Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Template:Formerly

After an unsuccessful

• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 February 27#Squad (app) (closed)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 February 27#United Airlines Flight 1175 (closed)

In the Squad case, I closed the AfD as "delete". King of Hearts closed the DRV as "Overturn to redirect. Those who !voted "delete" at the AfD have failed to advance an argument as to why a redirect would not be appropriate." In doing so, King of Hearts failed to properly do their job as DRV closer, which is to assess whether consensus exists at DRV to overturn an AfD closure, and if so, to implement that consensus. Instead, they merely inserted their own view about how the AfD should properly have been closed, without even attempting to assess the consensus of the DRV discussion (i.e., they cast a

King of Hearts' comments indicate that they severely misunderstand applicable deletion policy if they insist that "There is no such thing as a consensus to delete at AfD per se". But in our policy and practice there is indeed such a thing as a "delete" consensus at AfD. It means that the history of the deleted article is suppressed. All attempts to change policy to the contrary have failed (cf. Wikipedia:Soft deletion (failed proposal)). That was the consensus at both the AfD and probably also at the DRV. I am concerned that King of Hearts is attempting to reintroduce such failed proposals, which do not have community consensus, by misusing the DRV process.

Similarly, in the United Airlines Flight 1175 case, Black Kite closed the AfD as "delete", and King of Hearts closed the DRV as "Restore without prejudice against a new AfD." But in this case as well, opinions in the DRV discussion were divided and there was no consensus to overturn the "delete" closure. And again, King of Hearts did not even attempt to assess consensus but merely cast a supervote in favor of what they considered the right outcome.

As a collaborative project, Wikipedia works only if all, especially admins, respect consensus and the deletion process. Admins must not use their special user rights (in this case, the undelete right) to bypass this process. I therefore propose that the community overturns these DRV closures and lets another admin close these DRV discussions. Sandstein 12:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Noting that I was left off of the notifications, not sure if anyone else was. Hobit (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC) [reply]
• To me, the first close does indeed read as a superclose - there isn't a consensus in the DRV that that position was held, and if the closer felt it was the case, they should have !voted themselves to stress that position. I would reverse it. The second close, however, is significantly more legitimate. In base numbers, it's somewhat "no consensus", but the DRV policy strength arguments made by the the restore supporters is significantly clearer. I may have gone NC myself, but I don't believe the close was bad. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The first close reads as a !supervote to me too - There wasn't any consensus to overturn and if KoH felt the AFD shouldn't of been closed he should of stated that in the DRV as opposed to closing/overturning. The second one - Opinions were divided and sources were also provided although a discussion then occurred over those sources. Personally it's a balance of No Consensus and Restore so don't really see a problem with that one. First DRV was wrong tho. –Davey2010^Talk 12:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I was involved in both of these and I was surprised by the outcome of both of them, especially the Squad (app) outcome. On numbers alone, that was an endorse/decline 5, relist 2. The United Airlines 1175 discussion was closer to an endorse/restore no consensus. I really only have an issue with that because the topic falls far below our notability guidelines for aviation incidents, it's turned into an exceptionally crufty article which completely overplays the incident, and I've been criticised for taking it to AfD immediately by two !voters in the new AfD. Even given my involvement, I'd recommend overturning the Squad (app) one. I'd like the United Airlines one to be vacated, but I'm even more involved in that one. SportingFlyer T·C 14:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Both look like super votes to me --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 15:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Without commenting on the validity of them individually, there were rather a lot of challenges to King of Hearts' AfD closes last year, by amongst others experienced editors
  HighKing, and JBL: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. I can see he's been inactive for long periods of time since 2014, perhaps this should be taken as a gentle suggestion to refresh himself on our current norms on closing and consensus? – Joe (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

That is an additional concern, Joe - the points often aren't unreasonable as such, but in quite a few (not all) of the cases linked to somewhere in this discussion would belong as !votes, not closes. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Both of the drv closes should be vacated and reclosed. KoH’s closes can be added as votes, because that is what they are.
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• A redirect is fine as people searching for Squad App will get to know (more) about its acquisition by Twitter. However, like Sandstein I also find KoH's DRV closure decision is out of line. A deleted article's history remains suppressed. The discussion here is about KoH's DRV closures and I feel they are not shy of casting Supervotes. Dial911 (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The first DRV doesn't look like a consensus to redirect at all. It looks more like a consensus to endorse the original close - I see there is an attribution/copyright issue but the endorsers clearly considered that aspect. Ditto on the second DRV - it's clear that not everybody agrees that the new sources justify restoration, one could call that a consensus to endorse or no consensus but it's not a consensus to restore, really. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Both of them are supervotes, especially the first one. I closed the Flight 1175 one and there was no other way it could be closed - if significant information has since come to light the correct close would be "Endorse but allow recreation". I see that the subsequent AfD is turning into a trainwreck as well (
  WP:AIRCRASH ones often do. Black Kite (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• If I were to have voted myself in either the initial discussion or the DRV for the Squad case, I would have voted to either turn to a redirect or to relist the original AFD debate. That being said, I would not have closed the discussion as KoH did. As an admin, if we have our own opinion on the discussion at hand, we should vote and not close the discussion ourselves. There's nothing wrong with thinking the consensus was incorrect, and to vote accordingly. There is something wrong with closing a discussion against consensus. I would overturn that one. The second one, on the UAL Flight 1175, it's close enough to the border that it's within range of closing either way; I think that one is okay as it. --Jayron32 17:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Perhaps I should not have used the word "overturn" to describe the result of the
  words used rather than the end result, which Sandstein admits would have been the same? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Under what policy does the creation of a redirect nullify the previous AfD deletion of earlier revisions? You state that "consensus is not required" for such an undeletion, but

  Fram (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  It looks like this practice is supported by consensus, but no one has thought to add it to an official policy page. It might be worth reopening this discussion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  You have more people here in this discussion saying that it isn't OK than was in that discussion from 8 years ago. Apparently, consensus has changed. --Jayron32 18:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  So let's open an RfC to clarify the policy then. I've been following that interpretation since there has not been any consensus since to overturn it, but let's decide as a community what the right interpretation is once and for all and enshrine it in policy. I'm happy to follow whatever is decided going forward. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict) I don't think I ever said you weren't doing what you thought to be correct; but it seems clear that the practice is not well supported. Policy documents practice and does not determine it, and you have a LOT of very experienced admins here saying that one should not be restoring an article history of a deleted article; we don't have any written policy that even says you should be doing so, and you've pointed to an 8-year-old discussion with minimal participation that was not documented anywhere obvious. Based on the fact that basically no one knew such a policy existed, except you and the few people that participated in the discussion, it wasn't documented anywhere, and that enough admins clearly don't see it as practice, it would be advisable to stop doing it. Of course, if we need to have an entire RFC just to force one admin to stop doing something no one else does, we can, but do we need to??? --Jayron32 19:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Are they saying that because this is what they believe policy to be, or what they believe policy should be? It appears that I am outnumbered on the first front, but I think it is a rather sensible thing to allow restoration of non-sensitive content underneath an existing page (whether article or redirect) and it's worth a discussion to see where the community stands on the merits of the issue, i.e. I think they might be amenable on the second front. But either way, it enshrines it in policy so that there will be no more disagreements in interpretation. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The 2015 RfC Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Archive 46#RFC: delete and redirect was listed at Template:Centralized discussion and was widely attended and has not been overturned by a subsequent RfC. There was a strong consensus at the RfC to preserve an article's history when it is converted to a redirect. Cunard (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That discussion was about how to handle discussions where the community consensus was to redirect an article. That doesn't apply here. But you already knew that. So I'm not exactly sure why you brought it up, since you already knew it was about a different situation than the one we are discussing today. --Jayron32 12:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That discussion is irrelevant, because it's about history-only restores. You recreated the redirect yourself (with an obvious supervote which re-litigated the AfD, which isn't allowed) and unnecessarily restored the history with it, which practically no-one asked for. Even if that had not been the case, it was a seven-year old discussion at a backwater page in which only three people supported, and the relevant question to this issue ("does this include history under redirects?") went unanswered. Black Kite (talk)

  So let's have the discussion then. I followed what I believed was a reasonable interpretation of policy, and apparently there is disagreement here. So let's clarify it and establish a policy for history undeletion for the future. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  King of Hearts, the end result is not the same. If you had correctly closed the DRV as "no consensus" or "endorse", and then created a redirect over the deleted article, there would have been no problem. The problem is that (a) you closed a DRV discussion contrary to policy by imposing your own preference and ignoring the discussion's consensus, and (b) misused your administrator privileges to undelete a page's history that according to policy and the outcome of both the AfD and DRV ought to have remained deleted. This is a matter of administrator misconduct if we get down to it, and you should take it much more seriously. Sandstein 18:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with Sandstein. I feel like the entire point of the discussion was missed. That DRV asked a very specific question which had everything to do with history and attribution. I don't believe anyone would have had a problem with going in and creating a fresh redirect. SportingFlyer T·C 19:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict) Creating a new redirect (with no history) would be plausibly allowed even with an AFD, as the prior AFD did not delete a redirect, and policy only says that creating a new article with substantially the same content; a redirect is a different thing entirely. Arguably, deletion is primarily about removing an article history from public view, so recreating a history to turn it into a redirect is clearly against policy. But creating a redirect without undeleting is not overturning the AFD in this instance. --Jayron32 18:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, a closer can always consider a compromise close , even if one had not been previously suggested. I If I thought an article ought to be deled and it were kept as a redirect or a merge, I would normally see no reaaon to challenge it. If I wanted it as a full article, I probably would accept it also, and try to build up the article again if possible. In nominating, if I think somethin isn't even worth a redirect or a merge, I say so. If someone comes up wirth a better idea than mine, I dont; call it a supervote. There sems to be a great deal of concern about the details of copyright. There are oither ways of indicating attribution than retainingthe edits----such as apending a list of the other editors in a note. DGG ( talk ) 19:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Both of King of Hearts' closes correctly assessed the strengths of the DRV participants' arguments.

  King of Hearts correctly assessed the consensus at

  Squad (app) would currently exist as a redirect with the history preserved. No editor at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squad (app) explained why the page's history should have been deleted. Since the article's history did not contain BLP or copyright violations, the policy and the global consensus support its restoration.

  Cunard (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Comment: After Sandstein closed
  WP:REFUND (my bolding):

  This page is also intended to serve as a central location to request that deleted content be userfied, restored as a draft or emailed to you so the content can be improved upon prior to re-insertion into the mainspace, or used elsewhere (you may also make a request directly to one of the administrators listed here). This means that content deleted after discussion—at articles for deletion, categories for discussion, or miscellany for deletion among other deletion processes—may in some cases be provided to you, but such controversial page deletions will not be overturned through this process.

  Deletion on the basis of notability (and no other reason) does not bar the article's content from being "used elsewhere". After completing a merge of the article's content to List of mergers and acquisitions by Twitter#Squad, I would have then redirected the draft to the list. I did not take that approach since it's preferable to have the history be under the mainspace title instead of the draft title.

  Cunard (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• King of Hearts' close of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 February 27#United Airlines Flight 1175 accurately assessed the consensus. Wikipedia:Deletion review#Purpose says: "Deletion review may be used: 3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". The DRV nominator and DRV participants presented "significant new information". Five DRV participants (Dhaluza, Cunard, Jclemens, SmokeyJoe, and DGG) supported restoring the article or allowing recreation. Two DRV participants (SportingFlyer and Hut 8.5) did not support restoring the article or allowing recreation. Closing as "Restore without prejudice against a new AfD" is a reasonable assessment of the consensus.

  Cunard (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:REFUNDed to you at that point, but that's not relevant either to a discussion about KoH's DRV close, which is something we appear to be getting off the point of. Black Kite (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The RfC is relevant in explaining why the AfD was incorrectly closed.
  WP:REFUND practices. Even though it is not the main point of the discussion, it is important for me to ask this here to ensure I am not violating any policies if I take this approach now or in the future.

  Cunard (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• You would have needed to properly attribute the merge, and it may be controversial because you're attempting an end-around of a contentious deletion discussion and DRV. The least controversial thing to do IMO would probably to "merge" the information by rewriting the blurb in the list completely from scratch yourself to avoid any attribution issues. As noted above, that RfC isn't on point here, since that didn't deal with content deleted at AfD. Also, we are getting away from the point here, which is why the DRV consensus was ignored without explanation, so a sub-heading may be a good idea. SportingFlyer T·C 21:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The merged material is properly attributed: "merged content from Squad (app). From
  WP:REFUNDs to avoid contentious DRVs like this one. When I supported and completed a merge at the AfD, I only wanted to improve Wikipedia. Merging material about a non-notable acquired company to a company's list of acquisitions should be uncontroversial. I never expected it to become this controversial. Cunard (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• 1) I have asked the closing admin's permission before refunding something which was just closed as delete before, especially where I've brought sources to an AfD, then I bring that to
  WP:REFUND. If it's just a simple GNG not being met, it should work. I assume DRV would be the case to go otherwise, but it's not in its purview - possibly a Village Pump question? 2) Whether the content could be merged was never the controversy, it was how it should be done, especially considered there have been sanctions applied in the past. SportingFlyer T·C 00:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The root cause is the AfD nominator:

Non-notable startup, future coverage unlikely because it was acquired by Twitter.

