Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Can someone please remove the name of the suspect from

I'm looking for it, can you give me a diff? Valereee (talk) 02:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, Special:Diff/1129185740 -Not added, so much as it's part of the hyperlink for sources added. Think FireFangled removed from live article. Slywriter (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should the name of the suspect not be removed entirely from the history if the suspect is not otherwise famous, nor has the suspect been convicted? --Jax 0677 (talk) 10:23, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So it's just that the name is being used as part of the hyperlink so that it's visible if you hover over the link and then check the URL? I don't think that's a blp vio. Clicking on the link takes you to the source. Valereee (talk) 12:45, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - Would this not defeat the purpose of concealing the identity of the suspect per
  WP:BLPCRIME? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:04, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Well, for me, we don't conceal it. We don't try to make sure the letters that form the name appear nowhere in Wikipedia including in URLs for sources. We just don't include it in the article, and we remove it if we see it. Possibly revdel'ing, although I kind of feel like that's not usually necessary unless there's been something egregious added along with the name.

  IMO we don't need to avoid using sources that use a suspect's name in a headline, which often means it's part of the URL. We just don't identify them ourselves in the article without a conviction. But if you think that's too lax an interpretation, maybe discuss at BLPN? Valereee (talk) 14:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply - I have started a discussion about this at
    WP:BLPN. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Hello. I was banned from en.wp back in the summer of 2020 ( § ) after an ill-conceived tussle with El C about a temporary block from the Edward Colston page. At the time, it was suggested I come back in six months. When I did, I didn't stick out my appeal until the end. Since then, I've waited about two years to ask again, to be sure that any trace of annoyance had disappeared, at least on my end.

In the time I've been away, I've made roughly 5000 contributions to non-en.wp wmf projects:

• 2500 Commons (including about 400 photos)
• 1500 fr.wp
• 650 wdata

I've also made minor edits to other projects ranging from haitian to latin.

The disruption to my en.wp contributions also gave me the chance to do some work on my own mediawiki for which I sincerely thank all those involved. I've also worked a bit on the French version of one of the last en.wp articles I created before I left. It's about the Gère river. (fr | en)

It will probably come up that I frequent WPO. Since joining over there in Dec. 2016, I've never to my knowledge caused any serious problems, nor have I ever been thrown out, which suggests I may not be such a bad egg as all that. Here and there things I've said there or that have happened to me have led to changes at en.wp (in articles, policy) or have caused an occasional ripple.

I would say that what I've learned is that things on wiki go fast. Too fast. What starts out at as a minor thing can quickly be escalated into something that wastes a lot of time and leads to disrupted work. Sometimes, as I mentioned above, disruption can be productive, but most of the time it isn't, and it's better to always strive to deescalate. I'm not here to test boundaries. I know I can't edit GMOs, Am-Pol or WP:AE. Best practice will be to keep away from those who might tend to rile me up. I do think that the past two years of on-wiki production at data, commons, fr.wp show that I'm able to colloborate, as well as contribute.

The immediate impetus to this request was a request for file-mover tools at Commons, during which my en.wp ban was brought up as a reason to be circumspect. So, it seemed to me like perhaps the time has come to resolve this.

How about we get out the calumet and agree to peacefully co-exist? :)

SashiRolls (talk) 14:12, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from c:Special:PermaLink/719472438 per utrs:67199 — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:07, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• First! 👍 P.S. I think I was first in the last appeal, too. But I can't immediately find it. Whatever I said then, though, still. El_C 01:48, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Special:PermaLink/1000836596#Ban_removal_request_of_SashiRolls. 97.120.124.88 (talk) 08:29, 25 December 2022 (UTC) Fixed link, pretty sure this is where it should be pointing. Primefac (talk) 13:56, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Is everyone else seeing that red gg+ button in the mobile thingy? It takes you to your notifications for some reason! El_C 21:58, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You seem to be referring to the notifications icon. Everyone logged in on mobile should see it and should go to their notifications when they click on it, as has been the case for ?~8 years. However not everyone will have 99+ "unread" notifications so their number will vary. The colour will also vary depending on whether the mobile site considers there are new notifications, somewhat akin to the desktop site but their newness is handled different. Nil Einne (talk) 23:23, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hm. I find myself looking at [30] in an inability to personally desire the described person's return to a community I'm a part of. A request for an "agree[ment] to peacefully co-exist" sounds as if the community had denied this opportunity to you. That's probably not correct. They threw you out because you weren't able to do so. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:48, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I find it concerning that the request doesn't contain a single hint of acceptance of responsibility for any behavior that led to the ban. Schazjmd (talk) 18:06, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply to @Schazjmd:: some expansions on text included in my appeal with more straightforwardly mea culpa formulations

  ill-conceived tussle

  I shouldn't have done it.

  things on wiki go fast. Too fast.

  I should have known that, recognized my limitations, and acted with more kindness. I apologize.

  I know I can't edit XYZ

  I had problems there before, so I won't be going back.

  keep away from those who might rile me up

  I can be riled up. This is one of my limitations. I am here on the projects to build an encyclopedia and must not let myself get distracted by that limitation.

  it's better to strive to deescalate

  I shouldn't have escalated with El Commandante, he's a good egg. Or with anyone else, whether big-, middle-, mixed-, or little-endian. I will strive, again, for kindness and calm.

  I am able to collaborate.

  I gave some people reason to wonder about this.

  Revisiting the specific disputes and the snark that, in part, got me thrown out, or the modifications to policy that resulted from it, strikes me as being mostly a bad idea. Other than my sincere apologies to anyone I offended and the analysis of my errors above, I don't know what good resassing the past will do. Except to remind me, I guess, that I shouldn't be snarky.

  Wiki moves fast. Being

  bold in a land full of complicated templates means that things break when you forget a pipe, a field, a tilda, a closing </spanner>, or put a semi-colon where the parser expected a colon

  . You can usually fix things with patience though.

  Proposal: 3-month review at AN, renewable. I would accept having a parole officer. If anyone is willing to keep an eye on me, I hereby promise you it will be very boring as far as PvP-drama goes.

