAFTIFY, when draftifying you need to inform the creator on their talk page. As the perceived problem was of advertising and COI, the the standard User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js message "needs more citations from reliable, independent sources" is inappropriate and unhelpful as it does not inform the creator of the specific problem with the article. Also per WP:DRAFTIFY, if the creator disagrees with the draftification they can move it back to mainspace. If this is the case, then it should not be re-draftified but sent to WP:AfD. Editors are entitled to remove warnings or whatever else from their talk page. --John B123 (talk) 08:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

To add a new article

Dear Sir, I tried to add a new article 'എം ഫൈസൽ' and opened the draft page. But I found a message stating my name in Malayalam resembles the names blacklisted. Please look into the matter. Hope you can create a page for me. Expecting your support M Faizal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amalakhil (talk • contribs) 10:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Amalakhil: it's very unlikely you should be creating a page with a Malayalam title on the English Wikipedia, other than a user's talk page or your own user page. Very very very rarely there may be a case for a redirect, but you mentioned a draft page. If you want to create a page written in Malayalam, try the Malayalam Wikipedia ml:പ്രധാന താൾ. If that's where you're trying to create the page and getting an error, you will need to ask for help there as we have no control over what goes on there. Perhaps try asking at ml:വിക്കിപീഡിയ:കാര്യനിർവാഹകർക്കുള്ള നോട്ടീസ് ബോർഡ് as I think that may be their administrator's noticeboard. Although it may this is a basic question and it would be better to start off somewhere simpler instead but I don't know where as ml:വിക്കിപീഡിയ:സഹായമേശ their help desk seems to be dead. As you can understand Malayalam I assume, you should be able to work out better where to ask for help on the Malayalam than me. Nil Einne (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Malayalam script is blacklisted in titles but only in some namespaces, including Draft. It looks like they created the page at the Malayalam Wikipedia after this, but it was deleted (probably for lack of notability). Peter James (talk) 18:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

IP 2600:6C52:6C7F:F549:0:0:0:0/64

Hello, i have a question for any users. Who is behind the IP 2600:6C52:6C7F:F549:753B:1D8:415E:125C, which is ranged as 2600:6C52:6C7F:F549:0:0:0:0/64? I believe this IPv6 is geolocated in Turlock, California but this IPv6 behaviour is more like autoconfirmed user in general, such as sending warning to another user, acting it as IP bot that tweaking a pages, etc. 36.77.80.201 (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello 36.77. Basically, "who is behind an IP" is something to avoid per WP:OUTING. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks for information. 36.77.138.36 (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Request to delete an edit in Waterdown, Ontario

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

---

Hello - my apologies if this should be submitted to another discussion, but I can't figure out which one. I am asking that this edit be deleted, as it is slanderous against the community of Waterdown, Ontario. Thanks for considering........PKT(alk) 14:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

(non-administrator comment) @PKT: Hi, per WP:REVDELREQUEST you ideally should be using either the email function or ask in the dedicated irc channel for these requests, instead of posting them here where they might attract large amounts of attention. I have asked a admin on irc, and the revision has been revdelled. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 16:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the help Asartea, as well as the pointer. Cheers...PKT(alk) 16:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

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

ReputationBoss

There's an interesting email in my email spam box. It's from ReputationBoss and they say:

ReputationBoss builds Wikipedia pages for global corporations and select individuals at a reasonable cost. We are the top firm in the industry because our Wiki Experts have on average over 7+ years' experience, have made over 8,491 Wikipedia edits and have created over 155 pages each. We know how to get a Wikipedia page approved and looking its best.

On Wikipedia, I've been an admin for a while. IRL, I run a planning and engineering consultancy. Both the company and I may just just get over the GNG hurdle. I wonder whether there's a way of engaging with them so that we can get to their editors. If the Wikimedia Foundation wanted to part with some dosh so that they can get editing, with anything resulting from it getting deleted again under undeclared paid editing rules, that would be fine by me. The risk is that the media has written about me being a Wikipedia admin and it shouldn't be that hard to figure out which user name that refers to. So if they are any good that should not be too hard to figure out for them. Then again, they may not be that good... Either way, it would probably be best to commission a page for the company. Suggestions welcome. Schwede66 21:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

My slightly cynical view of their promotional nonsense is that it's exactly that: nonsense. They might have one editor with seven years on Wikipedia, or a total of 155 pages (and don't even get me started on how 8k edits over 7 years is absolutely trivial). Basically, they're throwing around impressive-sounding numbers that don't actually mean anything in an attempt to scam you into paying them good money. Oh, and they all work in Sarasota????

That being said, a few of us have tried a handful of times in the past with various Wiki-insert-the-smart-sounding-second-syllable companies to get the inside scoop and potentially roll up one of their editors, but we've never managed to get anywhere. If you think you can get farther with an actual company that might actually be article-worthy, go for it, but I highly doubt the WMF will pay the money for the honeytrap. Primefac (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

You might check out scam baiting websites. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

If anyone decides to try some sort of "Hi! I am a experienced Wikipedia editor who needs a little extra cash" scambaiting, be sure to email three or four administrators in advance and tell them the details of your plan. You wouldn't want somebody on Wikipedia figuring it out and nobody believing that you weren't actually selling out. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Request To Dissolve The Restriction for Creating BookMyShow Title Page on Wikipedia

Hello Team,

I want to create a company page for my client - "BookMyShow". Apparently it has been said that creating draft/mainspace page for this title has been restricted on local or global blacklist. I noticed the page was restricted 5 years ago by some other authority, due to not following guidelines, however, I would like to give a fresh start now. Request you to remove the restriction for creating page as the content created is providing company information seems to be accurate and helpful for everyone. Please help me through this. Shruti12111998 (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done I've already pulled this off the local blacklist per my talk page. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

PMC Thanks a lot for the assistance Shruti12111998 (talk) 06:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Request to modify one-way interaction ban

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

---

As per this discussion, I was recently given a one-way interaction ban against User:FDW777. I have raised this with User:Daniel, who informed me of the decision, and there was a discussion at his talk page here. User:Valereee has suggested that I ask for a modification so that the one-way ban becomes a two-way ban. This was affirmed at my own talk page here: "Ask for the i-ban t be made 2-way so that the two of you can just go about your separate ways, since neither of you wants to continue to engage."

I certainly don't want to continue to engage with FDW777, but since the one-way interaction ban, it feels like FDW777 is continuing to take advantage of this one-way ban against me. Following the one-way ban, FDW777 has raised an AE request about my ediitng which has resulted in me being topic banned from all BLP articles. Now they are replying to a discussion I have started at the George Lansbury Talk page here. There may actually be a good point being made within this droll comment (rather than pointing out the error, they say that John Smith would be turning in his grave - it occurs to me that Smith's leadership requires a clarification to this fact). Am I still allowed to comment in this discussion without replying directly to FDW777? I would assume so, but I cannot be sure. In any case, as FDW777 has previously claimed to have little interest in the vast majority of UK politics, it seems coincidental that they are now commenting at a discussion about a UK Labour leader from the 1930s. It also feels like they are following me around by commenting on a discussion I have started (therefore replying to me). It also feels like WP:HARASSMENT: in the space of a month, FDW777 has started two AE discussions about me and an ANI. Prior to this, I had no such cases made against me by other editors. I have raised my concerns about this editor before, but the ANI was swiftly closed. To resolve this issue, I would like to request that it be made a two-way ban. The original proposal made by FDW777 was simply to disengage from the conflict, which I would gladly do. An administrator also proposed a two-way ban, which FDW777 agreed to, before retracting this statement. The one-way ban was proposed by another editor. I think the discussion was heavily biased in favour of FDW777. User:Floquenbeam was also about to enact the two-way IB before FDW777 retracted their agreement.