WP:ATD-M, seriously written policy matters. Everyone has ignored that policy. User:Cunard boldly tried to fix in a non-ideal way. User:Sandstein, I observed long term, holds little respect for Cunard's style of doing things like this. User:King of Hearts I know as someone who tries to implement the right outcome, even if it is not what everyone is saying, and this is somewhere near the boundary of Supervote versus "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• RE United Airlines Flight 1175. I Endorse the DRV close. Has the close been altered since the start of this thread. "Restore without prejudice against a new AfD" is a perfect reading of the discussion. There are new sources, someone thinks the old AfD reasons for deletion are overcome, this is a trivial decision that should not have come to DRV but was actionable at REFUND. This should NOT be read as an "Overturn" of the old AfD. Perhaps,re-word to "Endorse, but restore without prejudice against a new AfD". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• My attention was directed to this discussion because I apparently have disagreed with a King of Hearts decision in the past. I do not remember the incident and the list of diffs included is long. Discussion closing is one of the more thankless tasks on Wikipedia, and those brave enough to attempt it deserve the benefit of the doubt. I looked at the outcomes in the two articles mentioned here. One retains an aviation incident that recently got heavy press coverage, the other has been changed to a redirect that everyone seems to agree is appropriate. The first is being reviewed again. The issue with the second, if I understand things correctly, is whether the the history, pretty trivial in this case, should have been retained. I fail to see any way in which our readers are remotely damaged by either of these decisions.
  Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Perhaps both sides could reflect on how things could be handled with less drama in the future, but it seems to me that the amount of energy being put in to this discussion is excessive, given the minuscule impact of the incidents in question on the project. --agr (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I requested the second DRV, but I neglected to specifically state up front that I was seeking a restoration with history, so that may have caused some initial confusion that I only clarified later. My take is: SportingFlyer was clearly defending the prior AfD; Hut 8.5 was skeptical and suggested a draft; Cunard and DCG specifically voted "Restore" (along with myself); Jclemens and SmokeyJoe had "Endorse" votes that are not clear because I was not clear up front, but they did not oppose getting a refund and recreating. So I don't think the close with restore was inconsistent with the discussion, much less against consensus. Dhaluza (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I think that what's happening here is that KoH is giving WP:ATD a bit too much weight in his closes. It's leading to cases where KoH sees a consensus to delete but finds that ATD undermines it. KoH -- the community is aware of ATD, and is able to apply it appropriately. Where the community decides to delete content, it's right for sysops to implement that decision.—S Marshall T/C 01:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recognize S Marshall's view as valid, but I argue the other side. KoH is one of few admins who respect WP:ATD for its standing. It is clearly and strongly written into WP:Deletion policy, which is one of the most black letter policies, and especially so from the standing of WP:DRV. ATD definitely undermines an apparent consensus at AfD where the nominator and participants are in apparent blindness to an obvious ATD-M option. The AfD community seems insufficiently aware of ATD. There are insufficient speedy closes due to nominators failing to follow the AfD WP:BEFORE instructions. When Cunard raised a policy basis undermining the AfD from its beginning, others, especially the closer, were wrong to ignore him. I agree with agr that people should reflect on how things could be handled with less drama. My suggestion is that a merge proposal mid-AfD should necessitate a relist for a minimum seven days, pinging all prior participants, and asking the nominator why they didn't consider that merge option. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:ATD is subject to interpretation and application by the community in deletion and deletion-adjacent discussion, and we interpret and apply policies by consensus. As S Marshall correctly says, the community is aware of ATD and is able to apply it. Closers should not substitute their own views.
      In any event, policy is merely a codification of the community's ordinary way to treat particular matters. If policy is at odds with how a matter is ordinarily treated by consensus, that means that the policy should be changed to reflect this. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Disagree with User:Stifle that Policy is merely a codification of the community's ordinary way to treat particular matters. Instead: Policy is merely a codification documentation of the community's ordinary preferred way to treat particular matters. And on Squad (app), there are multiple facets of non-preferred actions in this story, and falling back to policy as worded should be strongly recommended. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • SmokeyJoe, I agree with a relist when there is a merge proposal mid-AfD. I suggested a merge as an alternative to deletion at
      WP:REFUND of the article history to draftspace to complete a merge (my full plan here). The article's history will exist in draftspace instead of mainspace which is not ideal but it accomplishes the same goal of having access to the material in order to complete a merge, without this drama.

      Cunard (talk) 09:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

      ]

    • Cunard I think that is a reasonable idea (as long as there are no problems with the hstory, of course). SmokeyJoe There are already enough people whose main occupation at Wikipedia is gaming our deletion processes (not people in this dicussion, I hasten to add), the last thing we want is to give them another weapon to do that. Black Kite (talk) 10:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don’t think that relisting due to the raising of an obvious merge targets not yet mentioned is a weakness to gaming, it would be a positive feature. Is ATD-M policy or not? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Obvious and useful merge targets, yes, absolutely. Any merge target? Not a good idea - we know how that will go. Black Kite (talk) 11:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Agreed. I would leave that to a competent relister (and relister s must be qualified to close, including UNINVOLVED) to decide. In this case, the target was obscure, not easy to find by a content search for the title (squad), but obvious when discovered. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • So what are our expectations for delete !voters at AfD, then? Imagine that I'm reading an AfD and I agree that the article should be deleted. Should I type out: "Delete. I have been unable to identify a suitable merge target. I have considered the merge target proposed by editor A, above, and I do not feel that it's appropriate. I have also been unable to identify a suitable redirect target. I have considered the redirect target proposed by editor B, above, and I do not feel that it's appropriate." Or can I just type: "Delete" in the happy expectation that the closer will assume that I've read the preceding discussion with the right amount of care and attention and that I'm not a drooling idiot? Because if it's the former, then I think we have a problem with our processes.—S Marshall T/C 15:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • The answer is at
                WP:BEFORE, and in particular #C.4. The expectation is that the nominator has followed WP:BEFORE. Subsequent participants assume the nominator has followed WP:BEFORE. When they say “delete” it is based on the assumption that there is no suitable merge target. When later someone brings up a suitable merge target, it reveals that the nominator did not do their duty, and that the other participants were working under a false assumption. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
                ]
                • I don't see it that way because, although ATD has the force of policy, BEFORE doesn't. It's not even a guideline. It's an information page, which editors are free to disregard, so when !voting we can't assume that BEFORE has been complied with. (And some editors are new. It's always good practice to check.)—S Marshall T/C 16:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • We can’t assume the nominator has followed BEFORE,
                    WP:Okay, and indeed, MER-C may have followed BEFORE point by point and just failed to find the kind of obscure merge target, and indeed, trying searching Wikipedia content for “squad” is not helpful. But, late in the AfD, once someone has raised an as yet unexpected but in-hindsight-obvious merge target, the earlier participants need that to be brought to their attention. What Cunard did was non-ideal. Closing regardless of the new information was non-ideal. Cunard and Sandstein not quickly and simply agreeing to a redirect with the history available was non-ideal. King of Hearts boldly imposing the obvious solution was non-ideal. And more. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
                    ]
• The closure of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 February 27#Squad_(app)_(closed) is patently obviously out of line with the consensus of the discussion, and King of Hearts has substituted their own opinion, which should have been cast as a !vote, for a correct neutral reading of consensus. The clear and obvious consensus of that discussion was to endorse, and the closure should be vacated and the discussion reclosed accordingly.
  Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 February 27#United_Airlines_Flight_1175_(closed) did not have consensus one way or another. Wikipedia:Deletion review#Closing_reviews states that a no-consensus result at a DRV of a deletion discussion may be closed as endorse or as relist, at the closer's discretion. However, King of Hearts chose not to follow this process and instead restored the article without prejudice to an RFD. This was not an option open to them, and accordingly this closure should also be vacated and the discussion reclosed with one of the permitted two possible outcomes. I do not especially care which. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I consider that last point a little unfair on them. That DRV wasn't the "AfD close review" type, it was the "new information type". A relist would therefore have been inappropriate and, frankly, bizarre. An endorse of the original AfD close can occur in this category whether or not the article is recreated. I think a reasonable equivalent interpretation would be "not restore or restore" Nosebagbear (talk) 10:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nosebagbear: I am sorry, I've possibly been unclear. The closure instructions say that a no consensus DRV must be closed as an overturn if the deletion was a speedy, and goes to closer discretion if it was an XFD. That was the distinction I was looking to make, not a question of new information or not. Stifle (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Sandstein on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 February 27#Squad (app) (closed): They sought to prevent that foreseeable consensus outcome, which they do not contest, by merging part of the article elsewhere and now invoking attribution policy. But that policy was not intended to allow individual editors to prevent the community from deleting content by consensus. Consensus does not trump the attribution requirement of the Creative Commons license. King of Hearts was right in restoring it. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not correct, there is no need for the edit history to satisfy the Creative Commons licence. This edit does that. Hut 8.5 12:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Better to keep the history (even if the content of the revisions has to be deleted) as it keeps updated if usernames change and ensures any attributions using the "permanent link" still function. That could even be extended to other deleted pages where the reason for deletion is notability and content has been copied (or could be) to another site, not necessarily within Wikipedia. Pages without a potential redirect target would have to be moved somewhere and blanked. Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia still recommends just using the page name, but when that is done the link is broken when disambiguation is necessary or there is a new primary topic for the title, or when the source page is deleted. Peter James (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure about the 2nd example, but the first is pretty clearly a supervote. I'm not going to second guess his motivation, but the close doesn't represent the consensus as given. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I was pinged to this discussion by Joe Roe as someone who has raised a similar concern before. The discussion Joe Roe mentions that I was involved in ([12][13][14][15]) was very similar to the Squad (app) case that Sandstein raises above: the closure advanced an argument not defended in the discussion, and would have been more appropriate as a contribution to that discussion (rather than a closure). I think extracting consensus from a deletion discussion without injecting one's own views is a real skill; I think concern about KoH's mastery of this skill is legitimate. (I have on a few occasions looked through the list of overdue RfCs to try to help out, and quickly determined that I do not have this skill, FWIW.) I have not looked at the UA1175 case. --JBL (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Is all this space (okay, at least half of it) *really* being wasted to discuss if a redirected article should have its history deleted or not? This is the course of action suggested by Peter James (without any bolding, but !votes and all that) in the DRV. I also suggested it as a possible (and likely best) way forward. No one in the DRV or AfD provided a policy-based reason why undeleting the history would make the encyclopedia worse. No one. And is anyone here going to really claim that deletion here is a better outcome than a redirect? Anyone? We got to the right place. I don't think there is an actual argument otherwise anyone has advanced (I'll note this hasn't gone to RfD...). The rest is process. Viva la
  WP:IAR. Hobit (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Exactly. I think I worded my rationale poorly, leading people to think I was supervoting (i.e. basing my closure on the AfD rather than the DRV), but what I meant to say was: The DRV "endorse" !voters failed to explain how the "delete" !voters in the AfD articulated a policy-based reason why the history must be removed. The sole rationale given for deletion was based on notability, not content. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I strenuously disagree. Restoring an article is a use of admin tools; a better justification is needed to
  WP:IAR for that than just "eh, what's the difference?" - especially since that works both ways; creating a new redirect would have been entirely in line with policy and would have correctly reflected both the consensus of the DRV and the consensus at the AfD. Furthermore, I absolutely think that deletion is a better outcome than a redirect; retaining history that is of no value means that any editor, at any time, could revert the redirect and restore material that was legitimately deleted via consensus on an AfD and whose deletion was unambiguously upheld in a DRV. --Aquillion (talk) 03:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• How can you know that it will have no value? And yeah, they could also recreate the article. The only thing that would stop that is page protection. The history being there or not doesn't change that. But if this becomes notable, non-admins can quickly see what was there and use it as a starting point if appropriate. Yes, WP:REFUND exists, but lots of folks aren't familiar with that. And would you agree a redirect is appropriate here? If so, doesn't that make the AfD votes flawed? If not, I invite you to send the redirect to RfD... Hobit (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• How can you know that it will have no value? ... But if this becomes notable, non-admins can quickly see what was there and use it as a starting point if appropriate. ... And would you agree a redirect is appropriate here? These are all arguments that seek to re-litigate the AFD (arguing that the deleted article may have value, arguing that it may become notable in the future, arguing for a redirect instead of deletion.) By making them, you are overtly requesting a
  WP:SUPERVOTE to override an AFD whose unambiguous consensus you disagree with. --Aquillion (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Let's try again. Do you feel having a redirect is wrong/improper to have here? If so, can you articulate a policy/guideline-based case? As far as I can tell, no one in the AfD provided even a statement that it would be bad to have a redirect, let alone a policy-based reason not to have one. AfD is not a vote. Strength of argument trumps numbers. And there are no arguments at all against the redirect. Further, the redirect is exactly the right thing to have here. There is no way it would be deleted at RfD. Hobit (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- I agree that the community understands what ATD is and how to apply it. In this case there was consensus that the article should go, that there was no objection to creating a redirect in its place, but that the page history should not be restored. All of this is a perfectly reasonable conclusion for a deletion discussion to reach. I don't think overruling it was a good idea, especially since DRV is the venue to go when you feel consensus has been overruled on a whim. Reyk _YO! 13:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  If this is about Squad, there was no consensus on whether the history should be deleted, and no reason not to restore it as a redirect. The only apparent consensus was based on discussion before an alternative was suggested (and it's also common for editors to participate in