  SashiRolls (talk) 22:17, 25 December 2022 (UTC) Copied from c:Special:PermaLink/719762216 — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure how big of a requirement 'accepting responsibility' is. The only thing that's required is that problematic behaviour not repeat. People aren't really required to drop their pride and accept wrongdoing, or even to honestly feel that they acted improperly; they only need to convince that the same behaviour won't resume. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You raise an interesting point. Strictly speaking, that's true, in that future conduct is, indeed, what matters. As I see it, this isn't about policing thought, but rather it's about the confidence that the community can have in the request. It's all too easy to promise that one will stay away from trouble, so it becomes important for the community to have some insight into how credible such promises are. When the unban request contains a well thought out acknowledgement of what the past concerns were, that enhances confidence. But when, as I believe is the case here, the request seems to deflect any suggestion of personal responsibility (and this has been a pattern over numerous previous appeals by this user), then it becomes reasonable for editors to be skeptical. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a really good point. Part of an appeal is demonstrating there is no longer a

  WP:PREVENTATIVE need for the sanction. Deflecting, not acknowledging, etc. behavior issues that led to the ban, is usually an indication that preventative sanctions are still needed for the future. It's not a matter of penance with your hat in hand begging for mercy, etc. KoA (talk) 22:43, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  ProcrastinatingReader says above: People aren't really required to drop their pride and accept wrongdoing, or even to honestly feel that they acted improperly; they only need to convince that the same behaviour won't resume

  I agree wit this and also with what Tryptofish says in reply: Strictly speaking, that's true, in that future conduct is, indeed, what matters.

  The only thing we need to determine here, as a community, is whether we think SashiRolls will act like this again, within any stone's throw of reasonable likelihood. Bans aren't punitive, yada yada. I think this person has waited a long enough time, in proportion to the initial infraction, that we can be reasonable sure they won't disrupt the project again. And all we risk is coming back here to reinstate a ban.

  To help guarantee that, I agree with GizzyCatBella on Conditional Support with a 1-way IBAN with Volunteer Marek and a TBAN from Russia and Eastern Europe (including Poland). These particular sub-sanctions can be revisited in time, when and if the user shows themselves capable of behaving appropriately on wiki. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Obviously, I appreciate that you agree with what I said, but I've been thinking about it, and I want to clarify what I meant, because the way that you quoted me gives my quote a meaning slightly different than what I intended. I'm not looking for policing thought, as I said, but in evaluating what to expect from future conduct, I believe it's entirely fair to look at how an appeal is framed. And the opening appeal strikes me as being like I'm really not such a bad person, and I hope that WP will realize that now. Subsequent promises have been worded much better, but, after so many prior bans and appeals, it feels to me like this has been coached. In the end, it looks to me like editors who support the appeal are persuaded by the work on other projects and editors who oppose are persuaded by the long history of repeated harassment and sanction violations, and someone with a paygrade higher than mine will have to figure out what the consensus is. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. As someone who was frequently the target of unpleasantness from this user, I feel very strongly that this is not something where the community should give the benefit of the doubt and give another chance, but instead it is something where it is entirely the responsibility of the user to demonstrate, without coaching, that they truly understand their own responsibility for the ban and that they have a clear idea of how to become a net positive. This is all the more important because this was made very, very clear by the community in all of the previous unban requests. What I see above is, instead, something like I'm really not so bad and I hope that WP will agree with me about that. That's not OK. (Also, I look at WPO from time to time, and what I see there is this user posting stuff that's just kind of strange, and the other WPO people ignoring it and talking around it. When you get to the point where WPO people treat you with
  WP:DENY, it's time to look for another hobby.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Point of information. (Sashi, I see you still don't have talk page access here, but I assume you're watching here and that if you respond on Commons or Meta or some other place, someone with more gravitas than I will copy it over.) The disputes that led to your being banned were off my radar or before my time. I'm doubly ill-equipped to express an opinion since despite defensive Latin and adequate French, I frequently can't follow what you post at WO, and just had to look up calumet. I quite understand that you're more concerned these days with editing at Commons and (ugh) Wikidata, and that may continue to be the case even if your ban here is vacated; I note your statement above about avoiding problem areas and editors with whom you have had disputes; and I understand you're subject to various topic restrictions ... but I'd like to see what you say in response to a simple question: what kind of editing do you envisage doing here on en.wikipedia if the ban is ended? Yngvadottir (talk) 02:19, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I’ve restored talk page for the duration of the appeal, so they can answer your (and others’) questions. Floquenbeam (talk) 03:13, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply to @Yngvadottir:

  Hi again! First off, happy Yule tidings!

  You are right to assume that I would not be very likely to abandon fr.wp, commons, and data to become an exclusive en.wp editor. One of the things I most appreciated about this time while blocked is that it convinced me to dare to edit fr.wp (French is not my native language.) I've found people to be very helpful and forgiving over there concerning gender mistakes and grammar matters.

  The coverage in English Wikipedia of the area where I live is not very good. I talked about this a bit over at WPO, mentioning some problems with Anne-Sophie Pic's bio over here. They got fixed. (Thanks, again!)

  Chances are very good that I will find pages to improve about French cities, mountains, regions, and river valleys (the Gère valley and the Rhône valley in particular). I see that a few of my photos were added to the Vienne page while I was gone, for example. There being no page for the ViaRhôna at all I could probably create one... :)

  As a jazz fan, I may occasionally also be able to translate information about local artists, e.g. Camille Bertault or Naïssam Jalal.

  If I get particularly ambitious I could translate some of the truly excellent work Zythème has done describing Rabelais' Book Four and its critical reception. (no page on en.wp)

  In short, there is no shortage of gaps in the English-language encyclopedia's coverage of Francophone letters, geography, and culture. I believe this would probably be my primary mission, with music and linguistics as likely other areas of interest. (I wrote a short article about Pierre Vernet, for example, before leaving en.wp. I see that the English article on en:Antoine Culioli could use some significant work.)

  And you know, as an active reader, things are always coming up. One of my favorite recent reads was John McWhorter's ("English is not normal"). Maybe there's something of value to pull out of such articles.

  Outside of the high-pressure topics that Iridescent pointed out at the time I'd been working on, I had little trouble. Even on some pages where potential for heated disagreement was high (e.g. Yellow vests movement, Algerian / Haitian / Sudanese protests) I luckily managed not to have too many problems at all. So, really as long as I stay away from AmPol and GMO, I think it's pretty likely there shouldn't be any problems... that said, I'll probably avoid much of anything likely to stir up great passion.

  This is a first look at your question. I also like smoothing translations, working on page layout, cleaning up references, and trying to find new ones when needed, e.g. one quick example --> Ken Burns does not even mention Theo Croker, much less source the entire first en.wp paragraph of his early life. These are the sorts of things I find on a regular basis. I could fix some of them (though not all of them) if unbanned.