The clarification about John Smith is useful, but not the sarcastic tone in which FDW777 has added the comment; it seems unnecessary, and doesn't state the problem in a helpful manner.--TrottieTrue (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• There is no sarcastic tone. I noticed a discussion in which several experienced editors had failed to notice the rather significant flaw in the proposal. I didn't mock the proposal, or comment saying I wasn't in favour of it. Rather than allow more time of editors to be wasted debating an inherently flawed proposal, I simply pointed out the flaw and left. FDW777 (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Since I keep getting pinged by TT on this in multiple locations, let me clarify one more time: I was about to enact a 2-way iban only because both editors agreed to it, and I saw no point in them further snarking at each other on ANI if they were both ok with a mutual iban. When FDW777 changed his mind, I didn't enact the iban. I never reviewed FDW777's editing to see if a sanction on them was appropriate, and my being willing to anact a 2-way ban should not be interpreted as me thinking they were equally at fault. Discussion continued, and consensus at that discussion was a 1-way iban was appropriate; Daniel interpreted consensus correctly. I don't have time to review behavior since then, but I strongly encourage those who do look into this to either change it to 2-way, if FDW777 is taking unfair advantage, or inform TrottieTrue that they are about to get indef blocked if they don't drop the stick, if FDW777 is not taking unfair advantage. This kind of festering dispute is one of the reasons I think 1-way bans are often suboptimal; they should often either be two-way, or it should be solved with a block instead of an iban if the misbehavior is all on one side. Not getting pinged about this anymore would make me happy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• Perhaps I'm wrong to say that FDW777's comment is "sarcastic": however, I suggested a potentially unique fact about George Lansbury be added to his article lead (which another editor supports), and the reply from FDW777 was "John Smith (Labour Party leader) is probably turning in his grave." There are more constructive ways to point out my error, like simply stating that John Smith was another Labour leader who did not contest a general election. The comment made is quite oblique. I note that above, FDW777 is referring to my discussion as an "inherently flawed proposal". It wasn't really a comment that "pointed out the flaw" - certainly not directly.--TrottieTrue (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Since you were fond of quoting Jimbo Wales before, how about this footnote from the verifiability policy that contains a quote from him, I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information. Had nobody replied I would probably not have said anything, in the hope someone else spotted the problem. But since several experienced editors had failed to spot the problem I thought I'd try and help. I could have said absolutely nothing. I could have let the debate carry on and on, and only after much time was wasted point out the problem. But I did neither of those. I tried to be helpful. I think I was. FDW777 (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• Since I am dealing with two separate issues in my post, I'll clarify. The problem I refer to is not the lack of references, but that the "fact" being discussed (that George Lansbury was supposedly the only Labour Party leader not to content a general election) was not true. Had I dashed to ANI starting a thread titled "TrottieTrue adding unreferenced content again" I could possibly understand some backlash, but I didn't do that. I didn't raise the WP:V issue at all, only pointed out that John Smith hadn't contested an election either. Or at least I did for anyone capable of reading between the lines, since otherwise my posting of John Smith (Labour Party leader) is probably turning in his grave would have made no sense at all. FDW777 (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Following the one-way ban, FDW777 has raised an AE request about my editing which has resulted in me being topic banned from all BLP articles: So what you're actually saying is, had the IBAN been mutual, you would have avoided getting topic banned for BLP violations? Or you could have carried on making BLP violations? *facepalm*
  This literally is making you all the more, not less, blockable. (Note that they were told in the t-ban discussion to both drop the stick and that there were concerns with their understanding of BLPs: both chickens would seem to have come home to roost.) ——Serial 16:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

"So what you're actually saying is, had the IBAN been mutual, you would have avoided getting topic banned for BLP violations? Or you could have carried on making BLP violations?" No, I'm not saying that at all, although User:Valereee has questioned the need for FDW777 to monitor me. The better solution to any BLP violations would surely be to educate me on why they are violations, and help me improve. The topic ban came about as a result of an error on my part; as User:Andrew Gray noted at that discussion, it isn't as clear cut as was suggested.--TrottieTrue (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Whenever somebody points out to TrottieTrue that they are violating policies or guidelines, they respond with indignation and accusations of harassment instead of calmly taking on board the criticism. In the Lansbury/Smith matter, they wanted to add unreferenced content to the lead that was not discussed in the body of the article, contrary to the Manual of Style, arguing " A fact can be self-evident without a citation." Wrong on the MoS, wrong on Verifiabilty, and wrong on the factual assertion about Lansbury. Actually, I think that it is good and necessary for an editor with strong knowledge about British and Irish politics, like FDW777 for example, to monitor TrottieTrue's edits in this topic area, because triple errors of this magnitude are not good at all. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - This editor has turned into an incredible time sink, and the next step considered should not be lifting or altering their IBan, it should be a CBAN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• Sorry, but I'm not going to look up what the various one-letter prefixes mean, because it is pretty obvious that TrottieTrue is incapable of editing properly. This means an unqualified ban is in order. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• TT, what I was saying was that FDW had indicated they didn't want to feel they needed to continue to monitor, and that if they didn't, they shouldn't feel they needed to; that someone else would pick up the slack. I've told you that I do believe your understanding of sourcing needs to be improved. Your feeling that this is some sort of game that is stacked against you is completely incorrect. Many editors are completely willing to help other editors learn to edit. What they aren't willing to do is try to convince them they need help. Right now many of us are feeling like you aren't willing to recognize you need help. —valereee (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting I-ban as so far it literally only had positives to show for it (and, frankly, asking for such a thorough consensus as the previous discussion resulted in to be overturned in less than a month indicates a slightly tenuous grasp on community feeling.) Would probably support a c-ban per BMK, Phil Bridger and those who are soon to post, per timesink. ——Serial 18:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• Okay, it's clear I can't get a fair trial here, and I don't need this anymore. I formally withdraw my request, and would be grateful if an administrator could close this discussion please. User:Valereee felt I had good grounds for it, otherwise I may not have bothered (see previous links). The atmosphere here is highly unpleasant - another pile-on against one editor (me), in which many of the same editors and administrators are appearing to uphold the previous decision, and amplifying everything I may have done wrong. Anything positive I've done is overlooked.--TrottieTrue (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Almaty - images in signatures

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

---

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

On 31 May 2021 I noticed that Almaty was using an image in their signature (example), which is forbidden by WP:SIGIMAGE. Consequently, in accordance with that policy and also WP:SIGCLEAN I posted a note on their talk page, and then proceeded to remove all such instances of the image, preserving everything else.

The following day (1 June) my note was removed without a reply. I restored it, with a further question; and there followed a series of such edits one of which claimed There is a a whole page tutorial showing how to put your flag in a signature.. Penultimately, after my last post to that page it looked like this. Almaty then proceeded to blank the page again, and five minutes later posted on my own talk page. After further posts there, I left this note, giving notice as follows: if I see you make any post where your signature contains any image whatsoever, and which is timed later than 18:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC) (the time that I saved this post), I shall open a thread about you at WP:AN - despite that, their very next post four minutes later included an image in the signature, which was clearly against my request, so here I am.