  WP:AFD without having read the comments already in the discussion or the guidelines they refer to in their own comments). Is there consensus that deletion of a page can only be reviewed to reconsider whether there should be a separate article? Can this be reviewed at deletion review or is it now necessary to request a new process? Peter James (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  This is simply the process for challenging whether Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 February 27#Squad (app) (closed) was closed correctly. (and also another.). BEFORE and ATD-M are important arts of the story, but the real question is whether King of Hearts closed the DRV correctly. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The reason I gave very little weight to the "endorse" !voters as far as the edit history is concerned is that they simply stated that the AfD process was correctly carried out. Sure - but where has anyone advanced an argument as to why the content is unsuitable for public view? I think it gets to the crux of the matter: To prevent a merge/redirect, are "delete" !voters at AfD required to indicate why the content of an article needs to be suppressed, in addition to establishing why the subject is not notable? For me the answer is yes, and a satisfactory argument to that end has not been presented either at AfD or DRV. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Ultimately I just don't agree that "Overturn, participants should have made other arguments" is within the scope of DRV. It wouldn't be for DRV !voters, and it certainly isn't for a DRV closing statement. Reyk _YO! 09:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse both DRV closes. In the first case, there were compelling legal reasons to preserve the history and these constiture a strong argument which overrides a headcount. In the other case, there was a reasonable consensus to restore the content to assist review of the new evidence and the close reflected this. Both closes were pragmatic and reasonable but should perhaps have been explained better to avoid this further discussion. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Honestly, this looks like a disagreement over process that ignores the actual encyclopaedic outcome. I don't see a problem with King's actions. Good faith disputes over the procedural details can be resolved by one-to-one discussion. In short: guys, please discuss this over a $BEVERAGE. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• For Swarm, I think that there was enough support in the DRV for a redirect, along with extensive discussion on just how to carry it out , to justify the close. I and Cunard tend to be on opposite sides at deletion discussions more often than not, but I agree with what he did here and how he defended it. The close in the original afd did not take that sufficiently into account. A close should explicitly or implicitly take account of all reasonable alternativesthat have been suggested. DGG ( talk ) 19:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For UA1175, the DRV close was correct. The consensus at the discussion was to allow re-creation (& that's just what I said at the time) DGG ( talk ) 20:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- note that
  WP:REFUND, I did consider whether to do that or DRv to get the original history restored, but REFUND says it is for "deletion debates with little or no participation other than the nominator", while DRv is for new information, so I decided to go with the latter. But I think I should have asked for restoration to a redirect with history; this way I would have been able to add the new content on my own schedule, instead of having to stay up late to cram it into a restored article that was already back at AfD. Dhaluza (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Note: I wasn't aware of this discussion until a few minutes ago, but at least one editor thinks a recent RfC I posted is related: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Attribution when copying within Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Squad closure, Endorse United Airlines Flight closure. The Squad closure seems particularly egregious, but the United Airlines Flight closure seems within the realm of reasonable discretion, and not worthy of being overturned at AN. Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• List of restrictions

This is an appeal for my current DYK restrictions to be removed under

I am aware that people may be upset with me for the past actions, but I would like a chance to put it right and show I can make DYKs in the affected areas without causing disruption. If dropping of the full restrictions is not desired by consensus, I would propose that the first line of my restrictions be changed to "A ban from proposing DYKs relating to Island of Ireland politics, Islam, and LGBTQ topics", so I can show my good faith in having changed. If this needs to be put in a specific template, could someone help me with that please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Could be seen to be combative", "appeared to be POV pushing", "do everything right by the restrictions", "regret the situation". Why not "were combative", "was POV pushing", "do everything right" and "regret my actions"? I'm trying to get an overview, but is this even an admission of fault at all? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am apologising for what happened @ToBeFree: and I am saying I abided by the restrictions that were placed upon me and I am requesting a chance under SO to put things right. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When I make a mistake, I usually apologize for what I did, not for what "has happened". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(and thank you for not evading the ban, but that's meeting the minimal expectation, not an achievement) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I am doing. I am apologising for it, The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Your "attitude and style" weren't what led to these sanctions. You were topic banned because your DYK hooks were objectively, deliberately inflammatory and POV-pushing. You did this for years, so why should we trust that after just six months it will be different? There's no shortage of other editors working on DYKs and no shortage of other topics for you to write about, so what benefit to the project is there in allowing you to return to the problem areas? – Joe (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't want to bring up the stats but the original discussion highlighted only 14 cherry picked examples out of 518 that were considered to be under that description. I do understand now how that can be viewed but I do think there has to be consistency given
    Ulster Day and there was no comment. The benefit for allowing me to return is that much of my Christian DYK work is on hymns and churches and as for British politics, mostly tend to be on legislation passed. It's why I have volunteered to retain the restrictions on island of Ireland, Islam and LGBT topics to avoid those risks that could be seen as inflammatory. What can I do to convince you @Joe Roe:? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • only 14 – how many times do you think the average editor has smuggled racist and homophobic slurs onto the main page? You've previously used DYKs on hymns to proselytise and insult the Prophet Muhammad, and obscure political articles for carefully-timed sectarian baiting.[16][17][18][19] If your record shows anything, it's that you're extraordinarily creative in finding a way to make even the most banal subjects as offensive as possible, so in your case absolutely anything "could be seen as inflammatory". – Joe (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per original problems and terrible attempts at downplaying them and making the C of E the victim here. The "14 out of 518" examples were only cherry-picked in the sense that they were just some cherries on top of a large cake of similar problems. For example, the discussion that lead to the ban had two examples of "Attempts to convey articles of faith in Wikipedia's voice",
  Fram (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Religion is already covered - the first restriction is A ban from proposing DYKs relating to British or Irish politics, Religion, and LGBTQ topics. It appears C of E is proposing to replace "Religion" with "Islam" to allow him to propose DYKs relating to Christianity.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right, thanks. Struck that part, just a regular oppose then.
      Fram (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • When looking at DYKs done since the restrictions were put into place, I cam across
    Fram (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Endorse modification to the first line of restrictions as proposed, per
  WP:SO. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • He doesn't really seem to understand the problem though, claiming that the DYKs were cherry-picked and "could be perceived" as all kinds of problems, as if they weren't intended as such all along. This wasn't some occasional lapse, but a years-long campaign to attack certain groups, to shock, and to proselytize, all on the main page. He doesn't understand what the problem was (well, he probably does, but it doesn't show in this discussion), the appeal makes it look as if the problem was what other editors incorrectly saw in his DYKs (no, in very few, cherry-picked, DYKs from an otherwise flawless record).
    Fram (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • But I do understand, I honestly don't know how I can say that I get what it was and I am willing to change and that I have changed by being more collaborative. I'm willing to do less "shocking" hooks. I'm honestly asking what can I do to prove I have changed but I feel like I am just getting kicked when I am down when I have done what I have been asked to. @
      Fram:, please tell me what I can do? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • WP:SO makes clear. And note that CofE waited barely four months to (unsuccessfully) try to get his related AE topic ban lifted. There and here, he has not shown that he understands what the problem was at all. He describes his appalling record at DYK as a situation, as allegedly trying [to schedule a DYK] which was not desirable to consensus, an attitude and style that [...] could be seen to be combative, an unfortunate coincidence, and now cherry picked examples. He has self-declared extreme views on British politics and this was a central issue in his abuse of the main page. Why on earth would we open the door for him to do it again? Monitoring his nominations and potentially having to drag him back here will be yet another time-sink on top of the colossal amount of volunteer time already wasted on this, and for what... so we can have a few more hooks in the DYK queue? – Joe (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • @Joe Roe: You are making it sound like no matter what I say or do, I'll never get a chance to prove myself that I have changed. It may just be me, but that seems fundamentally unfair. I only did the arbcom one because I was told there was no limit to wait, opposed to this which I fully respected. I have already explained I am not good at wording things, which is partially due to a disability on my part. I didn't want to have to reveal that but no one seems to be willing to understand that I have taken that time to reflect and promised to change my approach to it if I am permitted to return to these areas. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The OP spent years conducting
  breaching experiments designed to get provocative content on the main page, and this is their allocution that they learned their lesson? Their apology shows no awareness of the problems that led to the initial ban. It has nothing to do with groveling, as the person above notes, and everything to do with showing no awareness about the problems they caused. We don't need deference, we need awareness and assurances that they understand that what they did was wrong. I see zero evidence of that. --Jayron32 16:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I'm not very good at wording these sort of things. But I am aware of what happened and how it is viewed as. I understand that what I was doing seemed as POV pushing and I have apologised for it and am willing to prove I have changed. @Jayron32: Please give me the opportunity because I honestly do not get what I can do prove that I have understood and willing to say I will refrain from it. I even made the proposed alteration so admins can still keep the leash on controversial issues that caused the problem. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @The C of E: Did it seem to be POV pushing, or was it POV pushing? If it's not clear, that's the distinction that makes your appeals unconvincing to many. – Joe (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Joe and Jayron. The appeal request is tone-deaf and not at all contrite in relation to the behaviors that got them topic-banned in the first place.--WaltCip-(talk) 20:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many times can I say I recognise what I did was wrong and apologise for it? I've done everything asked of me and had it all thrown back in my face here. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would respectfully suggest that this a very unhelpful addition. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. C of E it may help those such as myself who are still making up our minds if you answered Joe's question above as to whether you think what you did was POV pushing or just seemed like it. P-K3 (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pawnkingthree: The only reason I haven't out and out said that was because I was afraid of it being an entrapment. I was afraid that if I said it directly, people would just say "he admits it, so we will keep this on permanently". If I do say it, will that help and not be seen as I feared it? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support modification per Roy and
  WP:ROPE. They have done what we have asked, that's a good sign. Like the opposition, I'm not convinced a full removal is a good idea, but how else are we supposed to gauge that if we don't give them a chance to show us? If we deny this request and it's appealed in another 6 months, how will we know if the removal is or is not justified? I think narrowing the scope of the TBAN as proposed will put us in a better place to evaluate the whole thing in the future. If they've learned, we'll have evidence that they can contribute in a related area without disruption. If they haven't, the disruption will still be limited, but we'll have direct evidence to justify a longer ban. At the very least, I hope we can give a bit more consideration than picking on a couple words in the first sentence. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment I don't think it makes much sense to reduce the scope from "religion" to "Islam", considering that only one of their many offending religion-related DYKs had to do with that faith in particular (one which I felt was blown out of proportion anyway). M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 22:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose removal and oppose modifications, per Joe and Jayron. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Jayron32 who nails it above. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Joe and Jayron. Edit summaries like "I'm handcuffed" and "my hands are tied" show that the C of E thinks of himself as a victim and a glaring lack of awareness of the problems that led to the initial ban. The comments above are simply a continuation of this litany of self-pity. Nothing has changed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you are misreading the intent with that message. That message was saying "I want to help but at the moment I cannot at the moment because if I did I would break the restrictions", not me just moaning and grumbling. I am aware of what happened and again, I have apologised and will change my ways @Bloom6132:. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Not at all. If you were truly intending to say "I want to help but at the moment I cannot at the moment because if I did I would break the restrictions", why didn't you simply say it in that way? Your edit summary says a lot about your intent. Instead of saying something to the effect of "sorry would like to help but can't", you repeat your "moaning and grumbling", as if these sanctions were unjustified and unfair. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• But it was that way. I don't understand how people are misconstruing the intent. I don't know what people want me to say. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You didn't say it would "break the restrictions". Your use of the terms "handcuffed" and "hands are tied" do come across as painting yourself as a victim. The terminology you employ here is no different. The only regret I'm sensing here is regret that you're now being called out for your behaviour (after years of being given a free pass), rather than regret for the behaviour itself. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I have an idea.Bear with me, this doesn't happen often. The CofE says "If dropping of the full restrictions is not desired by consensus, I would propose that the first line of my restrictions be changed to "A ban from proposing DYKs relating to Island of Ireland politics, Islam, and LGBTQ topics", so I can show my good faith in having changed." Well clearly there isn't any consensus that dropping the full restrictions is desired, but equally there isn't therefore a way of him showing that he has learned from the topic ban. So my idea is this.
  • 1. The topic ban is modified to "A ban from proposing DYKs relating to Island of Ireland politics, Islam, and LGBTQ topics". (Note that they are already fully T-banned from The Troubles and British & Irish nationalism, so that isn't an issue anyway)
  • 2. However, before the C of E works on a proposed DYK in the areas that have been loosened (i.e. non-Ireland politics and non-Islam religion) they need to gain permission for this.
  • 3. To gain permission, they need to approach one of a group of admins or other trusted editors who are familiar with the case, and say "I wish to work on Article X for DYK, and I propose This hook sentence as a hook.
  • 4. If this is declined, they cannot submit that article for DYK.
  • 5. If it is accepted, they must (a) have the article checked by a "moderator", and/or (b) inform one of the "moderators" if there is to be any change to the hook, before it is submitted for DYK, and gain permission.
  • 6. Any gaming of this relaxation of the topic ban will be sanctionable.
  • 7. I am happy to be one of the "moderators".
• Before you say "Oh, you old bleeding heart liberal snowflake BK", I was one of the most vociferous critics of The C of E over the actions that led to the topic ban, and I nearly blocked them for it at the time, let alone TBanning. [22]. But - a little
  WP:ROPE seems to me to be no-lose; either we get improved and/or new articles, or we end up back here. And it's purely up to The C of E which path is taken. Black Kite (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I think that if it's necessary to have a mechanism which is this complex in order to loosen their restrictions, then it's best not to loosen their restrictions at all. Who has the time and energy (and interest) to be a full-time watcher to make sure that all of these steps are properly taken each and every time CofE wants to file a DYK? It's not as if not having their DYK is going to harm the encyclopedia in some way: DYKs are, at best, ancillary to the primary purpose of the project. It could easily survive and prosper without them, and certainly without CofE's. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• As I say, I don't mind doing it. DYK isn't the point really, though - to get that article to DYK you have to either (a) create it, (b) expand it 5x, or (c) get it to GA. These are all good things. Black Kite (talk) 11:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Given Bike Kite's willingness to be involved in this process, I support their solution with an understanding that even slight problems could result in all of this coming back (or worse). This editor has done a fair bit of good stuff and I'd prefer to see them resume the good while losing the bad. I think it's less than 50/50 that's what will happen, but I think WP:ROPE is appropriate. Basically I trust Black Kite on stuff like this... Hobit (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per BMK. While Black Kite's proposal is not unreasonable, if the only option is to replace a pretty severe, nuanced restriction, with a somewhat less severe, nuanced restriction, it's more likely that the original restriction was valid to begin with, and the user needs to show that it is no longer needed, rather than that we should bend over backwards to accomodate the user's return to the community. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• My idea is that if they can demonstrate over a period of time that they can work within the less severe restriction, we might not need the DYK TBan at all (the main TBan will still cover the major flashpoints anyway). Black Kite (talk) 11:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree to that proposal @Black Kite:. It's similar to what I had been doing when I asked @Primefac: for permission when I felt I might be straying too close to a topic covered by this. I hope it can prove I have changed. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, cautiously, Black Kite's proposal. This is actually a fairly narrow loosening of the restrictions and it should hopefully prevent any gaming. C of E is amenable to it, let's see if they can abide by it.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose any relaxation of the topic ban. It wasn't just 14 cherry-picked examples out of hundreds, those were just some examples that were highlighted in the discussion that led to the topic ban. We have plenty of people working on DYK, and we simply don't need help from someone who abused it for years to push their own personal religious and sectarian bigotry. And as for accepting and addressing the problems, "could be seen to be combative and how it appeared to be POV pushing" doesn't come close - there's no "could be" or "appeared to be" about it, it was blatant and deliberate bigotry. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Courtesy ping to Vanamonde93 who was the originator of the tban proposal. —valereee (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Maybe I'm too cynical, but the proposal reads more like PR-speak than genuine recognition of the problem. I would support BK's proposal, but only if we have a group of admins/editors explicitly willing to sign off on CofE's DYK hooks. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose relaxed restrictions. A lot of the past problems involved boundary-pushing. And just today on
  WT:DYK, The C of E has been helpfully instructing others on how to push boundaries and get away with it. So why should we now acquiesce to pushing the demarked boundary just a little, and to allowing some of the topics that were problematic in the past to return? —David Eppstein (talk) 03:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I resent that accusation about yesterday, I think you misunderstood the intent behind it it. We had an editor who had a genuine question about how to nominate a DYK without naming the main contributor their request. There is nothing in the rules that says the main contributor has to be named so I gave, what I thought to be the correct answer around that. No boundry pushing here. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - While others here have stated that rope can be given to The C of E, I feel that it would be a very bad idea given his previous behavior and gaming attempts (and given his comments here, I do not feel that he has reasonably allayed concerns). I would have been more open to BK's proposals had they been simplified to a more simple proposal (i.e. any "loosened topic" hook that The C of E proposes must have a co-nominator, rather than go through all the hoops of asking for permission in every step) and be paired with a strong implementation of restriction #3 (that any of his hooks can be vetoed without appeal), but I'm frankly not that confident in DYK's self-policing ability given previous incidents. As for the editing restrictions, if anything, I'm actually inclined to support it being broadened to politics in general given that he has, on at least one occasion since the topic ban was implemented, proposed a hook about a non-UK/Ireland country that at first glance seems somewhat questionable. For instance, see
  csdnew 13:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • • • No, I was not calling Mugabe a "drunk superman". It said in the article that there reports that people were calling the statue of Mugabe that. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had already revised the comment to "the hook says" before your comment was posted and I apologize for any misunderstandings raised.