  — SashiRolls (talk) 04:35, 26 December 2022 (UTC) Copied from c:Special:PermaLink/719815580 — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:06, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - It's no secret I think the ban was a mistake, but in any case, Sashi's productive contribs to other projects for years demonstrates the ban is no longer preventing anything except productive contribs. Levivich (talk) 06:02, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - So first let me say that I have stayed out of all the Sashi blocks, unblock requests, reblocks, appeals, reappears, denials of appeals, provisional unblocking, unprovisional block reinstatements and what have you. Last I recall interacting with them was when they were, I think, in between their indef blocks, and it seems they sought me out to, um, “edit alongside me”. It was not a constructive experience. Other than that, since their last blockin’ I guess they were busy at other wikis but I don’t follow those so can’t comment. I have however been engaged by Sashi over at Wikipediocracy, one may even say, “relentlessly”. If I comment there, or if someone comments about me there or even if someone writes a word that starts with a “V” on something completely unrelated there, Sashi is sure to show up there and post their latest insights and gleaned revelations they’ve acquired about my person. Usually something somewhere between “pointlessly petty” to “aggressively nasty”, all with the usual side of esoteric bizzarness. To put it transparently and curtly - judging by their behavior THERE, there’s no way in hell they’ve “reformed” or are ready to come back to editing HERE. Volunteer Marek 06:28, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I opposed the ban, partly because I think malice was being attributed where I'm sure there wasn't any. SashiRolls is, in my view, someone who has been afflicted with too much enthusiasm and too little patience in subject areas that pushed his buttons. If he can keep away from such topics, then I think the project could welcome back a positive contributor here. The edits to other projects while banned here convince me that can happen. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose from my oppose rationale from the last appeal: SashiRolls was unblocked in November 2018, with "considerable skepticism of unblocking" and subsequently racked up five blocks in less than two years (two of which were undone by the blocking admin), plus four other sanctions, until the ban was reimposed in June 2020. It's clear that unblock was a mistake which wasted plenty of time from constructive editors.. There's a high chance the ban would have to be reimposed if it was lifted. Giving yet another last chance to banned editors is not an effective use of editor time. Hut 8.5 11:47, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose (on hold see below) - per Hut 8.5. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:29, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @SashiRolls You wrote --> Best practice will be to keep away from those who might tend to rile me up. Who are those? - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  (@SashiRolls - please respond on your talk page) - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:09, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I would be steering well-wide of anything even remotely to do with the war in Ukraine, in addition to the other Arbitration Enforcement areas alluded to above (I forget the acronyms for them all, but in general I'm not interested...). I did not come here with a calumet to battle or to say mean things about people. I came because I see en.wp's coverage of the francophone world could use work. Best to you GCB, --

  ☖ 19:46, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  [31] - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:19, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional Support - only under the condition of additional one-way IBAN with Volunteer_Marek (see --> [32]) and a Topic Ban from editing articles related to Russia and Eastern Europe (including Poland). (If all these conditions aren't met, then consider my voice as Oppose) - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Lev and Boing. Their edits would be closely watched and I’m sure someone would report any potential issues quickly (though I don’t expect there would be any). Mr Ernie (talk) 18:22, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, with a caveat. I had a couple of interactions with SashiRolls in the past, and they were not so negative. That was a fair ban in the past, and I do not see what has changed based on the comments and responses by SashiRolls. Perhaps she/he could be unbanned if one of the admins takes a responsibility of observing their future editing and re-blocking SashiRolls again at the first sign of trouble. However, after looking at the very long block record of SashiRolls, it seems such approach had already been tried, so that the chances of success are slim. Based on their comments, SashiRolls is planning to voluntarily stay away from a number of different widely defined subjects and a number of contributors (an equivalent to multiple topic bans and interaction bans). Will it work in practice? If SashiRolls is going to be unbanned, the lists of such topics and contributors should be explicitly defined. This all seem to be problematic. My very best wishes (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is something for admins to decide because they will be responsible for enforcement. According to Yngvadottir (see below) there are 4 active topic/interaction bans for SashiRolls. If admins think this will not ensure waste of time and drama in the future, then yes, let's unban. My very best wishes (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The in practice comments are really spot on here for unban considerations. Those are some wide topic ban areas, so if they cross the line there again or start it up in a new topic, how much sniping and denials are editors who try to bring the issues up going to have to deal with? How would that past problem be alleviated? I don't know of a good answer considering past history where it's likely for someone to just paint editors either being pursued by SR or trying to deal with problems as just out to get SR. That's really the can of worms I'm worried about. KoA (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, the ability of SashiRolls to stir conflict, even between admins, is definitely a factor here. My very best wishes (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Levivich and Boing!. François Robere (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an aside, I find it somewhat disingenuous for one to object to the appeal on the grounds of posts made to WPO, when elsewhere they claimed it as a "safe space", writing that "[the] whole point of WPO is that you can say things plainly and directly without genuflecting to the gods of hypocrisy the way you do on Wiki".[33] François Robere (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• That block log is pretty terrible; it's not that hard to not rack up a lot of blocks, or heck, to not rack up any blocks. It's fair to assume you probably didn't have the most enjoyable editing experience here? So a blunt and genuine question: why do you still want to participate here, verses just finding another hobby? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  A number of the early blocks are related to a bad actor Sashi and others like me tangled with, who turned out to be a exceptionally skilled former admin socking to avoid a topic ban. These blocks were frequently brought up in later cases and should be considered in the context. If you set the clean slate post the Cirt stuff I don’t think a site ban would ever have been considered. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  In fairness, the point about needing to look past Cirt is a very valid one. For easy access, here is a link to that block log: [34]. The unblock on November 5, 2018, is the unblock resulting from recognizing the Cirt problem. So everything after that, from June 4, 2019 onward, is really what we should consider relevant to the present discussion. And it's still pretty awful, even after making that correction. Again and again, personal attacks, battleground, harassment. Not trivial stuff, and not isolated instances. And violating existing restrictions ([35]). Consider what that means: where some editors argue here that we should unban while setting restrictions, past experience demonstrates a tendency to break those promises. I wasn't exaggerating when I talked (below) about a time-sink. There needs to be a lot stronger case than saying that one opposed the ban in the last discussion, or it's just too much enthusiasm, or at least there's been no socking, or this is a good time to try

  WP:ROPE because there will be lots of eyes on him. We are ridiculously beyond the point where the WP:ROPE ran out. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Oppose. As others have mentioned, their appeal is filled with
  WP:NOTTHEM language, which is a pretty strong indication they're going to continue the tendentious behavior that got them banned and continue the time sink they created for the community when they were here. We also definitely can't give weight comments calling a ban to correctly prevent community-wide disruption a "mistake" either. One needs only to look at their block log and especially the last straw ban proposal by TonyBallioni [36] and the close by MastCell
  there. That attitude is just a repeat of what I remember dealing with back when they were here.

Volunteer Marek also makes a good point on relentlessness. SR would often pursue editors on-wiki, and I among others ended up having to try to cleanup major disruptions in the GMO topics because of SR doing that. When folks mention SR's off-wiki activities after the ban especially I'll echo Volunteer Marek that SR was often pursuing editors off-wiki that they had hounded on-wiki. This appeal falls pretty flat after seeing that. The trouble with the relentlessness that I'm seeing revived here again is targets of SR were often hounded and victim-blamed/gaslighted by SR or others. That often complicated cleaning up the disruption or just simply getting action on sanctions because you'd often have people rushing to say it was SR's target that was causing the problems.