What I am asking is (i) regarding the claim "There is a a whole page tutorial showing how to put your flag in a signature", does anybody know of this tutorial? (ii) Are my actions correct? (iii) Per the editnotice (the part about "If your post is about a ... user ... you should post it at ... (ANI) instead."), should I have filed this at ANI? (iv) What, if anything, should be done next? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know of any such tutorial and nothing was immediately obvious when I searched archives on Wikipedia but it does appear they've since removed the images after opening a rather silly RFC on WT:SIG. BEACHIDICAE🌊 20:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I've changed the signature, I'm not super good at wikilawyering and I genuinely thought you were allowed to use the flag on your signature because i saw pages or tutes about it, i cant exactly remember. I opened a RfC because I thought i was right. I withdrew the RfC when i realised i was wrong. Nothing to see here. Also Bradv an arbitrator thanked me for the comment when i said i'm changing the signature, took me a few edits to remmeber how to do it, and I removed the images myself. Literally nothing to see here --Almaty (talk) 20:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Do NOT remove other peoples posts except as permitted by WP:TPO. You're at AN now: don't make it worse for yourself. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Also there was a signpost article about it in 2019, two years ago, I dont think that it was such a silly RfC. God knows why people get so angry about such things. Anyone "flying" an image (not emoji) flag is violating Wikipedia:Signatures#Images. We shouldn't create a fancy gallery for these. Furthermore, I dislike the idea of adding fancy colors and HTML tags to a signature. If someone has something important to say, the arguments should stand out, not the signature. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Almaty (talk • contribs) 20:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Stop taking the mick. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 20:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Literally an accident. I don't care anymore, an incredibly vacuous argument about signatures. Like all incredibly vacous things here. this is a waste of everyone's time, easier if I just leave again. Sorry for not understanding all of your policies and trying to contribute, as always. --Almaty (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Judging by this post, Almaty is referring to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-02-28/Gallery, where ToBeFree's post of 19:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC) may be found. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Heh, thanks for the ping. My opinion can be found at WP:SIGRANT. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I thanked you for providing a resolution to what I thought was a rather silly argument. No, images are not allowed in signatures, and surely that isn't the hill you want to die on (if you'll pardon the expression). I see people are trying to make this thread about other stuff, but I don't think that's necessary. Thank you for changing your signature. – bradv🍁 21:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks bradv. You see how on just on this page 🍁 and 🌊 are used in signatures - they appear to be images "of any kind" as per the policy, I recommend changing it to say all images apart from emoji, at least. Or explicity disallow flags because I'm quite sure there is a tute about it. it doesn't take much assumption to know that for someone who virtually always uses visual edits where possible to not know that it was a good faith mistake (and good faith RfC question that I withdrew . --Almaty (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

These are not images, these are text characters. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the confusion may stem from the fact that an emoji is literally just another character - just like any special character such as % or non-latin characters. It does not increase server load or anything that's listed as a reason for disallowing images, because the display of the character is handled by the user's computer, not the Wikimedia software. Easy solution - change Images of any kind must not be used in signatures for the following reasons to: Using the [[Image:]] or [[File:]] markup in signatures is not allowed for the following reasons. Just to make it clear to all who read it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

<gallery>loophole.png</gallery> – but yeah, I think that would be a pretty uncontroversial, helpful change. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

On second thought, it could just say "image files" instead of "images" - the issue is with image files, and adding that word should make it clear. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

That's even better. I'd implement the change now, but it's yours to add. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Images do not notably increase server load. The extra bandwidth used in serving an image asset is negligible, and the impact on server resources even more so, especially compared to the amount of assets served by WMF servers. And performance is the sysadmins' problem anyway, not the community's. The only actually valid reason for not allowing images in signatures is to due to the increased page load time for users, particularly in areas with poorer internet connections. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

(i) I've never heard of it but maybe, we have a lot of tutorials on how to shove beans up your nose (ii) I didn't read through all the posts, but bringing it up with the user is an important step that often gets overlooked. Bringing it to admin attention when disruption persists is appropriate. (iii) I don't have a rigid distinction between AN or ANI; either board will get the necessary attention (iv) If Almaty has changed the signature, I'm not sure anything else needs to be done. It might be worth taking the mythical tutorial to WP:MFD, and maybe a serving of trout, but it seems the main concern is resolved. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I for one find it hard to assume that they didn't attempt to do this for disruptive reasons. The image in question was the WHO flag - and Almaty has long disrupted COVID-19 topic area subjects with bludgeoning, refusal to drop the stick, and other disruptive behaviors. It is quite... coincidental that they attempted to place a flag of probably the best known organization related to health/medicine into their signature - which I can see no other reason than to attempt to give their comments an "air of authority". Their excuse of "its just I found a pretty signature tutorial that had flags on it" doesn't seem likely to me. The disruptive behavior was then continued in their posts at their attempted RfC that was linked to by the user themselves - they were explained why they were wrong, yet they claimed that it needed to explicitly say "images of any type including flags". They do this in the COVID-19 area too - yet another attempt to game the system by saying that if a policy doesn't explicitly say exactly the situation that they're in, it doesn't apply to them. This user was previously warned of the general sanctions under COVID-19, and a topic ban at one point which was removed. They later promptly retired (and vanished as well) to avoid what would've likely ended up being a swift replacement of the sanctions. I'll note that they've continued bludgeoning discussions on COVID-19 after their unvanishing, and since they've "retired" before, I recommend this not be closed without seriously considering at a minimum a COVID-19 topic ban, but perhaps even an indefinite block as their behavior has been continually disruptive after many warnings/chances. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Here's the proper link to the topic ban's removal - it boiled down to a WP:ROPE removal as they seemed to understand how to avoid it in the future. Their behavior since removal leads me to believe that the only way to prevent future disruption to the project is to not allow them to edit the space at all. Though they said it was due to them feeling "unwell", and as one administrator noted they clearly knows how to avoid it going forwards, but it's a question of whether the methods will be utilised in the heat of moment, it's clear that the methods are not being utilized to stop editing before disrupting things. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I've done nothing wrong in the COVID-19 space for a year, and I'm a subject matter expert, so sorry if it came across as bludgeoning. I've contributed as much as I can be bothered, because I don't care to keep having to explain myself and read obscure policies. I made a mistake about a signature and thought I was right, and then I realised I was wrong. If past incidents are repetitively brought up, I leave, that's my pattern. Goodbye for at least another year (how odd, just over exactly a year). --Almaty (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Also I believe that User:Berchanhimez is trawling through my history and requesting a topic ban because I disagreed with them on a RFC. --Almaty (talk)

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

reopen discussion

Closed with an understanding to try to avoid each other, given the one-way structure of the interaction ban. –xeno^talk 14:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

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

---

I'd like to reopen the discussion about the one-way interaction ban for TrottieTrue. Lost in the above discussion, probably because TT doesn't do well listening to advice, is the fact that FDW777 did in fact enter a discussion TT had started on a talk page and make a sarcastic remark aimed directly at TT. This is at best inadvisable and at worst, baiting. I really do think a 2-way is needed here. —valereee (talk) 09:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Or, in reality, I stopped a pointless discussion wasting the valuable time of several editors, since it was based solely on the unreferenced, and incorrect, assumption that George Lansbury was the only Labour leader not to contest a general election. Since there had been several replies and nobody had pointed out that rather important fact, I tried to help. If anything, further sanctions against TT are merited for making the edits in the first place since they still seem to think WP:V doesn't apply to their edits. This was a textbook example of "I heard somewhere" that turned out to be completely false. FDW777 (talk) 09:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@FDW777, the fact you were right is not really germane to this discussion. TT has an interaction ban against you. That means they can't even answer your snarky remark at that discussion -- a discussion they started -- and probably can't safely even continue in the discussion. They may not even be able to continue editing at that article safely, as now they have to make sure every edit they do there is not an inadvertent undoing of a previous edit of yours. Why were you even at that article? I don't see that you've edited it before. This is why one-ways are such a bad idea. —valereee (talk) 10:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

So you'd have preferred it if I said nothing and more time was wasted and, potentially, false information was added to an article (false information that had already been added here)? Also my remark was not snarky, I was trying to avoid being terse. FDW777 (talk) 10:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@FDW777, if someone has a one-way interaction ban with you, your best bet is to behave as if it's a two-way. You absolutely should not be following them around, even if you are just trying to help minimize damage. You have done what you can by calling their work to the attention of others. I guarantee you there are multiple people who have that editor on their radar now. Believe me, I do understand how frustrating this kind of thing is. Clearly you're out of patience. But if you aren't going to be able to help yourself, we need to make this a 2-way. —valereee (talk) 10:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The current drama is, yet again, not of my creation. I could have created a thread here or at ANI about this deliberate attempt to flout policy, but decided on a brief talk page message ignoring the wider policy issue and just pointing out the error. Rather than accept my brief intervention as a good faith attempt to point out a rather significant mistake, TT chose to escalate the issue here. They could have just thought "oops, I got that wrong" and moved on, but they chose not to. FDW777 (talk) 10:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@FDW777, you're missing the entire point here: you kicked TT out of that discussion, and possibly out of that article, by following them there and making your comment. This person isn't allowed to interact with you. They can't even ask you to explain what you meant when you rather cryptically posted "John Smith (Labour Party leader) is probably turning in his grave" as your complete comment that was supposed to explain to them and everyone else there what TT had gotten wrong. Not being able to access the source TT was citing, I can't even check to try to figure out what you're getting at. You need to stop following that editor around and let someone else try to see if something can be done. —valereee (talk) 11:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

That's what a one-way iban is. You might want to propose somewhere that such bans no longer be imposed and/or that all such existing bans be converted to two-way. However, a one-way iban means that FDW777 is entitled to comment providing they don't breach other norms. I haven't looked at the particular issue raised, but FDW777 seems to be saying that they intervened to prevent an article from displaying false information. That would normally result in thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 11:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq, yes, I get that. And normally when we make a 1-way, we expect the other editor to not bait the editor who is i-banned from interacting with them. FDW followed TT into the talk of an article FDW had never edited and replied to TT in a discussion TT had started.