csdnew 14:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support on a one-strike-and-you're-out probationary period. I don't really understand telling someone to come back in six months only to tell them to go away again. People can and do change. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Question C of E, you're "proposing to replace "Religion" with "Islam" to allow you to propose DYKs relating to Christianity"? Is that correct? Not so may Islamic hymns, are there. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (talk page stalker) They're called Muslymns. – PeeJay 18:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support some form of lifting the t-ban, per
  WP:ROPE is in order. Nsk92 (talk) 07:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Although it's quite possible that I've used it myself, I've never quite understood the ROPE argument. Someone is disruptive, so the community gets together and stops the disruption with a sanction. The editor asks for the sanction to be lifted, and we're just honky-dory with the probability of their being disruptive again -- as they have been in the past, so there's no "assumption" of bad faith, there's a record of bad behavior -- instead of keeping the status quo, which is working just fine. The vast majority of editors who use the ROPE argument will never have to deal with the disruption that may come about, so they're basically saying "I don't mind making more work or difficulty in editing for someone else". Sanctions are not punitive, they're preventative, but an editor who has edited disruptively in the past is obviously more likely to need more prevention sometime in the future. If editors are convinced by the sanctioned editor's appeal that they've changed, that's a different matter, but hand-waving and citing ROPE is actually uncollegial and unfair to the rest of the community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROPE is reasonable, despite a record of past disruption. Note that all three options that I am suggesting above involve putting somev additional safeguards in place rather than lifting the t-ban unconditionally now. Nsk92 (talk) 09:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

"In this particular case … [t]hey also expressed a reasonable degree of contrition for the problems that led to the t-ban and promised to do better." I think you're one of the only editors in this discussion who believes a half-assed, exculpatory "apology" like the one above – which includes terms like "Could be seen to be combative", "appeared to be POV pushing", and "only 14 cherry picked examples out of 518" – constitutes a "reasonable degree of contrition". —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to word it as politically correct as I could. If you are asking me to be more direct about what I had meant @Bloom6132:, I apologise for everything I had done in relation to what caused my restrictions. I realise now how requesting that DYK request for the 12th was not suitable. The thing that slightly concerned me was the lack of consistency in relation to the similar hook that ran on Ulster Day. But I do understand how my actions were damaging and that is why I have proposed the alteration to let me prove I have changed (and I thank @Nsk92: for being willing to say I can have a chance_. I am prepared to take either Black Kite or TRM's suggestions if that is felt better. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have to note that (not having participated in the Ulster discussion) that the reason why that was allowed to run could have simply been because no one at DYK had noticed about the request being problematic until it was too late. I imagine that had the issue been brought up then, at the very least the special occasion request would have been declined. It wasn't a "lack of consistency" but rather "people not beieng aware".

csdnew 00:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

So you're deciding to be politically correct only now that it's self-serving and beneficial for you. Quite a contrast to your editing philosophy that included a userbox that flat-out stated: "This user is politically incorrect". —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had an IBAN imposed in October of 2019 and I am requesting the removal of it. The details are at: Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Placed_by_the_Wikipedia_community. I admit that the IBAN was imposed correctly and to avoid disruption and I was 100% at fault in that case. However, I am asking that the IBAN be removed at this time. I don't believe I had any recent interaction, even tangentially but it is hard at times to keep to the IBAN due to the nature of the details. I am not sure about notifications or comments, but I would request that any discussion I have here be sanctioned by BANEX. Thank you. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The text of SJ's IBAN reads: "Sir Joseph is banned interacting with User:TonyBallioni. This is a one-way interaction ban.". It was imposed on 8 October 2019 after this ANI discussion. I'd be interested to hear what @Tony Ballioni: thinks about this request. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing ping @TonyBallioni:. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Interaction Analyzer report: [23]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Decline, user does not elaborate on the interaction ban or explain why it is no longer necessary. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I am inclined to keep an interaction ban that has been successful, not only in keeping Sir Joseph away from TonyBallioni but in keeping Sir Joseph on-Wiki (see the ban discussion: Sir Joseph's very survival on Wikipedia counts on it as the patience of the community is wearing thin). Perhaps Sir Joseph could enlarge on how the ban is preventing him from editing Wikipedia and how he would interact with TonyBallioni if it were lifted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi, as you see in the interaction analyzer, we edit lots of the same administrative pages and there are times when I want to comment on a discussion but I can't. I also feel that there is no more need of an IBAN and we shouldn't keep it just to keep it. It's been well over a year and we shouldn't be punitive. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, you want to be able to comment in discussions where TonyBallioni has commented. I would support lifting the IB for that with the advice that I think you would wise to continue to avoid commenting on, about or in response to TonyBallioni; just comment directly on the topic being discussed. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Please see Tony's list below of discussion in which TB commented first, and SJ commented later, so he's already doing that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support removal - SJ is aware of the issue and knows to avoid interaction with TB. He has demonstrated that it's possible for him to do so as a mature adult. It's easy enough to restore it, so what's the big deal? Realistically after 6 mos, t-bans and i-bans become punishment to those who have to carry the full responsibility of that ball and chain. They should never be forever anymore than PP should be forever on an article. Atsme 💬 📧 14:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support reduction per
  WP:ROPE. Would it be possible to reduce the IBAN to merely avoid direct interaction (i.e. addressing directly or responding directly to comments) rather than merely avoiding pages/sections where the other is active? If not, I would also support a full elimination of the IBAN (pending TB's comments regarding the issue) as a second best option. --Jayron32 15:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

*Support reduction I think Jayron makes a good argument and we should allow SJ a rope and if there will be a slight problem the ban could reinstated again. --Shrike (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reread the arguments one again and I now Support removal but I urge SJ to minimize his interaction to TB to absolute minimum --Shrike (talk) 08:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support removal. Both his admission and the time that has passed with no further events suggest that SJ has learned from the experience, and could interact productively with TB. François Robere (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support removal per above. 17 months is long enough, really for just about any sanction of any editor. Levivich ^harass/_hound 05:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support removal per WP:ROPE. starship.paint (exalt) 12:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support removal per ROPE and 17 months elapsed.--Hippeus (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support removal This IBAN served its purpose and can be at least provisionally removed due to good behavior. Tikisim (talk) 02:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• commenting before archive.. Can an uninvolved admin please look at this? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh, I guess this has started while I've been away from Wikipedia for a bit. I oppose removal and ask that this be kept open a bit after my response of Sir Joseph's IBAN with me. There is literally no reason to remove it. What does it accomplish? Sir Joseph and I do not edit the same topic areas. I actually can't think of a time where I have come into contact with him recently just through going through the normal pages that I go through. My experience with Sir Joseph is that he harbors grudges and would likely use lifting this as an opportunity to go through my contributions to bring me to a noticeboard at the drop of a pin over something that's not an issue, comment negatively at me for no reason elsewhere, or generally make my life unpleasant on Wikipedia.
  I'm also going to point out that my concerns here have some merit as it was made while I was on a wikibreak for a few weeks. Sorry if I'm being overly cynical, but I suspect Sir Joseph looking through my contributions for no reason, noticed I wasn't around, and then decided to ask for this because he knows that the community is usually unwilling to remove a 1-way IBAN if the other party is opposed. If he's already looking through my contribution history while under an IBAN, forgive me if I assume that he's going to do the same when he's not. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're expressing a lot of ABF in that response and I hope you rewrite it. More helpful than sharing your assumptions would be sharing if you've had any problems with SJ in the last 17 months or not. Because if the answer is "not", it may be you who is holding a grudge here. Levivich ^harass/_hound 14:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Assume good faith is not a suicide pact. I don’t comment on or interact with Sir Joseph because of the IBAN: its not fair to him. I’m not going to pretend that I think he is going to behave any differently towards me today than he did when the IBAN was placed. That’s not an assumption of bad faith or holding a grudge, that’s having an extremely negative experience with someone and not wanting to be subject to it again.
      The community traditionally does not lift one-way IBANs if one party objects. I’m simply asking that the community give me the courtesy of considering my request that SJ keep from interacting with me. There’s literally no reason for him to do so since we don’t edit the same areas and he’s at no risk of violating his ban on accident. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • "I'm not going to pretend that I think he is going to behave any differently towards me today than he did when the IBAN was placed" is the very definition of holding a grudge. I'm not suggesting you need to assume good faith, I'm suggesting you should not assume bad faith, like don't assume he went through your contribs, and let go of your grudge. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think that’s an odd definition. I don’t wish Sir Joseph any ill will. I’m not asking he be banned from the site. I’m asking that he continue not to talk about me. By your definition you’re suggesting, anyone who has experienced someone behaving overwhelmingly negatively towards them should have their concerns dismissed as a grudge or as assuming bad faith. That’s not particularly fair—it means that people who have legitimate concerns with the way others have treated them simply to have those concerns ignored. The community already decided that Sir Joseph was acting inappropriately towards me. I don’t have to demonstrate that. My concern that Sir Joseph will continue acting that way is a real one, and I think I’m within behavioural norms to express it. I also don’t think I need to defend every word choice I made from in-depth analysis and reframing of arguments when expressing that, so I’m not going to continue engaging in this thread since you appear to have made up your mind, and I am also fairly resolved that I continue to not want to have to worry about Sir Joseph interacting with me. I’ve made my request known. The community can decide, and I’ll accept the result. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:AGF Shrike (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
            ]
          • I guess I just believe that editors should be given a way out, and not be trapped in an IBAN (or any sanction) forever. 17 months is a long time. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • I do not support the concept of lifting sanctions just because "it's been a long time." The IBAN appears to be working, so why would we lift it? Just for the hell of it? I do not see how it is limiting SJ from doing anything except interacting with Tony, and that's a good thing that we should want to continue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive330#Updated_Request_for_Termination_of_IBAN (this was a prior IBAN on this page that made me think of filing this request. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

would likely use lifting this as an opportunity to go through my contributions to bring me to a noticeboard at the drop of a pin over something that's not an issue, comment negatively at me for no reason elsewhere, or generally make my life unpleasant on Wikipedia. - I guess a verbal commitment to not do these would be a positive step. starship.paint (exalt) 16:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't, and don't, check the contributions of those I am banned from interacting. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...with. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose removal as the other party opposes the lifting of the ban, and also
  WP:IBAN says Although the interaction-banned users are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other, so I don't see how Sir Joseph's stated reason for lifting the ban, we edit lots of the same administrative pages and there are times when I want to comment on a discussion but I can't is valid as he can still comment on a discussion, just not directly to TB.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • It prevents him from commenting on discussions started by TB, and it might be understood by some admins as preventing him from commenting on points previously addressed by TB. François Robere (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No it doesn't. It prevents him from commenting on me (directly or indirectly) or replying to me.
      WP:IBAN is already in line with what he is calling a "reduction". SJ is not prevented from commenting in or on discussions I have already commented in. He has done so on multiple occasions since his IBAN: he opposed the RfC I recently started on community based desysop. He has supported an RfA where I was one of the main opposers. He commented in the anti-harassment RfC last year, where I also participated before him. He opposed and RfA where I was the nominator. He made this comment at AN after I had blocked the person who started the thread and commented in the thread. He made this comment on a thread about the SashiRolls ban that I had proposed after it was enacted. He made this comment in a block review thread I had already commented in.