Mix that with NOTTHEM comments, they were just getting "riled" up, etc. like I'm seeing in this appeal and we have a recipe for being right back to the situation we were in before the ban. For the amount of disruption they were the center of, the bar for an unban is much higher a general lack of acknowledgement appeal like this. Too much of a time-sink for the community with this apparent attitude continuing. KoA (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Levivich, Boing! and Mr. Ernie. I haven't followed the off-Wiki drama so I won't evaluate that. Opposers fail to convince. I do feel that SR has followed the procedure that leads to reconsideration of an unban. SR obviously knows they are going to be watched, and if SR keeps it clean, the 'pedia wins, and if not, gets rebanned. Simple. Jusdafax (talk) 23:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For background, a frequent problem at admin boards often were editors such as Jusdafax, Mr. Ernie, and Levivich jumping in to defend SR regardless of the disruption SR caused. The AE where we had to modify SR's GMO ban is a good example of that.[37] Generally you'll see various forms of denial there claiming no disruption by SR despite admins still determining the sanction was needed (and tweaked to clearer language). Similar things happened at SR's site ban thread too despite plenty of evidence.[38] There's also usually bits where those of us who were hounded due to SR's actions were portrayed as just out to get Sashirolls peppered in some of those discussions too.

Denials of SR's behavior have been a recurring issue from vocal minorities, so for those who are entirely uninvolved, I do advise reading the closes, evidence, blocks, etc. where simple denials don't really match up with reality. Those of us who were directly affected by SR's antics had to deal with a lot from SR themselves, but also their supporters muddying the waters or outright lashing out when we tried to get help. While I personally shouldn't have to deal with Sashirolls much due to their topic bans if they came back, I sure wouldn't wish others having to go through what myself or others did. Just punting the buck along to a new topic each time is in part why the community decided on the site ban instead, and crafting an appeal for that needs something pretty substantive rather than merely following unbanning procedure. KoA (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am continually surprised that people can hold grudges like this over such petty reasons for so long. I wondered why you came after me at an unrelated AE case a few weeks ago when I didn’t even recognize your name or know we had interacted, but now I understand. The topic bans should handle the areas where there were concerns as you acknowledge so why not let’s give that a try on this volunteer project? Mr Ernie (talk) 03:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the kind of gaslighting multiple editors had to deal with, and you've been repeatedly cautioned about hounding editors like at that AE you mention. Yes, I noticed your behavior issues during the Sashirolls stuff and at that AE, but trying to claim anyone who notices behavior issues from you or others as just having a "grudge" is a tired old

WP:BATTLEGROUND

tactic. That just disrupts admin boards.

With that, the sniping at those who tried to deal with Sashirolls and related behavior issues clearly hasn't gone away. That is why it's being brought up because it contributed to the issues resulting in SR's ban and is yet another hurdle to navigate in a potential unban. The whole point above was that topic bans didn't help the behavior since it just moved to whatever topic SR moved on to, and whoever got stuck dealing with it had harassment and wikilawyering to deal with. The serious question to answer is why should we burden other parts of the community (yet again) with that likely scenario even in a

WP:ROPE situation? There needs to be really good justification rather than talking past it that we've seen from SR's appeal so far. There's a lot of red flag language in that regard. KoA (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Accusing editors of gaslighting and lying about sanctions they’ve never received is poor form at the admin boards. But par for the course I suppose. I don’t expect anyone to defend me, but maybe this type of behavior will color uninvolved reviewers perspectives on this issue. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:28, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I trust that uninvolved reviewers will follow the evidence (diffs and links) in order to gain a perspective, per Dorothy Gambrell, perhaps 🐈. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:44, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. We even needed to craft a new

WP:AE for a time for hounding/aspersions and that it was a concern again. They were already aware of their past sanction though (and they even referenced that AE I just linked despite the flourish above

), so it's really odd that they go on a tangent about an easily verifiable thing being a lie here when it wasn't even in my initial comment. That's a confusing tangent.

My focus was on the links I gave in my main reply above on interactions related to Sashirolls at admin boards with editors repeatedly dismissing SR's issues or things like we're seeing here now accusing others of grudges. There is a

WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality that seems to follow SR, in part because of their own actions, but also what we see playing out here from other editors. It just makes an unban appeal even trickier to navigate and why some of us who had to deal with SR are so cautious. KoA (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

It had nothing to do with hounding. Please stop lying. You are the only one who has mentioned hounding, and now you just fait accompli refer to it as that. When you are wrong about something, referring back to it doesn’t make it any more right. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I want to respond to that point about supposedly holding petty grudges. For me, this is no more about holding a grudge, than it is about being an enabler when editors who have long memories about past disputes over GMOs or AmPol come here to support the request on behalf of someone they perceive as having been on their "team". And an awfully high percentage of the editors who have commented here fit that description. So we can go back and forth calling one another grudge-holders or enablers, or we can look at what would be in the best interests of this project. And there's nothing petty about wanting to spare the project the highly predictable time-sink that would result from bringing back someone who has long been a time-sink, and has never, even at their best, been a particularly helpful contributor. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I was against the ban when it was first imposed and I'm still against it now.
  LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support. I have read the statements above by editors who don't trust SashiRolls because they have been hurt in the past. I cannot judge anything SashiRolls has written in the non-public areas of Wikipediocracy, because I'm not a member there, so I hope I'm not slighting the concerns of
  WP:ROPE situation, with many eyes on SashiRolls' editing. Perhaps, in addition to the topic bans, the concerns of some of those in opposition could be allayed by addition of some more IBans? Volunteer_Marek, for example? And I would suggest the IBan with Tryptofish should be made 2-way, if it isn't, in order to simplify matters. Yngvadottir (talk) 10:55, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

A topic ban from Eastern European topics, including Russia, would also be a minimum since I’m not the only one they’ve “followed around” in that topic area. Volunteer Marek 18:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I would suggest the IBan with Tryptofish should be made 2-way, if it isn't, in order to simplify matters. One thing we absolutely should not be doing is re-harassing one of SR's old targets from past disputes by doing that, especially since the original 2-way I-ban on appeal was considered a throwing the baby out with the bathwater situation and very uncontroversially changed to 1-way.[40] KoA (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KoA just beat me to saying what I was going to say, thanks. Yngvadottir, if you're going to say stuff like that about me, please get your facts straight first. There's nothing close to a subject of some disagreement and/or change about it. I suggest that anyone who wants to know what actually happened go to the link that KoA just gave, and open the collapsed AE section to see more than just the closing statement in the header. You will see that the original 2-way version was explicitly designated as having been "no-fault" with respect to me, and you can read for yourselves the admin discussion by