Believe me, I understand that FDW is a better contributor and TT has competence issues. I get it. But FDW should not be baiting TT, and if they can't stop, the i-ban needs to be 2-way. That's what 2-way i-bans are for. —valereee (talk) 11:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

So what's a one-way iban? You seem to be saying it's a two-way iban with a different name. Or are you saying that FDW's comment was an attack of some kind and the iban should be converted to two-way? The discussion at Talk:George Lansbury#New fact in lead section proposal looks reasonable to me. Johnuniq (talk) 11:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq, we give a 1-way because one person is acting badly toward another completely blameless person. When that completely blameless person starts following around the person with the 1-way, inserting themselves into discussions started by the person with the 1-way, and replying to that person, they cease to be completely blameless. —valereee (talk) 12:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Valereee, you know how much regard I have for you, and I usually agree with your judgment, but I can't really see that comment as baiting. It might seem cryptic to an American, but anyone who follows British politics (and it's probably fair to assume that people editing that talk page would fall into that category) knows who John Smith was, and knows that he died without leading Labour into an election. I can't explain how FDW ended up at that discussion, and in general terms I'd agree that they shouldn't be following TT around to articles, but I can't see the comment itself as problematic. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit, did you miss the part where FDW followed TT into the talk of an article FDW had never edited and replied to TT in a discussion TT had started? That is baiting all by itself, no matter what the comment was. TT can't reply, and probably can't even continue in the discussion, and possibly can't feel safe editing that article. —valereee (talk) 12:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe I kicked them out of the discussion. They replied taking my correction into account. Did I run to a noticeboard complaining of a violation of the IBAN? No, as I believe it would be absurd to comment in that discussion pointing out a mistake then file a report if the mistake is acknowledged. I believe my post was in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Had nobody replied by that point I'd probably have said nothing, hoping one of the regular editors of the page would have said something. But since several had replied without spotting the problem, I thought someone had better say something. I've no interest in inserting myself into TT's disputes, but I'm not going to sit back and say nothing while they advocate false information is added to an article. FDW777 (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@FDW777, you'd never edited that article. How did you even end up at that discussion? —valereee (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy. As for your possibly can't feel safe editing that article claim, they've edited the article four times since my talk page post. How am I possibly making them feel unsafe? FDW777 (talk) 12:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@FDW777, yes, generally it's fine to check the contributions of an editor whose contributions seem problematic. And to be clear, I think TT's contributions need checking by someone. But not someone they can't interact with. And the whole reason they came in here originally and posted their wall of text was because they wanted to ask if they were okay to still edit there. —valereee (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee, I didn't miss that part - I said I can't explain it, and I'd be interested to hear their explanation. I agree that FDW needs to take on board that they shouldn't follow TT around, check on their contribs, or anything like that. In your re-opening this thread, you said that it was 'at best inadvisable and at worst, baiting' - I agree with you that it's generally inadvisable, and I hope that FDW takes heed of that. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't see making a critical intervention to prevent false information being added at a single article to be a problem. FDW777 (talk) 12:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit, FDW has just said "I'm not going to sit back and say nothing while they advocate false information is added to an article". This editor seems to think that if they don't keep an eye on TT, no one will. Which, having been in a similar situation which took FOREVER to finally get enough other editors' attention, I totally get. But TT is now on plenty of people's radar screens, people they can actually interact with and possibly learn from, though I'm not optimistic. —valereee (talk) 12:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

And now they've doubled down: they don't see what they've done as a problem, even after two people have said it is. —valereee (talk) 12:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Three experienced editors had replied at Talk:George Lansbury#New fact in lead section proposal without noticing the problem. FDW777 (talk) 12:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Make that tripled down. FDW, the point is that you followed an editor who is forbidden from interacting with you into the talk of an article you'd never edited and replied to them in a discussion they started. That is not fair to that editor, and the fact you still think it's an okay thing to do is why I think we need to make this i-ban 2-way. Honestly wouldn't it be a relief to not have to patrol TT's edits? —valereee (talk) 12:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

As I said in the section above, I was helping. Helping both the encyclopedia, as well as TT and other editors. If I'd said nothing, they might have spent minutes/hours/days/etc arguing about whether the article should say George Lansbury was the only Labour leader never to contest a general election. My intervention prevented any further time being wasted debating the addition of something that wasn't even true to start with. I will not apologise for that. FDW777 (talk) 12:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Let's try this then: FDW777 you are correct, reviewing an editor's contributions history to check for problems is not, generally speaking, improper. You are also correct, in my view, that you didn't scare them away from that talk page, or that article, since they continued editing unabated after your comment. However, valereee is also correct that it is widely seen as bad form to put yourself in the position of being the one to check up on an editor who is i-banned from interacting with you. Please bear that in mind, and don't go checking up on them. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

GS, TT came in here originally, in the wall of text two discussions above, to ask if they could still edit at that page now that FDW had come in. And honestly, if it were me in their shoes, I wouldn't. —valereee (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Valereee, you and I have both experienced situations where users whose editing is problematic start believing that they are being victimised by people who repeatedly (but correctly) draw attention to the problems with their edits. From my reading of the thread two sections above, TT's complain about FDW boils down to the fact that FDW made an AE complaint, which was upheld, and commented in the Lansbury discussion to correctly draw attention to a factual error. If the AE report had been unfounded, or the comment about Lansbury had been erroneous or disrespectful, I could see myself agreeing with you here, but they weren't; at the moment, while I can empathise with TT, I don't think that sanctions against FDW are needed. I do think that they should step back from checking on TT's contribs though, and leave that to someone else. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I will happily step back, but I do not accept I did anything wrong in pointing out the problem that others had missed at George Lansbury. FDW777 (talk) 12:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@FDW777, thank you. If you'll voluntarily stop patrolling their edits, we can close this. —valereee (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks from me too FDW777, I agree that this can be closed. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit, oh, believe me, I have the greatest sympathy for FDW. They've been fighting the good fight. —valereee (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Request to create redirect page at Matplotlib version3.3.3, https://matplotlib.org/

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

---

Hello, I'm requesting the creation of an {{R from file metadata link}} redirect page at Matplotlib version3.3.3, https://matplotlib.org/ that redirects to Matplotlib. This link showed up in the EXIF metadata of File:Ingenuity Helicopter 1st Flight Altimeter Data.png, but I guess since it has a url in the name I do not have permission to create the page. Thanks! --Yarnalgo _talk 19:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Is it usual for such metadata to 1) not have a space after the word "version" and 2) include a url? If there are no controls over what is placed there should we really automatically create a redirect? I throw these questions out as food for thought, rather than necessarily a reason not to do so. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Nobody would search for that string, or enter it into the search box, so creating it as a redirect is useless. That it is in the metadata of some image is of negligible interest. Sandstein 21:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree, no one would use that as a search term.--65.92.163.98 (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

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

• Support creation. We allow file metadata redirects, do we not? So it seems to go against consensus to not create it as requested. Many file metadata redirects are long and completely unsearchable terms like this one. For example:

1. /opt/imagemagick-7.0.5/share/doc/ImageMagick-7//index.html
2. C150,D390
3. C70Z,C7000Z
4. C-1Z,D-150Z
5. Darktable 2.5.0+481~g35ee32992
6. DROIDX 66360001fff80000015d76040101d01f
7. HandBrake 1.3.3 2020061300
8. ImageMagick 6.6.9-7 2012-08-17 Q16 http://www.imagemagick.org
9. ImageMagick 6.9.2-7 Q16 x86 64 2015-12-02 http://www.imagemagick.org
10. FE360,X875,C570
11. MicroStation 8.11.7.443 by Bentley Systems, Incorporated
12. Lavc57.64.101 libvorbis
13. Leaf Aptus 22(LF7220 )/Hasselblad H1
14. Sinarback 54 M, Sinar 4x5" view camera
15. SAMSUNG ES15 / VLUU ES15 / SAMSUNG SL30
16. Pdftk 2.02 - www.pdftk.com
17. R4CB020 prgCXC1250031 GENERIC E 4.6
18. Xiph.Org libtheora 1.1 20090822 (Thusnelda)

etc. and more in Category:Redirects from file metadata links, and the redirects which aren't categorized. You can see that the bold ones contain URLs just like this one. By all means we can have a discussion if we want to deprecate redirects created only for the purpose of being a redirect from file metadata. I would also note that in Sandstein's "not done" comment, they say that "Nobody would search for that string", but that's not the point, they unbreak an incoming link. They also note that "That it is in the metadata of some image is of negligible interest", however they are a purpose of a redirect and can be categorized as such with {{R from file metadata link}}. They also appear to meet point 4 and 5 of WP:R#KEEP because deleting one will break incoming links, and they simply are helpful for some people because they can immediately go to the article about the software or hardware that helped create that file. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 18:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. I didn't realize that this type of redirect was not well known by administrators otherwise I would have offered more of an explanation. This type of redirect has been around since as early as 2005. As you say, the point is not that someone would search on Wikipedia for this. The point is that it exists as a link on the file page so this redirect fixes that broken link for anyone that clicks it there. And for a tool as common as Matplotlib, it's likely that this link exists on more file pages and will continue to get added to new files in the future. As you say, we can have a discussion about whether this type of redirect in general is worth keeping (although I struggle to find any reason why these helpful and harmless redirects should be removed), but until that discussion takes place denying my request because "no one would search for that string" makes no sense.

RandomCanadian, the reason I posted it here is because Wikipedia told me this was where I should post this request. When I tried to create the page it said "If this is the page you want to create, please make a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard." If there is somewhere better to post this request, please let me know. --Yarnalgo _talk 22:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom/Covid

I have now opened a new case regarding recent, persistent, widespread disruption at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Origins_of_COVID-19. Feel free to participate, the given list of participants is non-exhaustive. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Review of indefinitely salted article titles

Like with Xeno's attempt to tidy up our catalogue of indefinitely move-protected pages, I've noticed we have quite a few indefinitely protected titles. Over 40000, in fact (quarry:query/55670 for indef, quarry:query/55671 for >2022 expiries). Browsing through these gives the impression that hardly any are relevant today, especially with our increase in new page reviewing and title blacklisting. Anarchyte (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

That's a surprisingly large number. I think a review would be reasonable to unprotect any broad categories of pages. For example, I still think we should be dropping full protection down to ECP for pages with pending drafts. Primefac (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd say we have at least 1000 different variants of "hagger" protected, eg: H & then an R ?, H and-then-some R?, .һ.а.6.6.е.Г?, , ,ҥ, ,а, ,ҩ, ,ҩ, ,е, ,ґ. All of these are from 2008. Anarchyte (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

(ec) Just started browsing the first list and I'm seeing a lot of these that could be valid redirects to existing pages ($UICIDEBOY$ immediately was one I saw). Also is Grawp still an issue now, regarding the "hagger" articles? RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Generally speaking, impersonation is still an issue. Grawp is still around but complaining about gender issues instead. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I've also noticed this. Wikipedia troll, Wikipedia trolls, Lalalalala, and Lalalala have all been valid redirects I've made over the last hour or so of perusing the list. Anarchyte (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

(Your 2022+ expiry query is actually showing all non-indefinite protections; you don't have enough digits in the timestamp comparison. Timestamps are more easily compared as strings instead: you can just write pt_expiry >= '2022' AND pt_expiry != 'infinity'. —Cryptic 13:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC))

Ah, thanks Cryptic. Modified accordingly. Anarchyte (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• I don't see the point in investing effort in a big historical review, but I certainly agree with Primefac that ECP should be the standard level of "strong protection", with admin-only being used only in exceptional circumstances. And my guess is that in any situation where ECP isn't strong enough, blocking the offending users is probably a better tool. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• So yes there are a lot of Special:ProtectedTitles but is this worth the effort to deal with - probably not. Barring a specifically targeted query, is there actually a problem that needs work? I doubt our readers and editors are really missing out on !!suck my balls!!, Hi vicki!!!!!!!!!!!, or This smells very nice. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  With regard to "pages with a draft pending", yes, because it slows down the review process when a non-admin reviewer has to request unprotection of a protected article just to accept a valid draft. With regard to clearly silly names like those you have invoked, well, clearly not. Primefac (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Perhaps not, Xaosflux, but I still think it might be a worthwhile exercise to run through a few of them and see if any can become redirects (as mentioned above). Also, it's highly likely that a vast majority of the pages would never be recreated which indicates they're unnecessarily protected. Removing them would make our maintenance statistics more accurate as well as make our protected pages list more relevant to today's encyclopedia. Perhaps reducing any possibly contentious protections to a three-year temporary full salt or indefinite ECP and removing protection from every other page, while keeping pages like Sample Page and Name of the suggested article to be created indefinitely sysop protected, could be an alternative. With this said, I'm not sure we need titles like Make an article or Create new article protected given we've got these all as redirects to Help:Your first article. Anarchyte (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Name of the suggested article to be created looks like it was from a template. A search doesn't find anything, but it was created in 2006 and 2007 so any template that was used is likely to have been edited or deleted since then. Peter James (talk) 10:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• No to ECP indefinite or otherwise for salted titles. Salted titles should be fully protected for a set period of time and for ones with no purpose should be indefinite. On 30 May, Liz ECP Sanket Mhatre as a G4. It was recreated as Sanket Mhatre (Voice Actor) and QuiteUnusual moved it to Sanket Mhatre. Because QuiteUnusual is extended confirmed they were able to move it without any warning that the page had been deleted. So unless editors are going to get a warning pages should be full salted. Of course I have no idea how often this happens. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 20:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

In my experience, pages that are repeatedly recreated are typically done so by persistent new editors. I thought an editor who is extended confirmed would be more familiar with Wikipedia policies and practices and understand that an article deleted through an AFD discussion shouldn't be recreated in the main space of the project. I advise editors who want to write an article about a subject deleted through an AFD to write a draft and submit it to AFC for review. I thought fully protecting a page, unless it is a page title that is obviously for vandalism only, would disallow an experienced editor from submitting an article that is superior in writing and sourcing, to a deleted version of that article. In my view of Wikipedia, there should be a way to submit an article on a subject deleted through AFD where it could be accepted if it is a major improvement over the deleted version. I guess in this case, QuiteUnusual moved a page through the Move function without seeing that that page had been repeatedly deleted at the new title. If I had to identify a mistake, it would be that Sanket Mhatre (Voice Actor) hadn't been salted, too, although it is hard to predict every title variation that editors can come up with to get around page protection. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

In my own experience, as someone who has a good number of not-salted-but-repeatedly-recreated pages on my watchlist, the new pages are found not when they're created, but when they're moved back to the most-appropriate title. We cannot predict every variation, but if we trust that the gnomes will do their jobs properly (which they do) then we'll eventually notice the recreations.