      I would be fine with a clarification to Sir Joseph that he is free to take part in discussions that I take part in or start so long as he does not directly or indirectly reference me or reply to me, but he already seems to be aware of this as he's been doing it pretty regularly. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Under what conditions would you support this IBAN being lifted? Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

        @TonyBallioni: I too would like to know under what conditions you would consider supporting the IBAN being lifted? Or a theoretical other one-way iban with you if that is easier to answer. I'm finding it difficult to interpret your view, and thus the merits of the request, without knowing this. Thryduulf (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose removal - I hadn't !voted until now because I was waiting to hear from TonyBallioni. Not knowing that TB was on a Wikibreak, I interpreted his apparent silence as his being OK with removing the IBAN, and since the !voting was going in that direction, I didn't see any purpose in !voting myself. But now that I know that Tony is opposed to removing the ban, I also oppose it, as I would for almost any one-way IBAN in which the victimized editor objects to its being lifted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support removal - 17 months with no issues seems long enough for
  another go. Not a fan of indefinite sanctions with no clear reason why they need to continue. Also not a fan of 1 way ibans either, but that is more a in general thing and not specific to this instance. PackMecEng (talk) 13:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose removal 1 way IBANs should only be removed with the blessing of the user who the affected user cannot interact with, with limited exceptions in case of abuse.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm serving a six month topic ban from the topic of chemical elements, broadly construed. Does this ban apply to non-EN wiki's? Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctions, blocks and topic bans only apply on the Wiki they were imposed on. Administrative actions on one Wiki have no power on another Wiki unless there has been a global account action. Community bans, which is what was imposed on you, are only effective in the community they were imposed in. Be aware though that another community (i.e. language) may take that you've been topic banned on en-Wiki into account if you happen (not presuming you would) to cause issues there. Canterbury Tail talk 00:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sandbh - I would advise you, first, to limit your editing to encyclopedias in which you are fluent in the language, and, if you think that you are fluent in a language but are not sure about that, it isn't enough. We have many editors who are not competent in English, and we have a culture of being patient with editors who try to use English with difficulty. Some non-English Wikipedias may not be patient if your command of the language is less than fluent. Second, before you start to edit other Wikipedias, develop a clear and realistic idea of what your mistakes were here that led to your topic ban, and be extra careful to avoid repeating those mistakes. A good record or a less than good record are likely to be taken into account by the English Wikipedia in deciding how much to welcome you back when your topic ban is over. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I find it disconcerting that an editor who received a topic ban here only after a very extended period of general disruption and discussions in multiple venues, including at ArbCom, is considering taking their behavior patterns to other WMF projects before their topic ban has even been discussed being lifted here. That seems to be an indication that Sandbh has not taken onboard the validity of this community's concern for their editing behavior. Whether this is sufficient for additional sanctions I am not certain, but it is -- as I said -- disturbing.

I'm not very familiar with Meta. Is there a venue there in which Sandbh's apparent interest in expanding the scope of their disruptive editing can be brought up? I think it only fair that either other wikis be warned about this, or that Sandbh's topic ban be expanded to be a global one, if such a thing as a global topic ban is possible. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with BMK on this – this kind of query (especially combined with barely editing in the three months since the topic ban was imposed) is definitely raising some large red flags. Number 57 22:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth (not a strict analogy), some indefinitely blocked editors are encouraged to show that they can be productive on other projects under the

standard offer and we've seen some appeals based on the offer declined because they've just waited out the six months. Perhaps a more charitable (or naïve) interpretation from me. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

The suggestion to edit productively elsewhere is often made to those appealing indef blocks or site bans, but I think that those who are topic banned here are generally advised to productivey edit here in other subject areas, rather than to edit on other wikis in the subject area they are banned from on en.wiki. I think it would be ill-advised and rude on our part to subject our fellow Wikipedians who speak other languages to the possibility of disruptive behavior that we have sanctioned here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah like I said, not a great analogy. But I think our hands are tied: the English Wikipedia community only has jurisdiction over English Wikipedia and the bans it imposes (to my knowledge, anyways) do not carry over to other projects like Simple etc. It's not something I would personally encourage, but it's hard to see what else can be done. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no one was metaphorically run over or killed. For this level of infraction, you'd get points on your license. If it happened again, you might have to attend safe-driving classes. The Wikipedia equivalent might be

WP:CLEANSLATE, but for some reason they're asking for the death penalty, as if were a vandal troll and irredeemable. Seems a bit much when other options are available.--Tenebrae (talk) 02:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Which is why I asked if there was someplace on Meta where a possible global sanction could be suggested. We can't do anything, but we are also part of the global WMF community, which, possibly can do something. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Making sure that some global Stewards who are familiar with en.wiki are aware of this thread: @AmandaNP, Bsadowski1, Jon Kolbert, MarcoAurelio, Martin Urbanec, and MusikAnimal:. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure stewards, especially myself, really have anything to contribute here. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 13:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So...one project finds an editor's behavior disruptive enough to topic ban them, the editor threatens to go to other language projects, where, presumably, they'll repeat their behavior pattern, and there's no mechanism by which other projects can at least be warned about this possibility, or the editor officially warned away from potentially disrupting another project? That seems like a hole in the system ripe for exploitation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking for simple the topic ban wouldn't apply there. However, we don't typically give much leeway to people on sanctions from en.wiki as we often get a flood of them when people say go edit elsewhere and proove yourself. As such people on indef blocks/bans here only get one strike there before they are blocked there. Topic bans we don't have an equivalent policy but I suspect we would likely follow suit if they showed the same behaviour there. -DJSasso (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Canterbury Tail; Robert McClenon; Sdrqaz|; AmandaNP and DJSasso for your prompt and considered responses. For the record, 1. the discussions resulting in my community imposed topic ban occurred at ANI, rather than in multiple venues (I'm happy to be corrected if I have this wrong). 2. Arbcom declined to take on the case, which involved at least two other editors besides myself. 3. I have chosen not to edit much for the past three months, and may well serve out my topic ban here on the same basis. That said I've used my time productively to complete a topic ban related article accepted for publication in a reputable peer-reviewed Journal, drafted a submission for the relevant international body; and have had several productive ongoing discussions via PM and Zoom, with WP colleagues.

It was interesting to read

If I have anything further to say about Beyond my Ken's responses, I will do so at their talk page. Sandbh (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be deliberately specious. The discussions about disruption in the subject area of the chemical elements -- of which your behavior was very much a part -- took place in multiple venues. That they ended up with a TB for you, decided as the result of an ANI thread, doesn't mean that the prior discussions didn't take place, nor does it mean that the topic ban wasn't the result of the totality of all the discussions.

I will not accept any comments from you about this subject at my talk page. If you have anything to say, you'd best say it here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, to clear up any confusion, while the discussions that led to my TB occurred at ANI they were informed by edits and actions that occurred mainly at WP:ELEM and periodic table.

I expect the non-en editors will be able to judge the calibre and appropriateness of my contribution. I further expect I will have nothing more to contribute to this current thread. Sandbh (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Having glanced at their most recent contributions, I'm also a bit concerned that the OP appears to be making proxy edits at the request of an article subject (Louise Katz), based on apparent off-wiki requests. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I participated in some of the previous ANIs regarding Sandbh. At least until the last one, where I got frustrated enough that I decided to take at least the twelve days of Christmas off WP, so I didn't appear at the ANI thread. Currently I am back and

Sandbh went to de.wp after this thread to discuss the same topic that had started the whole issue back here at Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements: the composition of group 3 of the periodic table. The discussion is at de:Wikipedia:Redaktion_Chemie#Einteilung_und_Anordnung_der_Elemente_in_Vorlage:Infobox_Chemisches_Element_Vorlage:Periodensystem. I was already there, since I got invited on my talk page by User:Tinux (who wanted to know where the en.wp discussion for this took place). The decision that de.wp decides on isn't the most important thing for me, since it's not my home-wiki (I speak the language to some extent, but I mostly edit here): it's for that community to decide first of all. I suppose we shall have to wait and see what happens in July when his TBAN expires here. Double sharp (talk) 09:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like others who have posted here, I was a bit concerned about

WP:AGF. In response to this, Sandbh did not immediately fire back in the same venue (as was his wont a few months ago), but IMO wisely considered discussing the situation in user talk space. Would that discussion have been civil? Alas we will never know, because the discussion was declined. This, too, was no doubt a wise action, but it means that we cannot yet learn to what extent he has learned his lesson. YBG (talk) 05:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree with YBG. Double sharp (talk) 06:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• First,
  edit request, before being incorporated into the article. Nsk92 (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I feel the latest discussion here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography under the built up tab started on there is a personal attack on me and my contributions. Who do I report this to for investigation please. - RailwayJG

WP:ANI is the usual place but as this is here... I’m not seeing any personal attacks in that discussion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Please sign your posts, Railway3G. The editor was more than likely referring to bad editing practice. I see no personal attack. Tiderolls 15:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, see no personal attack and agree with Tide rolls's assessment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst not directly related to the issue I can see how some of RailwayJG's edits can be a little unpopular, rather than removing un-sourced items or minor technical errors (that may well be correct) or removing things because they are wrong perhaps improving them or leaving them for others with a note that a citation is needed maybe more welcome. Robidy (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to participate in the Wikipedia community while complying with the Terms of Service. Please let me know what I'd need to do to meet those as a Paid Editor. I remain open to learning more about how to operate this way within the Wikipedia ecosystem.

It is ultimately my goal to help Wikipedia articles remain factual, which is why many people choose to work directly with me.

I'm posting this to gain a better understanding of what caused me to get blocked from editing on Wikipedia, and the activity that's since occurred (Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Jacobmcpherson paid editing).

It would be helpful for me to get clarification on some points around how Wikipedia operates so I can better follow guidelines going forth. Here's some initial ones:

• Why wasn't this article (Draft:Neil Krug) considered notable by Wikipedia standards?
• Can you also please clarify what Wikipedia considers as a consensus and how many editors need to be involved before one is reached?
• Lastly, there has been at least 8 articles I’ve participated in that have now been nominated for deletion – one of these going back to 2011 (of which my involvement was minimal). What’s the reasoning here?

I look forward to hearing about how to best move forward. Jacobmcpherson (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding it hard to believe that you have edited here more than 10 years and you've never been directed to

WP:COI previously. Tiderolls 19:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• I mean your questions don't seem directly relevant to why you were blocked (although I'd also note that the block reason doesn't seem either fully accurate or fully complete). Not all of your work was "advertising or promotion", however, you were also repeatedly not complying with utilising AfC etc. After you not using it was disputed once, then it would move from the "very strongly advised" to "required". The AfDs (which I would imagine did come from the nom looking at your additions in the listed thread) do have their reasoning provided. Mainly notability, with some excabating factors like promotional content, which alone I wouldn't view as sufficient to delete. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • One suggestion is to stop using buzzwords like "ecosystem" instead of writing precise sentences that don't use cute euphemisms you read somewhere and thought it would be fun to adopt. I am a volunteer editor here in large measure to try to eradicate this kind of marketing-ese PR balderdash from encyclopedia articles that students and other people who aren't professional writers look to as exemplars of acceptable common parlance. "Silo", "solutions", "pivot", and "ecosystem", used outside their specific agricultural, chemical, physics, and biology contexts, are the first examples that are immediately jumping into my mind, along with "impact" as a substitute for the verb "to affect" and the noun "effect" that apparently people have decided are too difficult to use correctly. (If there's not a physical striking, there's not an "impact"; there's an "effect." It's not that hard.) I don't believe I'm alone in this philosophy. Thanks for taking this to heart. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about the "Environmental Impact Statement"? [29] The OED says "The phrasal verb impact on, as in when produce is lost, it always impacts on the bottom line, has been in the language since the 1960s. Many people disapprove of it despite its relative frequency, saying that make an impact on or other equivalent wordings should be used instead. New formations of verbs from nouns (as in the case of impact) are often regarded as somehow inferior." [30] I think the water is well under the bridge on the use of "impact" in the way that you disdain, considering it's been going on for about 50 years now. And, yes, the rules about "affect" and "effect" are difficult to remember, so avoiding them to avoid pedantic criticism is reasonable.
      Your larger point is sorta valid, but I see no reason that "pivot" can't be used about a corporation in the same way that it's often used about a second baseman, or as an instruction to a dancer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • These are perfectly reasonable points. Re: the "environmental impact statement": I have no problem with that usage; an impact is physical, and dumping a bunch of paraquat into a wetland is as physically impactful as a meteorite strike. Re: "pivot", the dancer and second baseman are indeed physically making turns on an axis; a business entity, though, which by definition is not a natural person capable of engaging in a physical action, may take up a new business strategy very quickly, but it doesn't have quadriceps and the only way it "pivots" is in a TED Talk. And re: the positive effect this talk has had on my affect, anybody who is capable of recognizing more or less instinctively, e.g., what happens when a baseball gets lodged in the ivy at Wrigley Field, or alternately in a catcher's mask or other paraphernalia, and/or of explaining the infield-fly rule, has more than enough candlepower to learn "affect" and "effect"... It's the uncritical American-business-school-ese, and the privilege-loaded baggage that goes along with it, that makes me tetchy. Wikipedia editors are, possibly, on the precipice of becoming the de facto "usage panel" of some international agglomeration of national English varieties, simply because we are free (and ubiquitous, thanks to Google, augh) and hence more accessible in, e.g., Odisha and Eswatini and Tristan da Cunha than is the OED. But this must necessarily be a conversation for another day (and forum). Onward and upward! Thank you, BMK! Holy cow! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Convert Block to Site Ban

Having read the discussion on the appellant's talk page, I have come to the unpleasant conclusion that the appellant either doesn't understand and isn't about to understand, or does understand and thinks that our rules are for other editors. I recommend that the community convert the administrator block to a six-month Site Ban. The question about why Neil Krug isn't notable illustrates exactly why we insist that paid editors use

• Support Site-Ban as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Technically if the Community denies the appeal it automatically converts to a siteban unless we specifically exempt it. I don't see any particular reason why this can't be handled under an admin block, however Nosebagbear (talk) 12:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that unless determined specifically to be a site ban, another admin can unilaterally lift the indef block if they deem there is an exigent reason for doing so - whether or not the appeal was denied.--WaltCip-(talk) 16:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think Nosebagbear's point is if this appeal received due consideration from the community and fails, it is a site ban unless we specifically say it shouldn't be treated as such.