WP:2WRONGS diversions that are being offered again here in this discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Fair enough, Tryptofish; in researching the situation, I missed that discussion. Some of your talk above of editors ... jumping in to defend SR and of vocal minorities strikes me as unpleasant, but you're entirely right, I am not aware of the extent of the disruption SashiRolls has caused in the past, or of the suffering you and others are referring to. Volunteer Marek, I think a lot of editors are also at a similar disadvantage to me in judging whether SashiRolls might be disruptive in the area of Eastern Europe / Russia, since you appear to be basing that judgement on non-public forum posts? I haven't seen anyone mention that as a problematic area in the previous discussions? But then again, there's a new war this year. However, it appears to me that between their pledge to stay away from editors who "rile them up", and the innocuous topics they say they forsee editing here (it seems that apart from my error about the basis of the IBan, I've got it right that those are the 4 in force?), new restrictions shouldn't be necessary. I find myself persuaded they will be a net positive if unbanned. But I admit that's partly because I find the argument that they never were to be exaggerated; respected editors at the banning discussion, when the dispute was hot, made that point. More importantly, it's now two and a half years later; people can change; their appeal is calmly couched and lists good contributions on multiple other projects; they appear to have sensible plans for proceeding (including not being fixated on this particular project). Yngvadottir (talk) 04:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. However, the "unpleasant" comments that you now attribute to me are not things that I ever said. It was another editor, not me. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, one thing that I did say is relevant to the argument about not needing new restrictions. I linked above to blocks for violating existing individual restrictions ([41], also [42]), and I think that history gives pause to being confident about accepting promises on face value. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - If there's been no socking, during the ban. GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral, with a proviso - As one of their victims, I won't !vote. But, if they are unblocked, they should be TBanned from all DS articles and all admin boards. A promise has little meaning. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unban. Even though I'm not familiar with the history of the case, I am confident that a person with this kind of block log is not going to return as a collegial and productive editor. Sandstein 17:11, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  🤦🏼‍♂️ Levivich (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - last chance saloon, and beware of controversial areas. starship.paint (exalt) 13:16, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose guys, this isn't a second chance request. SashiRolls has had multiple chances throughout their involvement on the English Wikipedia, and every time it comes back to one thing: they view every disagreement as a battleground, make up enemies in their head, and relentlessly focus on showing how their enemies are out to get them. Then when people get tired of having to deal with that and point out the problems, they claim it is evidence that what they have been saying is correct, without pausing to consider if whether the objections to their behaviour might have some grounding in facts.
  If we unblock them, there will be another dispute. That dispute will follow just like all the others had. And we won't be able to do anything about it because we just unbanned them and an unban is a get out of jail free card where no admin is willing to take any action against you for 3-6 months. I'm around a lot less these days, so this isn't anything personal against SashiRolls or something that I think will have that huge an impact on me. But I do absolutely think an unban would be a firm net negative to the project and would increase the amount of disruption that admins who work in controversial areas have to deal with. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose My thought in supporting or opposing lifting the ban is simple: Do I feel like we will be right back here again in a relative short period of time. In this case, I do. SR has shown that they are going to go bull in a china shop to get their way. The ban WAS the last chance, and if we are back to this again, are we going to be arguing this all over? RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Levivich's current (see above) and previous comments: "the incivility from Sashi is narrowly focused at very few people, who frankly aren't blameless themselves. I would support two way IBANs all around, but not a site ban". This would have made much more sense then...it makes even more sense now. The site ban should be lifted, but all other restrictions should remain.

Also of note: the comments about "a person with this kind of block log" seem unnecessary. If you read, most of the recent ones are blocks and unblocks to allow for appeals/ArbCom proceedings. If you feel that something in particular is a problem, please specify. I'd much rather place trust in someone with 30 traffic tickets in 40 years of driving than a one-time murderer (even though the former's "rap sheet" is longer). Buffs (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, it's getting pretty old to keep hearing that those of us who have been harassed by SR are the ones at fault. And there are a ton of blocks (post-Cirt) that were not mere adjustments for appeals, but were for personal attacks, battleground conduct, harassment, and violation of existing individual restrictions. I'd say that that's something in particular that's a problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then please point it out vice a vague claim. Buffs (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've already provided that here: [43], [44]. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I never said you were to blame for SR's block. I stated that you weren't blameless regarding your own actions. Each one stands on its own. We will agree to disagree here. Best of luck in the future. Buffs (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What?? If you think that I'm "not blameless for my own actions", then start a separate section about it, and provide diffs. But you are just moving the goalposts and playing

saying that the people he harassed are themselves bad actors. Victim-blaming. Rinse and repeat. Again and again. And heaven forbid that anyone point out that it's victim-blaming. Because that's met with the crying of schoolyard bullies who got punched back by the bullied. Shame on Wikipedia if this appeal is granted. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• (
  WP:ASPERSIONS about Trpytofish "not being blameless". In reality, we had an AE awhile back related to the interaction of SR and Trpytofish where admins were in agreement with statements such as no administrator has found serious or repeated fault with Tryptofish's behavior among others.[45] If anything, those claiming Trpytofish was at fault were politely chastised for not having any real evidence at that AE. That's how aspersions like Buffs is making now become commonly so disruptive in Sashiroll topics. KoA (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @

  WP:CIVIL

  , et al throughout the timeframe in question. You (and others) have unnecessarily raised the temperature. If you want to take that as victim-blaming/victim-shaming/personal attack/etc, that's on you. The point is that you can do better, not that you "caused" SR to behave in the manner he did or are the "ones at fault". I am not asking for sanctions on you or anyone else opposed to SR's return, but don't confuse that with saying your actions are "above reproach". If you are "punching back" then you too are "fighting" when you can choose to walk away. To be fair, I too have made snide or unnecessary remarks that have raised the temperature as well here on WP, but that doesn't mean that it excuses the stalking that's happened to me (I've literally been doxxed and accused of murdering another user).