As a minor note, there should be a way to submit an article on a subject deleted through AFD where it could be accepted if it is a major improvement over the deleted version.... that would be WP:AFC. Primefac (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed: our monitoring of new pages is good enough to catch these out when they happen. In my opinion, and with further consideration after what I said above, we should be removing every salted protection put in place because of notability from before 2015 and changing every other notability-related salt from post 2015 to temporary five year full/ECP protection with rolling five year protections if it keeps happening (this would have to be a policy change, though). We can leave vandalism titles indefinitely protected with no problem. Anarchyte (talk) 08:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Most vandalism titles don't need full protection, as very few vandals repeatedly become extended confirmed users. Indefinite protection is also unnecessary in most cases, as it's so unlikely that the same titles will be used again. It also fails to prevent vandalism - Wikipedia sucks was protected, so Wikipedia sucks cock and Wikipedia sucks dick were created. Peter James (talk) 10:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

While this is true, is there a need to lower the protection of obvious vandal target pages to EC? firefly ( t · c ) 10:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know why we would need to lower protection for these either - they're not articles that will ever be notable, many will never be redirects, and "please unsalt, I want to write an article on a notable topic but I can't because it's salted" requests seem infrequent. I'm just worried we're creating work that will create more work. SportingFlyer T·C 10:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

It isn't more work if there is a script that can be used. A time limit should be specified for all. Most were only created once, or were protected within a week of the first deletion, and Wikipedia:Deny recognition could be relevant for some. They were also created before Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed article creation trial/Request for comment on permanent implementation. Peter James (talk) 10:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• I don't see a need for action here. Most of these titles will never be used, and for the rare exception WP:RPP exists. We don't need to create more admin work for ourselves by fiddling around with these protections to no clear benefit to the project. Sandstein 10:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

  Sandstein, genuinely curious, how is this making more work for admins? Primefac (talk) 11:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

  Deciding which pages to unprotect and actually unprotecting them. And then cleaning up the vandalism that may result from the unprotection. Sandstein 12:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Mihail Lavrov and open proxies

Mihail Lavrov, and administrator and formerly an arbitrator on the Russian Wikipedia, has been there CU checked on a suspicion on being a sock of another administrator and former arbitrator. The check found that all their edits were made using open proxies, and their account there has been indefinitely blocked by a crat [66]. We should probably blocking them here as well (the contribution is insignificant and old though), but I am going to wait for comments. I have not notified them of the thread, since I am not sure this is the best way forward in this case.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

From what I can understand, the block is mainly for using open proxies, and there seems to be some discussion about whether that's an appropriate rule on that wiki. There also seems to be talk of them being meatpuppets. Ymblanter, since you talk the talk, what evidence is there of actual sockpuppetry? I'm not currently persuaded a block on this wiki would be appropriate. As you suggest, it's not really going to do much anyway. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I’m doubtful about blocking them on en.wiki, given they do not appear to have done anything wrong here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. No, there is no open evidence of sockpuppetry as far as I can see (there will be an ArbCom case coming, and they might decide smth, but this is a different story), only the statement that they exclusively use open proxies. Let us drop the case then.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Blocking someone for merely using proxies has a bunch of issues. First, in Wikipedia:No Open Proxies, it states "While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked.". Essentially, with zero evidence of socking, and the rule on proxies itself not supporting punishments for merely using them, I suggest no action is taken until further evidence says otherwise. I recommend this be closed. aeschylus (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I went to make a change to meta.wiki this morning and was briefly stymied because I typically use a VPN, and the IP I was assigned was blocked there as an open proxy. (As an admin I have IPBE here on en.wiki so it's only ever an issue for my fairly infrequent edits to other projects). If a person is socking, that's a different matter, but there are many quite legitimate reasons to use open proxies. It's surprising if ru.wiki considers the use of open proxies itself to be a blockworthy offense. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:22, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for topic ban: J-Man11

In accordance with discussions at WT:MILHIST I now propose a Wikipedia:Topic Ban for J-Man11 from military and order of battle articles, widely construed, for any date after the year 1900. As has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Repeated massive, shoddy additions by J-Man11, this user has large-scale problems with proper use of primary and associated semi-primary sources (WP:SPS) which are widely referenced in his/her articles. S/he does not appear to have the competence to edit recent military articles, anything after maybe 1900. However, s/he has been recently editing articles about the Napoleonic Wars, which are now exclusively the province of WP:SECONDARY and WP:TERTIARY sources. This presents the possibility that this user could gradually learn how to properly use sources while still being allowed to work on subjects of interest to him/her.

Comments welcome. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• Go for it. To quote Peacemaker67, what on earth did Arbcom think it was doing? There was an unofficial consensus to overturn the committee's decision—not that that can be done of course, but it suggests the strength of feeling. So here we are, having to do it all over again. ——Serial 15:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support, reluctantly. While this editor appears to be acting in good faith, unfortunately their edits have caused a lot of aggravation due to not being written in line with community expectations. I hope that they will be able to improve their editing so that this topic ban can be lifted in the future. (t · c) buidhe 16:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

This will probably not come as a surprise to you, and everyone who is supportive of the ban, but I actually support it myself, at-least to an extent. I've seen now, and even before this whole palaver started that my edits are not only pissing you and others off, but are also really just plain annoying and pointless. I decided to take a step back and actually see that not only was I causing a ruckus, but my edits (with regard to WP:Primary were not improving and wasn't listening to the advise of yourself and others, including @-wolf. So, as I was saying I support the ban, and its because I need assistance because I most certainly want to improve, and lately I personally feel I've been expanding in the WP:Secondary area, especially with regard to the Pre-Napoleonic Wars era, and something which I know I can add a lot, but need to tread carefully there too. If I could recommend, I actually, though he and all of us have our downsides, wouldn't mind, and would in-fact like to have @Buckshot06 as either a mentor (though that's his personal choice) or a direct assistant. Per his advice I've removed my post-1900 structures/drafts, etc, and planning on working on JUST bases and pre-1900 French and Russian units, which themselves also need work which is why they remain in sandbox. I personally think, and I'm certain it is the right step to step back entirely from these for a minimum of a month, or even 2. This way I will be able to improve and hopefully be able to continue to work on this after improvement in the future. One of the things I feel I personally need a lot of help with and I'm sure @Buckshot06 would agree, is my use of primary sources and extensive lists which need more referencing as an overall list instead of just separated blocks. The third main issue, as again Buckshot you'll be aware of is my ADHD which has a considerable effect on myself. This because I feel there is always a rush to get articles done, post them, and fix them super quick without thinking. Now, I have both in real life, and here improved in this area considerably, but do need help too, in which @-wolf and @SmartyPants22 have both assisted in this area with editing assistance and advise me. Of course, as I stated way back when, assistance is always welcome of-course, as I WANT to improve, and I WANT to keep editing , help out, and provide a lot of information which I have and wanted to share. J-Man11 (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support My view has been that J-Man11 lacks the competence to edit in these areas. They continue to demonstrate the same editing behaviour despite being told many times that they are going about editing the wrong way, copying lists from unreliable sites (this is the information they want to share...) and then trying to source them (usually unsuccessfully, unsurprisingly), creating lists with no encyclopaedic basis/rationale or reasonable chance of being reliably sourced (a 2021 order of battle for any country is completely unworkable for obvious reasons). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment ftr, "@-wolf" is actaully me Thewolfchild, more simply known as "wolf" (as per my current sig). Big picture-wise I see where Buckshot is coming from, he has put A LOT of effort into addressing the problems with J-man's edits, and there has been many. He was banned, but given a rare second chance after an appeal. It's unfortunate that conditions weren't attached to the unbanning, such as mandatory mentoring. I, and others, have repeatedly encouraged J-man to get a mentor. It could be said that Buckshot has been a reluctant mentor, of sorts up to now. I also note that Nick-D offerred some "informal" assistance, but J-man needs a dedicated full-time mentor. There is a lengthy list of available adopters who also mentor, and one like Rosguill I think would be well-suited to this particular situation. I say this because I believe J-man means well, he's young and enthusiastic, wants to contribute and puts in A LOT of effort. He's also not a dick, he's not arrogant and doesn't have an attitude. But that said, there are problems. I believe a long term relationship with a mentor, overseeing all of J-man's edits, could pay off. The benefit being the project gets numerous, quality milhist articles. But, left on his own, I believe the problems would continue. J-man, may improve, but not fast enough.