WP:CBAN is quite clear that 'Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community".' Nil Einne (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

The section above is appealing a partial block: does a denied or no-consensus result convert into an indefinite ban from the affected portion of the block? –xeno^talk 17:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say yes; I think that passage is meant to say that admins shouldn't unilaterally lift a block that the community has specifically said it thinks is correct. I think that interpretation also jives with how we've been applying it here recently where we've considered and retained blocks but also found a consensus to not apply this clause for whatever reason. I'll dig through the archives later, but I think that happened in the case of some quasi-third-party appeals. — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Site-Ban per Robert. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure why moving to site ban would be required where the editor is already constrained from article space in the status quo - Robert McClenon: are you suggesting the incident editor's contributions to non-article namespaces should also be banned by the community? –xeno^talk 17:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This seems moot, given that an unsuccessful block appeal to AN becomes a ban anyway, but ignoring that I'd rather give the editor time to show that they understand and can abide by editing restrictions. Blocking paid editors who follow rules is counterproductive, as it only creates demand for those who don't.I'm far from convinced from Jacobmcpherson's responses that they will follow them, but I would have liked to have had time to find out. - Bilby (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Site-Ban per above rationalization, and when I read a paid editor writing stuff like "I tried swapping out the image, but it seems the person who took it wants theirs to be featured, despite it not being current or how the subject of the article would like to be represented." Hang on, so now it's about "how the subject of the article would like to be represented"? Seriously? That's not how things work, one of this guy's clients thinks that because he paid for editing that his interests override that of the community? Acousmana (talk) 12:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where this fits in, but I started a conversation on the talk page of an article. My understanding is its preferred a Paid Editor requests changes in this forum going forward? Talk:Jacob Sartorius#Credible sources Jacobmcpherson (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think they should request edits on the article talk page, not here at AN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - My reason for proposing a site-ban was to ensure that this single-admin block is not subsequently lifted by a single admin acting in good faith on a bad-faith request. I will also comment on two points by User:Bilby. I may have overlooked or forgotten the rules that an unsuccessful block appeal is a de facto ban, and that makes my concern less urgent. Second, Bilby says, and I agree, that blocking paid editors who follow rules is counterproductive. Jm has been ignoring the rules for years, either through ignorance or because they are for other people, and I have no reason to believe that they suddenly want to be a good paid editor. (I personally think that there are no good paid editors, only neutral ones and bad ones, but that is only my opinion.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose site ban as inappropriate (and at least premature): All new editors require guidance to develop adherence to site purpose. If the practice is to move to banning disclosed paid editors because they took a few missteps and need assistance complying with site purpose, the obvious result will be an increase in undisclosed paid editing. The problem with shifting the balance to undisclosed paid editing is it causes a much greater editorial and administrative overhead. Edits by disclosed paid editors can be very easily monitored and tracked. Addressing undisclosed paid editing requires off-wiki sleuthing, trawling microwork sites, issuing take-down notices, administrator and Arbitration Committee involvement, editor investigations of contributor's personally identifying information, and a custom checkuser queue almost no one wants to work (with a backlog that often breaks 100 -

• This is not a new editor, the account is 12 years old! this dude's BS is what you call taking the piss. Acousmana (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Risker, can you update?).

(Disclosure: I modified the discussed editor's block to allow non-article space editing; see #Appeal of partial block from article space by Wikipedia Paid Editor Jacobmcpherson). –xeno^talk 13:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Per Xeno's request - there are currently 95 tickets in the "Paid editing" queue on OTRS. Without researching or commenting on the specifics of this matter, I agree with Xeno that driving paid editing underground completely is not really in the best interests of the project. Further, given the fact that the Terms of Use specifically envision a process whereby paid editors can and should disclose, it seems pretty obvious that banning paid editing outright would be an issue in and of itself. Remember that we do have respected users who would meet the definition of paid editing by virtue of their publicly revealed work as a Wikimedians in residence or in similar roles. It's not particularly helpful to drive paid editing completely underground, because then everyone (and I do mean everyone) becomes a suspect. Risker (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, this is a kneejerk reaction. He's only partially blocked as it stands and we allow paid editing. He is discussing proper editing and disclosure. Fences&Windows 00:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal of partial block from article space by Wikipedia Paid Editor Jacobmcpherson

I'm afraid I didn't give the original blocked editor clear enough guidance. This section should hopefully be more focused.

Jacobmcpherson is currently blocked from editing article space by Justlettersandnumbers (who had given leave for me to modify the indefinite block to partial).

Presently, the user is requesting the ability to edit article space again. A no-consensus result will result from them remaining blocked from article space with a block remaining modifiable by administrators. A strong decline would (theoretically) result in a community restriction from article space requiring a consensus at AN to reverse.

Apart from opposing a site ban, I take no position on the editor's request to lift the partial block. –xeno^talk 13:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, xeno. I also oppose a site ban, and suggest that as a matter of priority we establish a procedure for (a) warning anyone who requests an unblock here to be advised that the outcome may be a community siteban, and (b) allowing withdrawal of that request within a reasonable time of being so advised.

In this specific case, I indeffed the editor because of extensive failure to make proper

WP:TOU. Xeno, with your agreement, I suggest that the original site-wide indef-block should be re-imposed until and unless this person (a) makes full and complete disclosure of the actual client (who made payment, and on whose behalf) for all paid edits to date and (b) agrees to comply from now on with our paid-editor guidance as if it were policy. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry, I meant user page in that statement, and all my paid contributions are disclosed there. Jacobmcpherson (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobmcpherson, what Justlettersandnumbers is saying is in order to fully compliant with paid editing disclosure, one needs to disclose both the client as well as the employer. It seems only an employer is listed on your user page. Are you able to comply with that understanding? –xeno^talk 18:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

xeno, for reasons that I can't discuss here, I fear that even that is ... well, less than fully transparent. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. In case it's not 100% clear from my reply to xeno above, or lost in my general wordy blether, firmly oppose unblock from article space, and recommend re-imposition of the original indefinite block until and unless the editor provides full and honest disclosure of all paid edits and the related client and employer. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  If the editor resumes paid activities before providing proper disclosure I will undo my modification, or you may. –xeno^talk 19:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tried my best with the format provided by Wikipedia, since the clients listed on my user page all came through the company listed. Please let me know how I can better generate the list. The current parameters don't seem inclusive of all possible paid editing scenarios. I remain open to finding a solution Jacobmcpherson (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobmcpherson: To help clarify, the client that paid for the editing for each article listed on User:Jacobmcpherson was the subject of the article? Perhaps something like

* [[Subject Inc.]] (Client: Subject Inc.)

Please also note you must disclose any affiliate partners involved, such as freelance sites.

* [[Subject Inc.]] (Client: Subject Inc.; Affiliate: Intermediary Inc.)

(Justlettersandnumbers: please advise whether this would resolve your item (a) above.) –xeno^talk 19:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly confused by this, did you look at how I disclosed here User:Jacobmcpherson? I don't go through freelance sites for this type of work. Jacobmcpherson (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MrOllie (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

The money was paid to the company listed on my user page, and I handled edits/articles for the clients listed Jacobmcpherson (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MrOllie (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I see, this wasn't 100% apparent to me in the format provided by Wikipedia - as there's various types of organisational structures, and I tried my best to accurately depict my particular scenario / relationship as a paid editor. The other issue, is there doesn't seem to be way to list multiple "articles" from the same "employer" in the current template Template:Paid. Hopefully this clarifies my approach to the situation Jacobmcpherson (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, it looks like the template was updated since I last looked - made changes to my user page. Out of curiosity, where I would I participate in discussions around paid editing on Wikipedia? I'm really interested in providing valuable input that will hopefully improve the relationship between Wikipedia and paid editors Jacobmcpherson (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

project scope. –xeno^talk 23:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I will definitely work on my neutral TOV and, if in doubt, know to discuss things in a page's talk page first. I also agree to follow the 5 pillars as a guideline for future editing Jacobmcpherson (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should there not be something like

That sounds like a very good idea to me. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When I gave JazzClam a 2-week {{uw-cserblock}} earlier today, I was thinking: if this was set up like AEL (without a table), I'd likewise just note the block in an indented bulletpoint below the original sanction. I guess the block log records this well enough, but it does preclude logging a warning, for example. El_C 20:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and also that could serve as a central record of the sanctions themselves, and show which ones are still trouble spots. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, it's never really been too pressing of an issue because RESTRICT violations are so much more infrequent than AE ones...? Still, I'd support a log setup for best recordkeeping practices. Less chance of repeat violations falling through the cracks that way. El_C 04:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess there isn't much interest in setting up a RESTRICT log, after all. Oh well.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Thanks for the support, though, Seraphimblade. El_C 17:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: maybe leave this open a bit longer? I support it, just haven't had time to respond. Doug Weller talk 14:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, 4 days later, there still doesn't seem to be that much interest. Oh well. El_C 17:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cinema for Peace Foundation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi, I am very uncertain as to what I should do with this particular edit, and wanted to request admin guidance. If it's not the proper place to raise this issue please do let me know.

This is an edit by the Cinema for Peace Foundation about

I first undid this edit but then I had second thoughts and re-did it because I did not want to get accused of libel (

Cinema for Peace Foundation has been reported to

Nevertheless, what should be done with this edit? Should we keep the disputed content or remove it?

I would also recommend to take a look at the article's talk page, which mentions that a number of editors are in a position of

JBchrch (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Their username seems to

imply shared use because it is simply the name of a group. In the history of the article, there seems to have been extensive sockpuppetry (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Oslo95/Archive), so there might be a Checkuser needed here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks a lof for your swift action User:ToBeFree 👍. What do you think should be done with the "problematic"/potentially libellous edit? JBchrch (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This might depend on the checkuser result, if checkuser is done. Let's wait for a while. Keeping the content removed in the meantime is fine. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any obvious sock puppet accounts that I can confirm on the same IP. Running the range come back as a huge range with numerous users that log into and use it. There isn't much more that I can give, sorry. :-/ ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking, anyway. Then the softblock is probably the right approach for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you help, ToBeFree.--JBchrch (talk) 10:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIASED it's not necessarily a problem to use a source with a particular political slant, so long as their factual reporting is generally reliable, and it's the factual reporting (rather than any editorial opinion) that we are relying on. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 19:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you very much for this advice, Girth Summit.--JBchrch (talk) 10:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a dispute between at least two editors and maybe more involving the capitalization of "Black" when it is used as a proper adjective referring to a racial or ethnic group. A dispute request was filed at

Notifying User:Generalrelative and User:BlauGraf.

I am not requesting any particular administrative action at this time except administrative awareness that this dispute, which should be resolved at

There was in fact a recently closed RfC on this very question that is relevant here, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 32#Proposed update to MOSCAPS regarding racial terms. Nsk92 (talk) 02:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:Nsk92 and User:Rosguill (as closer). Robert McClenon (talk) 07:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not accept this resolution. The issue is one of proper English construction, and yet I am being ignored. The rules of English are clear that only proper nouns are capitalized, and black is not a proper noun. As further proof of this, white is not capitalized, ergo black cannot be as well. Asian is because Asia is a country continent, and thus a proper noun. As to harassment, my claim and evidence has been submitted, as the referenced used, Generalrelative, continues to stalk my work and try to erase my edits. - Blaugraf — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlauGraf (talk • contribs) 13:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asian is because Asia is a country...

Well, that's going to come as a big surprise to people in China, Japan, and India. --Calton | Talk 15:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For those confused about the above comment, note that BlauGraf modified their initial comment almost an hour after this reply [31] while leaving no indication they had done so. Nil Einne (talk) 04:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that they also changed Robert McClenon's post.

the talk page guidelines. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 06:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Good catch, BlackcurrantTea. I'll just ping Robert McClenon here in case he wants to restore his original comment. And while I don't want to pile on, I will note that BlauGraf also removed a comment I made on my own talk page when leaving a comment of their own: [32] A small thing in and of itself but if it's part of a larger pattern that could be a problem. Generalrelative (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:BlackcurrantTea, User:Generalrelative. My original comment had only been ridiculing User:BlauGraf for a silly error that they compounded by trying to alter the past. I see no need at this point to restore it, but altering another editor's comment on a talk page is not a small thing in and of itself. It is fraud, and it violates far older rules than the so-called rules of English that are older than the English language. It is not a small thing. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Generalrelative; Robert McClenon, sorry for not pinging you. I was distracted when I posted, and simply forgot. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 04:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:BlackcurrantTea - The failure to ping me is a minute thing. It was the alteration of my words that was not a small thing. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the "rules of English" are descriptive, not prescriptive -- or did I overlook the existence of an International English Academy which enforces the rules? --Calton | Talk 15:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a more recent discussion (from February, the RFC was from December) about how the results of the RFC should be formalized in the MOS. See:

problem solving 15:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Given BlauGraf's behavior and rhetoric, I'm not sure if I need to weigh in here at all. Still, perhaps against my better judgment, here goes:

This user is not being ignored, as they claim. They are in fact being treated with an abundance of

MOS:VAR in edit summaries ([34], [35]) and on my talk page: [36]. Note too that I was not the only editor to revert them here: [37], though I was the one to leave a template warning for edit warring and a follow-up on their talk page, which have since been deleted: [38]

.