  That, however, is completely separate from my assessment of SR. The only reason I bring it up is because that temperature has been raised on both sides and the actions need to be seen within that context. That doesn't mean "you deserved it", merely that I see it within a larger context of events, not in complete isolation. If you cannot separate these two assessments, I can't help you. Likewise, you've responded 21 times in this thread alone...time to let it go and let the admins determine what needs to be done. Buffs (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I've never claimed to be perfect. If in fact, we agree that SR's conduct should be evaluated on its own, and cannot be explained as having been caused by the actions of other editors, then that's something we can agree on. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm ambivalent. On the one hand, indefinite doesn't mean permanent and SashiRolls has been doing verifiably good work on other projects. On the other hand, he was given a "last chance" in his 2018 unblock and after two years of issues wound up with this ban. On balance, I don't see myself supporting, but if the community wants to give a "last last chance" given his work on Commons, I wouldn't be strongly opposed, though I agree with MastCell and TonyBallioni that prior history isn't promising. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:11, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• While I have no opinion about Sashi's request at this time, having read this thread I do have an observation and a thought. My observation is that we don't have good ways of assigning responsibility in a conflict. We essentially end up assigning it as 50/50 or 100/0. If it's really say 60/40 a 50/50 outcome isn't too bad. But sometimes it seems like when it's lopsided - say 90/10 or 95/5 - we're just as likely to default to 50/50 as 100/0, if not formally at least in comments. I don't know what there is to do about that but our lack of nuance in these discussions is something I see reading through comments here and see as the cause of some of the rancor that has happened. My thought is for people with Sashi's general profile, if rather than a straight unblock if something more akin to the unblock ArbCom did with Lightbreather might leave people feeling better. This would also address the general point Tony made above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. SashiRolls has made two further replies that they've asked to be copied over here. User talk:SashiRolls#Reply #3 and User talk:SashiRolls#Reply #4. They've both received responses there, but I'm drawing attention to them here as was intended. I don't feel comfortable copying them over myself. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per
  Iridescent 05:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  (adding) It seems fair to address

  Iridescent 06:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I'm past being tired of this discussion, and I'm only replying because you addressed me directly. I don't buy your reasoning, because SR can participate here, by posting the appeal request and by posting replies to comments here, via their talk page. I've never argued that they also would need to demonstrate good editing in mainspace here while blocked, as that would be a ridiculous expectation. And if you are referring to what I said about WPO, I said it only in response to what SR had said about it in the opening appeal. I appreciate, of course, trying to address what I said, but let's please deal with what I actually said. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry if I wasn't clear, by someone who's unable to participate here can't demonstrate changed behavior I wasn't referring to this discussion or his own talkpage; I meant that SashiRolls can't participate on Wikipedia in general, to demonstrate that they can get along with people without arguing. Anyone can make promises, but whether or not someone has actually changed their behavior is something that can only be tested in a live environment. (Somewhere like Commons doesn't really translate, as their different culture means that unless one consciously goes looking for trouble it's actually fairly difficult to have an argument there. I have upwards of 50,000 edits there, and I don't believe I've even been involved in so much as a minor disagreement.) ‑ 

  Iridescent 20:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Thanks for that. You also raise a good point about Commons (that I suspect is also applicable to WikiData). Consequently, a lot of this discussion boils down to how to balance the edit history at the French Wikipedia with the history here. (And I've already made clear how I would balance that.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You know, this comment chain reminded me that we have seen SR's behavior a bit here already through their talk page. In the process of this appeal, they've already been trying to get Volunteer Marek sanctioned with an interaction ban in

  WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior not noticed by those unfamiliar with SR's past issues unfortuantely. KoA (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Hesitant support per Boing, Levivich and Iridescent. SR is going to be on a very short leash, and their words suggest they know it. I note that there's a few folks I respect opposing this, but I'm quite unimpressed with the comments others have made here about people whose conduct isn't under discussion. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• After the initial ban, SR went over to WO to blow off steam. In that [apparently now-deleted] message, he highlighted a few people's opinions in particular, including making an off-hand comment about my job. It wasn't outing, to be clear, wasn't an attack, and didn't seem intended to be harmful, but it did illustrate one of the reasons I supported the ban in the first place. In the original block proposal, I wrote that that "they seem to have a particular kind of consistent battleground style characterized not by outright name calling or direct accusations of bad faith, but by pervasive winkyfaced insinuation, subtle personalization, and conspiratorial musing. It makes it harder to point to one or two diffs to hold up as especially egregious, but I find the effect much more damaging (and even chilling) than a more typical battleground approach".
  Now it's been a couple years, and in the absence of anything truly problematic to point to (I haven't seen anyone provide any evidence at all of problems with his contributions elsewhere) I'm not going to oppose this. While I'm also not quite supporting, I do think SR is a clever, well-read sort and has the potential to be able to improve a variety of topics constructively. The question is what will happen when he gets into disagreements. Even with a lot of scrutiny, we have a hard time dealing with battleground behavior when it doesn't involve crossing bright lines, so I suspect if this is successful, we'll see a lot more community time being spent here in the future. I hope I'm wrong. Maybe some sort of restriction on speculating about motives or something would help, but that'd probably just be a nightmare for everyone. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This illustrates very well why their behavior was hard to deal with at ANI, etc. in the past and still would be. In the event they did return, it wouldn't be quite so simple as many supports make it seem to be in terms of SR being watched closely.

So whenever this does get closed, I think the closer looking at what you said and seeing how whatever proposed remedy in an unban (if any) would alleviate the situation you describe would go a long way. I'm obviously opposed, but in the event of consensus for an unban, that would need to establish consensus for a pathway the community is at least somewhat comfortable with for return. I'd say there really isn't consensus if a good number of supports are looking at all these other additional restrictions (though very reasonable avenues being explored to try making it work) to add to the long existing list, but the burden is really on the supports to show an avenue that deals with the numerous legitimate issues we had with SR that resulted in a site ban rather than additional restrictions. KoA (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot about it Rhododendrites, but SR actually was subject to a personal comments restriction like you mention from 2019-2020.[47] Nightmare or not, it was deemed necessary back then. Yngvadottir, that's another one to add to your list of old sanctions or potential returning sanctions too as I don't think anyone has mentioned that one yet. KoA (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We've done this before on other users, and I've seen how those play out. I can safely say that a restriction on "speculating about motives" will lead to two things: 1. People rushing to report SR for every small violation or non-violation, and 2. People rushing to defend SR for every violation, period, because they feel the restriction by design is too draconic. I think any discussion of an unblock ought not include a condition that ArbCom had previously deemed unenforceable by nature. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of ArbCom saying they are unenforceable, and in my experience, they've been very effective in protecting the community for editors that just can't knock off battleground behavior. If anything, it's just a