  I would propose pausing this, with Buckshot06's approval of course, for say... 3 days, at most. If in that time J-man has a dedicated mentor willing to take on the responsibility of guiding him and overseeing all his edits, then perhaps any sanctions can be set aside for now. Otherwise, I would (unfortunately) have to support the sanctions that Buckshot proposes, and failing that, the re-banning that Peacemaker67 has mentioned. That's just my two cents, for whatever that's worth. - wolf 07:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely not. J-Man11 can easily get a mentor to oversee his work, but not, in my view, for anything after 1900 for at least a year to come. Honestly nobody has the time to keep up with everything he wants to do post-1900. He needs to take his post-1900 work offline and learn about the process of reliable sourcing. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Buckshot06: Well as it turns out, there was a brief discussion in the past few hours between J-Man and Rosguill about mentorship and it doesn't appear that he will be taking J-Man on full-time. Aside from that, I'm not even sure if J-Man is pursuing other adopters for mentoring. This was just a suggestion, I was hoping to give J-Man another shot before any sanctions, but ultimately he has to take responsibility for himself, and overall I do still agree with your concerns, and support your proposal. Cheers - wolf 21:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support - as per comments directly above - wolf 21:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Biased Disinformation and Libel on webpage of Liz Wheeler, as well as Censorship of further neutral corrections to her page.

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

---

Hello. I'm not sure if this is the appropriate board for this (and if it isn't, please summarily close this/move this to another board), though I don't really know where else to post this considering that likely applies to a number of pages. In particular, this is in regards to the Wikipedia page on Liz Wheeler, which I have notices contains disinformation spread about Wheeler in regards to Anthony Fauci. I have since edited and corrected that by trying to share accurate information which lends credence to the evidence against Fauci. My efforts to do so have been continually blocked by the following Wikipedia users LizardJr8 and Zingarese, who falsely committed libel against me, accusing me wrongfully of vandalism when trying to correct their biased disinformation. I would appreciate immediate assistance in resolving this matter in an ethical, civil and accurate way. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:19A:4501:750:2194:A479:74CF:476D (talk • contribs)

For my part, I was unable to determine why you were deleting content in your 7 reverts without an edit summary. LizardJr8 (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Signed for user, who appears to have been blocked. They do appear to have been blanking sourced content because they disagreed with it. I couldn't locate where they'd attempted to actually add information. Per DOLTy I did have a look at the interaction and couldn't see anything that could reasonably be construed as libel. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

While reviewing their unblock request I found a legal threat. I have extended the block accordingly, it is not indef only because it may be a shared IP. As always I welcome review. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

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

"Disruption" at ANI and a bad block

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

---

When I was about 99% done writing this report, Ivanvector appeared at my talk page to apologize and reverse the block. So the below report is colored by the "Ivanvector is wrong, wrong, wrong" thoughts that fill one's brain when disputing a block. There is still the open question of whether moving others' comments is acceptable, so I feel this report can usefully seek community consensus from the editors at AN/ANI as to whether I'm doing something wrong or right, if you want to focus on that aspect. I also think it's important for the community to review poor behavior from admins when warning/blocking, to discuss and learn from it, because it is exactly what drives productive editors away. Facing up to an imperious admin, an incomprehensible block notice and the inevitable declined unblock request; it's easy to just give up and find a new hobby with less stress, and the possibility of admin misconduct never sees the light of day.

I ask the community to review the warning/block behavior of Ivanvector, and the edits of mine to AN/ANI that he apparently considers gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies (from WP:Disruptive editing). My edits are mostly adding {{Unsigned}} to unsigned comments, moving comments that were inserted inside another user's comment (none of that could possibly be controversial), and some rearrangement of comments when they are incorrectly placed above other user's comments, the core of the dispute. Help:Talk pages#Indentation (linked from WP:TPG) or WP:INDENT are good summaries of Wikipedia threading, if you want to reacquaint yourself.

Here are the five edits I can remember that brought dispute:

• April 19: [67] (Beyond My Ken incorrectly added a reply above another person, I fixed it and they reverted; discussion is visible in this diff at their talk page. I tried to carefully explain why Beyond My Ken was wrong, but they told me to go away.)
• April 30: [68] (This was a train-wreck of a thread. I sorted it out, and a detailed explanation is in the discussion with Bodney, who seems satisfied with my explanation and admits their own error.)
• May 30: [69] (Very simple unsigned comment; explained at my talk page, not sure if LindsayH has anything more to say.)
• May 31: [70] (Very simple: Lugnuts replies above everyone else, I fix it, Ivanvector reverts; Ivanvector shows up at my talk page)
• June 2: [71] (Another reply above prior replies; I'm only guessing this is what pushed Ivanvector over the edge)

Nowhere in any of these disputes did I ever revert anyone. When Beyond My Ken and Ivanvector reverted, I always let it be. One can easily trawl my contributions to see the dozens and dozens of edits to AN/ANI that were never contested. I count about 115 edits fixing things at AN/ANI since April 15. See my talk page for the discussion with Ivanvector, the block, and the unblock request with 331dot.

Those are the facts. Here's my argument: Do we let users add their !vote at RFA to the top of the support or oppose list, so that everyone else is sure to read it? Do we let users add new sections at the top of the page? No. It is a fundamental concept that editor's statements are of equal importance and put in the order that they are made. The discussions we have on Wikipedia every day work by the same rules. Proper threading should not be a controversial concept. My edits are well-based on consensus-developed guidelines and standards. I'm not just willy-nilly editing or moving stuff around, like a common vandal or troll. In all of the disputes above, my edits were correct. Now, Ivanvector and 331dot say that instead of moving comments I should go to the user and ask them to move the comment to the proper place. If you ask me, that's not going to get anything fixed. Wikipedia markup, frankly, absolutely sucks to hold conversations in, and I don't blame anybody for their errors in complicated threads, and I don't want to harass people to clean up minor messes. We have WP:SOFIXIT, and I can obviously competently fix it. Is it a waste of time? Maybe. (I do skip all closed discussions and some layout train-wrecks that are way past saving.) Is it disruption? I don't think so, but that is the question I put to you.

So, Ivanvector's warning on my talk page. It links to no policies, guidelines, or consensus opposing my edits. It's just pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT; you could call it Ivanvector's personal advice at best. I'm always open to reasonable discussion, and I lay out my argument, but the only response I get is Ivanvector shoving his shiny admin badge in my face with a warning that he will block. What is a man to do? Bow to the personal demands of an angry admin? No, I treat Ivanvector's statement for what it is: nothing but his opinion. I continue my helpful edits at ANI, and hope Ivanvector will do the right thing: Come back with a better warning or seek community consensus that my edits are disruptive before blocking.

Now, the block. Ostensibly for WP:Disruptive editing. Has Ivanvector read that guideline? "Gross, obvious, and repeated violations of fundamental policies"? "Not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree"? Does that describe my edits? Has anyone read WP:Blocking policy lately? WP:BEFOREBLOCK? Before a block is imposed, efforts should be made to educate users about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and to warn them when their behavior conflicts with these. Ivanvector has completely failed to explain how my edits fit the Disruptive editing guideline in his warning or block. I believe that (1) the block was a bad block for these procedural reasons, and (2) I don't believe the community as a whole will find my edits disruptive (obviously or otherwise), in which case Ivanvector has gravely over-stepped his authority as an admin by treating a productive user like a common vandal, where the disruption is so obvious that he doesn't need to deign to explain it to me.