They have also not been ignored on the MOS talk page, where I referred them over a week ago: [39] After one final round of edit warring [40], they did finally post there on the 17th ([41]) and were offered a very patient explanation as to why they are wrong by SMcCandlish: [42]

Re. the accusation of hounding, this user appears to think that because we are active on some of the same pages it means that all of this activity comes from me watching their contribution history. I did check this history after realizing that they were edit warring over style at

WP:HOUNDING). But it was entirely coincidental that I was also involved in reverting an earlier wave of edits this user made back in January, when they were pushing the Myth of the clean Wehrmacht and in other ways white-washing Nazi-related topics. For the very civil discussion we had about this back in January, see this deleted thread from their talk page: [43]

.

As to their stated unwillingness to accept the RfC, I will leave it to others to judge. Generalrelative (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether to be annoyed or amused or both by the assertion that "Asian" is capitalized because Asia was said to be a country. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Obviously, we should write "irish", "zimbabwean", and "canadian", since Ireland, Zimbabwe, and Canada aren't continents. [sigh]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good lord, such obvious mistakes shouldn't be the subject of extended discussion. For the record, you have it lucky in English: in French, it's a fair bit more complex - it's minuscule except when the word is explicitly referring to an ethnicity/nationality and it is a noun (so "Les Français parlent en français avec leurs amis français":"The French speak in [f]rench^[a] with their [f]rench^[b] friends")... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to be offended - Asia is a proper noun as it is a continent (and thus proper). Non-proper nouns are not capitalized. However, it is very apparent that this collective organization has seen fit to disregard the apparent rules of English construction. As for the reference that I was responded to, that is correct at its base, but fails to take into account that the response received was improper, and no one has actually accepted the fact that colors are not capitalized, where proper nouns are. However, as this seems to be something that you, collectively, are pushing, I cannot be heard.

Secondly, there is reference to an edit made on a page relating to the German Army. My family served in the Army, and I will not discuss that further, since your anti-German slant is quite apparent. I will correct a mis-statement: nothing I corrected was related to the Nazis, it was relating to the German Army. The Army may have served when the Nazis ruled, but not all soldiers were nazis, in the same way now that every American did not become a democrat when Biden was elected, and the American Army now is not the Democratic Army. Do you see the correlation?

It is quite obvious you wish to push some sort of hatred, and so I will do my best to continue to remain within my fields of expertise. I do ask that the generalrelative person be banned from editing any of my articles. His harassment has not ceased. - Blaugraf

@BlauGraf: This isn't a Wikipedia thing. You seem to have missed the general movement to capitalize Black. This New York Times article which explains it is one example, but far from the only one. Sometimes it is surprising to find out that something you thought was correct is no longer correct. I remember noticing one day that newscasters had moved from pronouncing Kiev as KEY-ev to KEEV. Similary I discovered that what I had always known as Rangoon was now generally known as Yangon. Things change. You'll get used to it. Mo Billings (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. Just because a left-leaning newspaper begins to do something that is popular, doesn't make it right. The Russian Revolution was popular, as were the Nazis - and neither were right. Language does not change just because some people want it to. They have to conform to the rules, that is why we have rules. I learned this language 31 years ago when we came here from East Germany. BlauGraf (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)Blaugraf[reply]

Actually, language does change because some people want it to. That's exactly how language changes. I guarantee some of what you learned 31 years ago is no longer considered correct usage, but you probably just accepted those changes without any fuss. If you want to have a political argument, Wikipedia is the wrong site for it. On the other hand, if you just like dogmatic application of rules, there are several Wikiprojects were you will feel at home. Mo Billings (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Small aside to @

My apologies, I thought I was doing so correctly. BlauGraf (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)Blaugraf[reply]

By the way, this is a capitalization and

the article titles and capitalization decision. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

The short version: The RfC concluded with a clear consensus against "Black but white", both for NPOV reasons and consistency reasons, but did not come to a consensus in favor of "Black and White" over "black and white" or vice versa. So, as before the RfC, that is left to editorial judgment at a particular article. The only firm result was to not use one capitalized and the other not, in the same article/category/list/context (see

subst:Ds/alert|mos}} on their talk page, and thereafter it can be more expediently addressed at AE, if it continues.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

User:SMcCandlish - Thank you for explaining that the reason for capitalizing Black and White is that they are being used as demonyms, and that whether that is "correct" or "incorrect" is outside the scope of this discussion. (But dishonestly altering a talk page post is not outside the scope of this discussion.) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the last part refers to; there're probably aspects of this disputation that I've glossed over. I should be clear that I advocated at least mildly in the original RfC on this to prefer "Black and White", relying on the demonym rationale. I see that rationale in play across the site regularly. E.g., while I was editing animal breed articles, as is my wont, and going over the

Coloured, in the southern African mixed-race ethnic sense, is almost universally capitalized. The more I look, the more I see a norm toward capitalization of such informal demonyms. Though in the course of looking, I do also come across additional exception like the cracker case. However, even that is not consistent and doesn't seem to represent a consensus. At the closely related Georgia cracker article, it's obvious that this was originally written capitalized (most of the article still is) then later moved to lower-case by someone, without any apparent discussion (there is no RM thread about this at either Talk:Florida cracker or Talk:Georgia cracker). This overall "capitalize them as (or serving as if) proper names" trend is why I've drafted language for MoS to this effect, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Overhauling MOS:CAPS#Peoples and their languages.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@SMcCandlish: a point so minor that it almost isn't worth mentioning – "Kiwi" is a noun, and so wouldn't exactly be comparable to adjectives like "white" and "black". You can be "a Kiwi", but no one is "a White", which probably effects whether or not people choose to capitalize it. Volteer1 (talk) 06:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. All these terms are regularly used as nouns and as adjectives: "his cute Kiwi accent", "police violence against Blacks and other minorities". Which terms are more apt to be used which way, which ones more often appear as singular nouns, etc., varies by term and dialect.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize - I am only getting back to this after a long weekend. I edited something because I saw I had made a glaring mistake in my haste to type a response (typing country instead of continent). I do not understand why this generalrelative fellow wishes to ascribe some heinous motives to me, but it was exactly that - an error. I fixed it, and moved on. This is the indicative of the type of harassment I have been referring to herein. I wish to be left along by him, and yet he is intentionally trying to cast me as some villain. BlauGraf (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Blaugraf[reply]

assuming good faith

on your part and protecting Wikipedia from disruption.

And while it's nice that you've apologized, your response here makes it seem as though you do not recognize that it isn't okay to alter a comment after someone else has replied to it. This is even clearer on your talk page, where

talk page guidelines require you to make sure you give a clear indication you have changed your comments if someone has already replied, especially when someone directly quoted something you said which are are modifying. Your response was to say I recognized a glaring error in typing, in my haste to make a reply, and I fixed it. The error was mine, and I corrected same. I am not sure what you are saying. No one is concerned about the error, but rather with the cover-up. And neither here nor there have you addressed Robert McClenon's concern about the fact that you altered his comment, which as he rightly points out is not a small thing. Generalrelative (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah @

WP:AGF, I might assume you simply didn't notice that someone had replied to your comment. Except that you also modified someone else's comment. This makes it hard to assume you didn't notice people had replied, and it's an even worse problem. You need to take very great care when modifying someone's signed comment, there are a few limited cases and ways where this is acceptable, but this was very far from one of them. In this case, User:Robert McClenon has explained that they too were commenting on your error. Indeed, I actually read their comment around the time of my first reply, and I did not properly understand it precisely because you had already modified their comment, so it said something which is not what they actually said. You put words into their mouth so to speak, again basic human etiquette should tell you how wrong this is. You made a mistake. People may have made fun of you for it, but it's not a big deal. We all make mistakes. For some reason, instead of just acknowledging you made a mistake, you tried to re-write history which is why this is a big deal. You aren't being harassed. You are making major mistakes and then just brushing editor's aside when they tell you you did so. (Let me repeat the major mistake is not that you wrote country instead of continent which probably we all would have forgotten about by now and we definitely wouldn't care about. The major mistake is that you tried to make it seem like you didn't do so after people had already pointed out you did.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Side comment: If you feel a need to substantively change your own post after others have replied to it, try striking the "bad" material with <del>...</del> and adding the replacement text with <ins>...</ins>. Such revision markup is why those HTML elements exist.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to Close with Warning

I originally said that I was not requesting administrative action. Then

I take umbrage at your suggestion, sir. I edited a mistake that I MADE, and I corrected. The mistake was mine, and I corrected it. You are acting as if I did something heinous, instead of recognizing a glaring oversight on my part - an oversight that you then attempted to malign me for. 2601:141:4100:EF50:2C82:B269:8266:EFE6 (talk) 10:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)Blaugraf[reply]

Editing another user's comments is a very serious thing on Wikipedia. You are not being taken to task for editing your own comment (although it's considered poor form to do so after others have responded to it). You are being chided for editing someone else's comment (namely Robert McClenon's). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:BlauGraf - I am acting as if you did something seriously wrong because you did something seriously wrong. You altered my words in order to facilitate your coverup of what had been a minor error on your part. Altering my words, so as to make them make no sense, is not a small thing. That wasn't a mistake on your part. The reason why I am proposing that you be given a warning rather than a block is that blocks in Wikipedia are preventive and not punitive. This has its advantages and disadvantages, and one of the disadvantages is that permits flagrant misconduct such as yours to go unpunished, while you try to claim that you should not even be warned. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BlauGraf: How are someone else's comments your mistake? As long as you continue you speak such silliness, you have little hope of lasting here, that is definitely true. Your user page says you use to work for law enforcement. If someone being questioned said "Asia is a country" and then later an officer comments "You said Asia is a country, it's actually a continent not a country. There are many countries in Asia." then the person being questioned says sorry I meant to say "Asia is a continent"; do you then amend the record so that in the official transcript the first comment is "Asia is a country" with no foot note or any other explanation and the officer's comment becomes "You said Asia is a continent, it's actually a continent not a country. There are many countries in Asia."? If that's accepted practice under US law enforcement, no wonder things are so bad there. I'm fairly sure it's not though, not least because law enforcement officers will be up in arms if they're forced to look like idiots because it's acceptable to amend record to put words into their mouths. Nil Einne (talk) 04:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious that you have never worked in law enforcement, so I am simply not going to get into a massive debate here, let me simply turn you towards deposition "errata" sheets, where mistakes are corrected routinely. In this instance, I made a typo that I did not edit, and it was seized upon to insult my intelligence. It is obvious that you and your fellows are attempting to run me off. So I shall simply stop responding. BlauGraf (talk) 11:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)blaugraf[reply]

You and your friends seemed determined to drive me from this board, and I am very close to simply leaving, as you wish. However, I will say that the pattern of driving someone away with whom you disagree is frightening, and wrong. BlauGraf (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)blaugraf[reply]

So, to summarize: you did something bad, it has been explained to you very clearly what is wrong with it, and now instead of apologizing you are whining about how it's deeply frightening to be told not to do bad things. I'm sure you will be deeply missed. --JBL (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Something is badly broken on this page, I suspect from all the "X Lock" discussions, each of which lists all the others. At any rate, I couldn't figure out what to do to fix it. Mangoe (talk) 03:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:PEIS. In layman's terms the number of template transclusions went over the limit. I'm almost positive this was caused by the large number of lock nominations. Not sure how often this happens at AfD but there is the explanation. I'll leave it up to the admins to figure out what to do if anything. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 04:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Yikes. Most broken I've ever seen that page. It's basically useless for me. Closing the locks as

WP:TRAINWRECK, then <no include/> ing them and instructing the nominator to stick to a more reasonable number per day might work. I struggle to see how !voters will be able to process all of those lock AFDs on a single day. It's super late where I am, so someone else would have to go through that process if it's deemed a reasonable one. Hog Farm _Talk 06:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

The problem is, as the preview says explicitly, is that Template include size is too large. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.161.13.136 (talk) 12:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are separate, it's just that each discussion has templates linking to the other discussion pages. Peter James (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, the page is broken and something needs fixed. We're likely going to have to either remove or <no include> some of the transclusions; the linking to each other within the AFDs may be a place to start. Hog Farm _Talk 14:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to comment those "also listing" sections out, unless someone objects. Mangoe (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed a load more because the log page was broken again. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete my subpages that are redirected to published articles. If this is not the right platform to make such requests then tell me where I should do that in future. There are many pages that is why I haven't tagged them for deletion individually. Thanks and regards.--Deepak G Goswami (talk) 07:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is better, actually, to tag each one for deletion. Since they're in your userspace, just place {{db-u1}} on the subpages you'd like deleted. It's okay to do a lot of pages that way; plenty of people before you have requested U1 deletion of a good number of subpages. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, as it's easy enough to dbatch when a list and request is provided. Primefac (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Primefac!--Deepak G Goswami (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:104.218.36.228&diff=cur