WP:FOC policy enforcement sanction. Some editors need a bright line that forces them to only work on content and actively keep their nose clean. Draconian maybe for someone who just got short with someone one time, but not so much in extreme battleground cases that resulted in a site ban. I think I can speak for most of the more outspoken opposes here that most would rather be glad just to not even worry about SR if such as sanction was in place rather than rushing to report SR. Most are instead more concerned about burdening other parts of the community with repeats of SR's past behavior, and I haven't really seen anyone here at least out to get SR. KoA (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Oppose - I went back and reviewed the notice that ultimately ended in the indefinite ban.[48] I have very little faith than anything is going solve the problematic behavior. If an editor receives a "last chance" and squanders it then that that should be the end of it. I'm sure there are blocked editors worthy of reconsideration, but this isn't one of them. Nemov (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I said earlier today that I was tired of commenting in this thread, but seeing yet another unfounded attack on me as a cheap tactic to
  WP:DEFLECT from the real issues at hand, I'm going to say something more. The conduct of several editors here, defending SR, seems to me to violate the WMF's Code of Conduct, as indeed SR's own conduct has done in the past. I hope that this appeal is declined. But if it isn't, if the en-wiki community just falls back on let's-give-yet-another-second-chance, it might just be a subject ripe for Trust and Safety. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Tryptofish, regardless of how hurt you feel, that's a remark intended to chill discussion. Please don't dismiss your fellow editors' right to their own opinions and to seek to explore options. It causes me to respect your position less. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It also chills discussion when other editors needlessly cause hurt. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the unblock in 2018 was SR's last chance. They didn't participate effectively in the community at that point which is seen very clearly from the 4 discretionary sanctions and 4 blocks SR received in the year and a half they were in blocked in 2018-2020. The decision here is will SR be able to return to the community without causing further problems that will require admin intervention. Based on the history and that it's only a couple of years later, the answer to that is no. While this an example of my reasoning rather than the reason for it, as others have pointed out SR's comment in their unban request that How about we get out the calumet and agree to peacefully co-exist strongly suggests that this is not the case at this point and that SR seems to arguing that it wasn't their actions that caused the ban but the community, I dunno, looking for a fight. Turn of phrase or not this is something that SR put in their unban request, the thing that should convince the community that they understand the reason for the ban and that it is no longer necessary. See also TonyBallioni and RickinBaltimore's comments. Having said all of that I don't necessary think that SR fits into the 'never block' category but I think we're a few years off being in a position to welcome them back and that the unban request at that time needs to clearly demonstrate an understanding of the issues that lead to the ban and use that understanding to effectivley explain a commitment to not repeat the same behaviour or other behaviour that doesn't fit with our normal editorial processes and expectations. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry,

WP:CIVIL summed up—as evidence of looking for a fight. I've turned it over and over in my mind and I still just don't see ill will, and SashiRolls' statements in this appeal have been all about how they intend to avoid conflict if reinstated. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Because it implies that the community needs to do something different in order for Sashi to be able to be part of it, that is agreeing to peacefully co-exist rather than existing within the community. A siteban is a clear statement that the person being banned is not acting in a way that is compatible with the collaborative editing environment on this project. It's up to that person to demonstrate that that is now not the case and hence that the ban is no longer necessary. It shouldn't be a matter of asking or implying that the community needs to co-exist with them, you can be a part of the community or you can choose not to but the community's responsibility isn't to co-exist with someone who isn't upholding its expectations of conduct. This may not be Sashi's intention behind that statement and as I said that statement isn't the reason I'm opposing lifting the ban at this point. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of that interpretation of "co-exist" before. Levivich (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/request for uninvolved admin review of this entire request thread. - Wow! In my 15 years of editing here I can't say I have seen a more dedicated effort at outright hostility than that displayed by two editors here, one of whom called me out without pinging me, the other who has now actually threatened to take to Trust and Safety those !voting, like myself, for an unblock in this matter should SR be unblocked, in a patently chilling manner. The 40 plus combined posts these two have made here on this thread on the Administrator's Noticeboard, the major Wikipedia Admin noticeboard, call for a review, as I see it, by an uninvolved admin. Please, review this entire request thread, and if need be, take appropriate action. We are way over the line, as I see it. Thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 05:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Speaking as another unblock supporter, I don't interpret I hope that this appeal is declined. But if it isn't, if the en-wiki community just falls back on let's-give-yet-another-second-chance, it might just be a subject ripe for Trust and Safety as "threatening to take to T&S those voting for an unblock in this matter". I think what Tryptofish is trying to say (correct me if I'm wrong) is "The community clearly doesn't agree here so this needs a formal ruling from the WMF as to where the line should be drawn". Needless to say I disagree—I can't think of anything less likely to cool tempers than inviting the WMF to impose their own idiosyncratic definition of "appropriate conduct" onto English Wikipedia—but I don't believe the suggestion was either made in bad faith or intended to have any kind of chilling effect. (To reiterate, this whole thing looks to me like a completely routine

  Iridescent 06:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I don't think "chilling" is the apt word, but I also don't think the statement in question has the connotation of "the community clearly doesn't agree". It says if the community doesn't agree with a specific desired outcome, then a fourth outcome may be pursued. isaacl (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not really saying that this would be something to pursue if the community cannot agree, so much as it might be something to pursue if the community cannot get its act together. So Jusdafax seems to be formally calling for a review of my conduct, and KoA's. I pointed out earlier in this discussion that some editors have been coming here to defend SR because they see SR as having been on their "team" in previous content disputes. One of the biggest of those was GMOs. And don't for a minute underestimate Jusdafax's participation in that. If you go here and keep reading through to the section about Semitransgenic, you can see just where Jusdafax is coming from. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Enough time has elapsed that SashiRolls should be given another chance. Their contribution to other Wiki projects shows that they want to be part of the project, are aware of its rules and want to contribute. I note that three of the editors opposing unbanning have had content disputes with SashiRolls and were themselves indefinitely blocked and returned. I don't see why they should be allowed back and SashiRolls shouldn't. TFD (talk) 07:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Three mysteriously unnamed editors? This is exactly what I mean when I point to

  WP:2WRONGS. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Support - I echo a many of the same sentiments other supporters have expressed. Atsme 💬 📧 12:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is an open unblock request at User talk:Judication that includes a list of very detailed proposed edits relating to various Korean history projects. I'm concerned by the general "I will report to the front lines of a fringe history battleground" tenor of the edits, but on the chance that all of these proposed edits are in fact much-needed corrections to a pseudohistory quagmire, it would be good if someone with some familiarity with Goguryeo, Balhae, Gojoseon and Hanbok could take a look. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know Korean history. However, I have looked at the unblock request, and it looks to me like an attempt to confuse the jury (the Wikipedia community). I agree with User:Rosguill that a review by someone familiar with Korean history would be helpful. In my opinion, it need not be an admin. Only an admin can unblock, but an editor with a subject matter background can say that there is merit to the request, or, more likely, that there isn't merit to the request. I agree that the overall tone of the request is worrisome, and it should be read cautiously. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sock puppet of VeryGoodBoy by Bbb23. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this editor was blocked, but this is an unblock request.