I welcome the community's input. Sending out notices to the users I mentioned now. Modulus12 (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• I apologized and the block has been removed so I'm not sure what the goal is here. 331dot (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The blocking admin has also apologized for the short block from one page only. I think to be frank this is being made a bigger deal than it is. 331dot (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The core of the dispute is indeed the moving of other users' comments from where they were placed, specifically on WP:ANI, a page which is already a drama magnet. In a discussion with Lugnuts some days ago in which they were aggravated that I did not block an unrelated editor (details aren't important but you can view the thread if you want) I posted a comment which Lugnuts elected to respond to directly below, despite there already being subsequent comments. I can't say for certain but assume that this is either the result of an edit conflict (Lugnuts' reply was a long-ish reply to my own long comment), or intended to call attention to the fact that it was a direct reply to my comment, but either way Lugnuts indented their comment at a different level from the subsequent comments, so there was no cause for anyone to be confused. I later replied directly below that, above the subsequent comments which were clearly not related to Lugnuts' reply. Some time afterwards, Modulus12 moved both our comments, in a way which made it appear as though both of us were replying to A.A Prinon, rather than replying as both of us had originally intended. This, in my opinion, changed the meaning of my comment, in violation of WP:TPO. To be honest I didn't much care, it was very minor and a simple revert restored the discussion to the participants' intended state. I noticed that this wasn't the only comment that Modulus12 had moved around the same time, so I went to their talk page to leave a {{uw-tpv1}} notice. However, Modulus12 is not a new user, and I saw the discussion there between them and Bodney also about refactoring talk page comments, so I then elected to leave a stronger, non-templated warning to desist from editing other users' comments, again specifically at WP:ANI. I was not aware of the prior incident with Beyond My Ken until just now.

A few days later I saw LindsayH's complaint about the same behaviour, and this is where my own poor judgement admittedly comes into play. I saw that comment and viewed Modulus12's contribs, and saw that they were again tinkering with comments at ANI. Judging that three complaints (my own included) in short order regarding actions that others viewed as disruptive established a pattern of disruptive behaviour, I part-blocked Modulus12 from ANI for one week. They appealed and were declined by 331dot, reasonably as they did not acknowledge the reason for the block. However, on reviewing this today I see that Modulus12's subsequent edits to ANI were simple indent adjustments and signing unsigned comments, and the complaint from LindsayH was regarding an edit which predated my warning, and so recognized that my block was an egregious error. Thus I unblocked and apologized. However, I reiterated that they should not move other users' comments to where they think they belong. Modulus12 disagrees, and now we're here.

(after ec) As for why we're here, I welcome a review of my actions regarding the talk page guidelines. Modulus12 evidently continues to believe that moving users' comments from where they were intended to be placed, with neither discussion nor notification, is permissible under the talk page guidelines. I believe this is forbidden, also per the talk page guidelines. Obviously one of us is not correct, and both of us would benefit from knowing which it is. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

You also need to take into account that the placing of comments in the wrong place moves everyone else's comments from where they were intended to be placed. We can't have a free-for-all where the last mover gets to put comments where they want. You should never have warned this editor, and you certainly shouldn't have blocked, and should not do either in similar circumstances in the future. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

So I think what you're saying is that, regardless of the fact that I'm replying directly to your comment and not Modulus12's nor ProcrastinatingReader's, the guideline stipulates that my comment be indented one level more than yours, and also at the bottom of the thread? And had I instead replied directly beneath, it would have changed the meaning of comments that were written afterwards? Or have I not understood? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC) not sure if there is a POINT being made, but I've re-threaded this properly. It was initially below PR's 22:39 comment. Primefac (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

If there's a point being made, it's that I'm trying to understand the argument. You've moved my reply to Phil Bridger now below a comment made by Modulus12, which I did not intend to reply to. Why? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'll re-thread again, though I would note that both are second-level indents and thus I didn't notice there were two replies to pick between. Obviously that's the point being made (i.e. it's not always obvious who one is replying to) but putting another reply under an unrelated one certainly doesn't help. Primefac (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Take another look. [72] A.A Prinon's comment and Lugnuts's comment are at the same indent level after my edit. They are clearly both replies to you, not a Lugnut reply to A.A Prinon, just as A.A Prinon is not replying to Levivich, and Levivich is not replying to ProcrastinatingReader. They are all replying to you. The edit was flawless. Modulus12 (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The fixes seem to be what participants should've done in the first place. However, talk pages are a lost cause, and doing 'too much' (like altering indent levels and moving things around too much) tends to cause more controversy than thanks. IMO it's one of those things where there's no issue but I personally wouldn't do it to that degree (although arguably good clerking should be more appreciated, and more frequently done to make conversations more accessible). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Let me try this another way, at the bottom, without indent. @Primefac: I made a comment which I described as a reply to Phil Bridger's comment at 22:00, at the bottom and indented according to what seemed to be the instructions being given, although it did seem to defy logic to do so. In nearly 12 years editing Wikipedia I have never, not once, made an intentionally disruptive edit for the sole purpose of making a point; I am genuinely confused here. Phil Bridger made a comment in reply to mine, directly below mine, indented one level more than mine. Modulus12 also made a comment in reply to my same comment, below Phil Bridger's in chronological order, indented at the same level as Phil Bridger's and one more level than mine. This indicates that both were replying, separately, to my comment; Modulus12 was not continuing the sub-discussion created by Phil Bridger's reply, but replying separately to me, not to Phil, and not to both of us. Do I understand up to that point? Now subsequently, I want to continue the sub-discussion with Phil Bridger, to discuss the points made there. You're saying that I am to insert that reply to Phil Bridger below the separate comment made my Modulus12? And that if I instead reply directly to Phil directly below his comment and indented one more level, that that is somehow disruptive? I find this all highly illogical. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm probably as confused as you are. I completely agree you should have replied to Phil immediately below his post, not below Modulus12's, and I'm genuinely not sure why that's such an issue. Primefac (talk) 23:59, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

It goes like this:

---

I like pie. XXXX (time 0)

Pie is great, it's the best dessert there is! AAAA (time +2) < 2nd response to XXXX's first comment, but not addressed to the tangent about pie

You're right, it's the bee's knees. XXXX (time +5) < response to AAAA's comment

Me too, but cake is better. YYYY (time +1) < 1st response to XXXX's initial comment

My favorite is Angel's Food cake. ZZZZ (time +2) < response to YYYY's comment

Devils Food is better! BBBB (time +4) < response to ZZZZ's comment

My favorite is Bundt cake. CCCC (time +5) < another response to ZZZZ's comment

OMG! Pie is incredible!! DDDD (time +6) < 3rd response to XXXX's initial comment

etc.

---

That's pretty much the explanation I gave to Modulus, who said it made no sense. It makes sense to me, and it's the way things have been in the 15+ years I've been editing here. So despite Modulus' comment above, I did not "incorrectly added a reply above another person", I put my reply exactly and precisely where I wanted to, and M took it upon themselves to move it, incorrectly. I reverted it back, they complained, I was in no mood for trivialities and told them to go away. Now here they are, with the same attitude, complaining about a block or warning or whatever that's been undone and apologized for.

Then why the hell is this thread here at all? Why, if "When I was about 99% done writing this report, Ivanvector appeared at my talk page to apologize and reverse the block" did M feel compelled to file the report?

Recommend a trout. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict with close) I have a chicken carcass to strip and then I'm calling it a night, so just a final thought: if an editor makes a comment here, and nobody is confused about what they were intending to reply to, then I posit that it's significantly more confusing to move it than to just let it be. Three editors besides myself thought this was the case, and Wikipedia works on consensus, not arbitrary adherence to written rules. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

You know what’s disruptive? These rushes to close a discussion in a purple box as quickly as possible, as if every single section is a request for help that ends as soon as it’s “resolved”. This page is for posting information and issues of interest to administrators. Maybe, Risker, we can wait a day or two to decide whether anyone’s interested in discussing anything, instead of you super-voting your desire to make stuff go away? But that’s just my opinion; if stifling discussion on the admin misconduct allegations and the request for consensus on my actions (because literally anything “can be discussed elsewhere” in the byzantine Wikipedia discussion maze) is how we all act here, then OK. I don’t know what that means as to me doing what I want; I guess I can continue, and a small fraction of clueless people will revert me, and we’ll all end up back here anyway. As to the experienced editors above struggling to understand the very same help pages we link brand-new users to, I really don’t know what to say. Modulus12 (talk) 01:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

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