All these idiots are doing by their behavior is running off everybody outside their little cliques and further entrenching themselves and Wikipedia as a whole into the realm of `infotainment' into which it has been relegated by any serious research institution for several years now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.218.36.228 (talk) 08:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@104.218.36.228: It's critical to notify individuals you are talking about that the discussion exists by noting it on their talk pages. I've let Saadrafiq4 know, but I don't know how broadly you are talking about "idiots" (itself not a word choice likely to aid your case). Nosebagbear (talk) 12:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@104.218.36.228: Hi, I presume you're talking about this revert of mine. I have recently started recent changes patrolling. You did not provide an edit summary, and reading the edit you made, I couldn't make out the context and honestly thought it was vandalism. If it wasn't, you could redo the edits changing the words so they are clear in the context while providing an edit summary, or talk about it on my talk page. I can make mistakes too, although I try my best to remain constructive and make Wikipedia better. — Saadrafiq4 (talk) 07:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• On the one hand Nosebagbear is exactly right, in fact considering the link you dropped, many folks would consider it a
  sig to talk posts is even more preferable than not signing). I don't really see anything actionable here, and think this could likely be closed, but since I've commented, I'll leave that to someone else. — Ched (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC) edited [reply
  ]

Ched, look carefully: that message was this IP's response to the warning, not Saad's warning itself, even though it was posted above the latter for whatever reason. Their other replies on their talk page are similarly hostile. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 10:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

M Imtiaz, Ahhh - you're right. I'll strike some of my comment. My apologies to Saadrafiq4. Thank you M Imtiaz for pointing that out. — Ched (talk) 11:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The IP seems to have major problems collaborating. For example, these responses [44] [45] are clearly inappropriate. But they're especially stupid since there is nothing to fix. A review of the dispute shows [46] that the link was already correctly marked as dead, so the archive took over as the primary link. There was no need for any further maintenance, someone already fixed it. Probably User:CLCStudent could have better explained this but frankly after the first reply, it's not that surprising no one bothered. CLCStudent had their own problems anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute which seems to have set off this thread is another one where the actions they're complaining about seem fair enough. Saadrafiq4 is right that it's difficult to parse their addition [47]. Who is this 'man who did die from AIDS' who 'was an early inspiration'? The IP offers no sources, no any inkling on who this man was or at least how he was an inspiration. I would note the sentence after the next sentence mentions 'David Grant was reported to have suggested the name "Daddy Bear" for this new magazine just before his death from complications from AIDS'. If David Grant is the man the IP is referring to, then the IP's addition is clearly unhelpful. We already better explain David Grant's role 2 sentences away, mentioning some weird fragment in that sentence isn't helpful. If this man is someone else, then the David Grant example shows how the information can be meaningfully integrated into the paragraph, by explaining his role and maybe also mentioning his name. Just saying some random person died of AIDS and 'was an early inspiration' is not particularly useful. Nil Einne (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! An IP is completely changing the content of this page, going so far as to edit Wikidata in the process. Could someone restore it to its original state and semi-protect it for some days/weeks? Thanks! --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 10:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see if a

partial rangeblock will hit the spot. El_C 12:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

We have an unusual tagging activity from IP (See Citation needed tags). I could not find a good way to warn those IPs that look like one person. Can an admin help out? --Anneyh (talk) 12:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My notes an IP editor had a dispute about the University of Oxford on 10 March and has been going through Oxford articles since then and tagging any unreferenced content they can find and also removing old unreferenced content. They have also PRODed and AfDed several Oxford articles. Many of the edits are fine in isolation but tagging content as a result of a dispute is disruptive.

• Template talk:University of Oxford#Deletion original dispute about what to include on a template
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject University of Oxford#Recent citation needed tags description of problem, list of IP accounts
• User talk:2603:7000:2143:8500:2463:E460:6C60:88D9#Recent citation needed tags attempt to contact editor before I realised the context TSventon (talk) 12:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand the problem that needs admin intervention. There's certainly no justification for blocking an editor for removing unsourced content just because they use a dynamic IP. See User_talk:Assem_Khidhr#Revert for some recent discussion. SmartSE (talk) 13:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't have time to properly assess the edits here and judge whether anything needs urgently blocking, but for the assistance of other admins I'd point out that this user is completely covered by a /64 range 2603:7000:2143:8500:0:0:0:0/64, which tallies just fine with normal use from an ISP that's using IPv6. If a rangeblock does become required, that range should hit this user and only this user, though the rapid changes to the end of the IP address should not be taken in itself as any evidence of bad faith. ~ mazca ^talk 13:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Am I missing something? Tagging any unreferenced content they can find and also removing old unreferenced content is called
  improving the encyclopaedia, not disruptive editing. – Joe (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• My concern is the editor is only editing Oxford articles to pursue a dispute. Their talk page contributions seem to have a battleground mentality, especially the original dispute. They are tagging articles indiscriminately, e.g. all 39 college articles, rather than drawing attention to the worst referenced articles, so I don't think their focus was improving the encyclopedia. TSventon (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that the edits are being done to pursue a dispute, but it's not obvious to me what could or should be done about that. Certainly much of the tagging is indiscriminate, being done in a drive by fashion, with no attempt whatsoever to fix issues before tagging them, but in general the IP is at least vaguely accurately identifying statements which (while mostly true) are not well sourced inline, and beyond a few tags on obviously
  WP:BLUE statements little of it could be considered genuinely disruptive. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I was/am hoping to convince an admin that some or all of my concerns are justified and then for the admin to explain the same to the IP editor. Hopefully a block would not be needed. TSventon (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This users has a relatively long history in Wikipedia in English but does not seems to improve with time. There is a lot of warnings of deletion for articles or text, for different reasons including copy-paste or website, in his discussion page but he continues to input without regards for these warnings and never answer to queries about his editions. I don't know if an administrator could have a look on his work or give me advice of what to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierre cb (talk • contribs) 00:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely for repeated copyright violations. I'll leave cleaning the revision mess to the next reader. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed most of the copyright violations and cleaned up most of the styling issues and such. It definitely needs another go-over regarding the qualifications, salary, and stuff with the FAA, NOAA. WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 05:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I've cleaned anything left over. Let me know if I missed something. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 18:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In June, 2018

1. 6 November 2020 block log entry by User:Floquenbeam: This was an indefinite ban from User talk:Francis Schonken for Mathsci making a series of edits to FS' talk page [48][49][50][51] This block was removed by the blocking admin after assurances were given by Mathsci that they would never post to FS' talk page again. Mathsci has upheld that promise. See AN/I discussion regarding this incident.
2. 9 November 2020 block log entry by User:NinjaRobotPirate: This was a 1 week site block resulting from the above 6 November 2020 incident. See also User talk:Mathsci#November 2020
3. 3 February 2021 block log entry by User:El C: This was a 1 month site block. See User talk:Mathsci#Block. An unblock request for this block was denied by User:JBW.

On 17 March 2021, Mathsci made this edit which made direct reference to this edit by FS.

Today at 04:25 UTC, FS made this edit that added a {{

Accordingly, and per the final warning I noted above, I have blocked Mathsci for three months for violating the IBAN [52]. I invite feedback from other administrators regarding this block and my handling of the situation. If another administrator feels the block is inappropriate they are welcome to shorten or eliminate the block if they feel it necessary to do so without further consultation with me. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately it may be time for an indef. Disruptive editing has gone on for a long time despite several warnings and blocks. Good block. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 19:17, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  As I've pointed out on Mathsci's TP, FS should also/instead get blocked - he's also on a similarly sliding slope of seemingly unending disruption with Mathsci AND other editors. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I have placed a warning on FS' talk page at

  WP:IBAN makes no allowances for such cases. I have not blocked FS for this incident. However, I don't think blocking FS for it would be entirely inappropriate either. There's a narrow window within the IBAN policy that could be construed as allowing the edit, as FS' edit [53] did not undo Mathsci's edit [54], whereas Mathsci's edit [55] clearly undid FS' [56]. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I've ne'er been a big fan of technicalities. For background (for others)

  WP:WIKILAWYERING... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Without seeming to be ominous (I'm not), FS' actions are not going without notice. It is important to understand that FS' actions are irrespective of Mathsci's. Mathsci isn't responsible for FS' actions nor vice versa. If one or both violate policies, guidelines, or sanctions, I am confident appropriate actions will be taken. I believe in this case that Mathsci's actions created a bright line, unequivocal violation of the IBAN with FS. This is why I took the action that I did. FS' actions do not provide an excuse under which Mathsci can act.
  WP:IBAN isn't written that way, nor should it be. If it were, it would create a situation where edit warring was accepted under an IBAN so long as the person who did it was under the IBAN with the person with whom they were edit warring. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

To that: a few years back, I tried to account for that problematic with a custom DS (GMO) IBAN for Tryptofish and SashiRolls, which also added a 2nd-edit page prohibition (which ended up giving Tryptofish a huge advantage, since they began editing many of the affected pages first). The sanction was overturned soon thereafter, anyway, for unrelated reasons (of which I am largely unfamiliar with to this day), or rather, converted into a normal IBAN, but one-way against SR. Anyway, regardless, in hindsight, I later recognized that this custom page-level IBAN was a poorly-formed idea on my part. Sorry, this is probably not helping much. In any case, it's a conundrum. El_C 20:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that an IBAN is an effective tool in situations such as this. Both FS and Mathsci are heavily involved in classical music areas of interest on the project. They are dancing on the same floor in close proximity to each other. They are going to bump into each other and cause an IBAN violation. My concern with this incident is that Mathsci's edit came so close on the heels of FS' edit, and clearly undid what FS has done. I can't think that was anything other than intentional. I also do not think that a topic ban would work in this case either. I'm open to suggestions on what we could do instead in this case. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that in this case the IBAN is showing itself to be very much de facto ineffective. Short of the almighty

WP:UNBLOCKABLES); but then this has been going on for far too long... A real conundrum, as El C states. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

As Hammersoft noted, when the editors in question have been utterly ignoring their IBAN as though it never existed, there's no reason to expect that a TBAN would be treated any differently. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 00:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At least a TBAN has much less grey areas. "Classical music (in the usual broad [common practice era, c. 1600-20th century; if we need to extend to include contemporary music why not] or even in a very broad [all of documented Western music, from the middle ages to the present day] sense), broadly construed" is much harder to claim technicalities than "technically didn't alter the other's edits". Then if we have

further ignoring of sanctions, the outcome is predictable... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• endorse block regrettable but inevitable. We need the expertise, but not at the price of the melodrama. No call on whether FS should be blocked as well. I wish people who have so much to offer could get along and not fight. What a waste. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse (Non-administrator comment) very regrettably as per
  prevent would stop at this stage. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Pianissimo At their recent RfA, Hammersoft said that their username was an "intentional oxymoron. Imagine lightly tapping with a hammer...". But a three-month block from all of Wikipedia seems to be quite a heavy blow. Please consider that there is now an option to make a partial block and this seems to be appropriate when editors are treading on each other's toes in particular places. In this case, Mathsci was breathing down FS's neck at Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1. Why not give Mathsci an indefinite block from that article alone? If they should seem to follow FS to another such article then block them from that one too and so on. If the parties observe a creeping limitation of their access to such articles, then they may learn to be more circumspect. See also proportionality. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  We have been proportional. The community should not need to mollycoddle editors who want to edit here. Mathsci has already had lots of chances and warnings. They've already gone through a series of escalating blocks and found their editing completely restricted for periods, but seem to have failed to learn anything from it. So frankly it's getting to the stage where it's becoming apparent they seem incapable of learning "to be more circumspect" and there's definitely zero reason to think partial blocks will do it. Partial blocks are useful, and perhaps if there was no previous iban violations, a partial block from one article and maybe its talk page would be a good way to try and deal with the problem instead of a 24 hour block or whatever. But it's ridiculous to suggest an ever expanding list of partial blocks because an editor refuses to be serious with their iban. If an editor can't resist the urge to poke another editor even when we've told them in no uncertain terms they need to resist, they can fuck off, no matter how good their general work is. Nil Einne (talk) 10:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Andrew Davidson: It is indeed a heavy blow, and one I didn't want to take. I tried very hard to avoid it. Please see this thread, where a final warning was given for something that other administrators likely would have blocked Mathsci but I chose instead to warn for, with a custom written personal warning. This block was preceded by other blocks for violations of the IBAN and other infractions of the IBAN. The message is not getting through. If lightly tapping the hammer isn't getting through, heavier blows might. This is the action that I've taken. To continue your musical analogy (which seems apropos, given the subject area in which Mathsci and FS work), we were at pianissimo years ago, before the IBAN was put in place. With all the disputes that happened around that, we reached mezzo piano before the IBAN. At the IBAN institution, we reached mezzo forte. With the block this past November, we were at double forte. With the month long block in February, we were at triple forte. We're now in what I've heard some brass players like to say as "blow their ears off" territory that would make Tchaikovsky proud. I've suggested, and pinged you to, your alternative for partial blocks to Mathsci. If Mathsci is amenable, I will start a sub-thread here to seek community input on what would be a novel sanction (so far as I'm aware). --Hammersoft (talk) 13:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hammersoft's block is well within the range of reasonable admin actions available to him; indeed, before the block, Mathsci received more advice on how to avoid a block than many might have received—or expected. And yet. Someone is clearly at fault in that equation; it is not the administrator. ——Serial 18:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin go to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Australian_Christian_College_-_Singleton_Crest.png&action=delete to delete the page?

I am asking here because simply visiting File:Australian Christian College - Singleton Crest.png does not work as expected (you won't even see the CSD G6 template I just added there) because it also exists on Commons. Going straight to the deletion page will probably work. See File page exists locally on enwiki but only Commons content is shown and no edit link is available on Phabricator for details. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done by Fastily * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Jazz, for what it's worth, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Australian_Christian_College_-_Singleton_Crest.png&redirect=no seems to work for me. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 03:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]