Phil Bridger (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

much embarrassment, please ignore me -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:02, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if this is the wrong forum. A user on Twitter wants to look at the first and last versions of a deleted article and the last version of the article's talk page, to access some etymology info. What's the procedure for this? link to tweet thread --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthonyhcole: Which page? :) — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah np, I could put it up temporarily. Let me know which page it is/was. El_C 08:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. I'll get back to you. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What a mystery! Please ping me when you find out because I'm likely to not remember. El_C 12:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

El_C and TheresNoTime, the article name is Castleroid. Could you post it somewhere for a day or two please? Not sure which timezone the request is coming from. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored all deleted revisions (from 1st to last), which you can find in the revision history: here. HTH. El_C 01:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Just FYI I've also restored Talk:Castleroid per the above — feel free to delete it again when you delete the article ​ — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 01:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cool thx. No rush about re-deleting, either, as TheresYesTime (←see what I did there) — take a day, take a week, it's all good. El_C 02:04, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you (pl)! I'll ping you when she's finished with it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Content was copied from

1. 2006-02-20:
   Non-linear exploration is moved to Castleroid (Special:Diff/40430451) and rewritten (Special:Diff/40430623
   ). Text similarities to later versions can be seen.
2. 2006-05-04:
   1. Castleroid is rewritten (Special:Diff/51549144).
   2. Metroid-style game is created (Special:Diff/51552011) with copying from Castleroid (cross-page Special:Diff/51549144/51552011
      ).
3. 2006-06-14: Metroid-style game is merged into Metroidvania (Special:Diff/58571864, cross-page Special:Diff/57707656/58571864).
4. 2006-06-18: WP:Articles for deletion/Castleroid (2nd nomination) is closed as merge to Metroidvania. Castleroid is redirected (Special:Diff/59316636), but nothing is copied that day (Special:Diff/59216755/59317184).

I will make dummy edits and add {{

• BDD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bradv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Donald Albury (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Maxim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• Stewards are requested to remove the permission(s) noted from the following outgoing arbitrators, who did not elect to retain CheckUser or Oversight access, after 31 December 2022:

  CheckUser: BDD, Bradv, Maxim, Donald Albury

  Oversight: BDD, Bradv, Maxim, Donald Albury

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

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Outgoing members of the 2022 Arbitration Committee

Hi, Since this file is free, it can be moved to Commons, but I can't do it, it says "Can't import file because at least one of its file revisions is hidden." Thanks for your help, Yann (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann:  Done I've undeleted that file revision. Legoktm (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would an administrator mind watching

I have placed extended confirmed move protection on the article for two weeks. Repeated moving against clear talk page consensus is not permitted. Consensus can change but unilateral moving in a situation like this is not acceptable. Cullen328 (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Cullen328. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, Marchjuly. Check out my Twitter page for my real feelings about this content dispute. Oh, no, I shut down my rarely used Twitter page a month or so ago. Oh, well. Cullen328 (talk) 08:15, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikipedia administrators, I seek your highly serious attention to the matter that JJMC89 bot ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:JJMC89_bot&action=view ) deleted the official Bangladesh Football Federation logo from their all National Football Team pages including under 17, under 20, under 23 & national teams (both men & women).

Reason showing: Removed WP:NFCC violation(s). No valid non-free use rationale for this page. See WP:NFC#Implementation. Questions? Ask here.

Why am I disobeying this? - Because every national football team is showing their respective National football Federation to represent your country except Bangladesh (the reason I am appealing for) - I neither made any changes to that image nor re-uploaded. I just put a line (Bangladesh Football Federation.svg) on the Badge section of the template of all Bangladesh National Football Team pages including under 17, under 20, under 23 & national teams. - THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT, this exact same picture is currently using on Bengali Wikipedia Bangladesh national football team pages including under 17, under 20, under 23 and the national teams (both men and women). — Preceding unsigned comment added by HridoyKundu (talk • contribs) 19:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert the action of that bot.

Because that image represents Bangladesh national football teams and gives better understanding to the audience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HridoyKundu (talk • contribs) 19:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The logo was removed from the articles following this discussion. You then re-added the logo to the article. GiantSnowman 19:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a freely licensed encyclopedia. As such, the use of

WP:NFC#UUI, item number 17. In the case of this logo, the use in the article about the federation is acceptable, but the usage in the any of the various team articles is not as these are the "child entities" noted in item 17. -- Whpq (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Could I get a sanity-check on this recent close by

Seems like a misunderstanding of

WP:NOTAVOTE. I would probably have closed as no consensus since no arguments appear to have been particularly persuasive and it mostly consisted of roughly equal proportions of users talking past each other and many many of the "full version" comments were essentially "what they said". — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

As a bot-summoned respondent to that discussion, I'm gonna have to agree: a 5:6 !vote ratio and these particular facts cannot possibly justify the finding of consensus the closer arrived at in this case: the respondents were clearly highly divided, on an issue that was nuanced and in a contentious topic area. Even requesting a close in those circumstances was a questionable call, since the only possible reasonable outcome would have been "no consensus"; rather, the RfC should have been relisted with the hope that a second wave of input from FRS respondents might lead to an actual consensus of at least some significant weight, and that's probably what ought to be happen now.

And, meaning no offense, but the closer really needs to re-read

WP:CONSENSUS determinations before they act further in the capacity of a closer, especially in divisive topic areas: I trust this was an error made from a good faith misunderstanding of what a proper threshhold of consensus looks like, but at the same time, this wasn't even close to being justified. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• I'd have closed as NC. I can't tell what the status quo is, but there's clearly consensus for some form of inclusion, so if the status quo is no mention then I'd say the RfC permits the shorter summary at least. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It seems some editors in an earlier section did object to the inclusion of the paragraph at all; but not in the RfC. The shorter version was the status quo at the time I closed the discussion, and also at least when it was started. I considered closing as either "full version" or no consensus, but ultimately it seemed to me that the main arguments against the full version—

  WP:FRINGE were not convincing enough for a few other commenters or for me to close as no consensus. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 12:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I think it's sound to consider the discussion by-argument, but I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion that these arguments (WP:UNDUE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE) were not convincing enough. After they were first made by SnowRise, 3 editors were convinced by them, and 3 editors were not, so a cursory glance would suggest to me that there was no consensus on the relevance/strength of these points? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, aside from the six new commenters, there was also a disagreeing reply from the person who started the RfC and wrote the first !vote. I can see how it could be contentious, but it still left me leaning towards a close in favour of the full version. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  WP:AN? Are you detecting that your fellow editors think your close a good one? Bon courage (talk) 14:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  No, I don't. Some amount of disagreement is natural and expected; what the close should be is not always very clear and these decisions can be subjective to a large degree. While I see others disagree with the close, I don't think I see anyone considering it specially bad; but if an administrator or editor considers it egregious enough to overturn it expressly, I wouldn't object to it. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Cool, I have accordingly undone the close. In general in situations where it is "not very clear", closes should be left to admins, per

  WP:BADNAC. Bon courage (talk) 04:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

@Snow Rise:“Even requesting a close in those circumstances was a questionable call.” I would like to point out, that the !vote margin narrowed *after* I requested a close. “No consensus” was not as clear when I made my initial request for closure. Prcc27 (talk) 05:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ProcrastinatingReader: Determining which version is the “status quo” may be difficult. The longer version had been on the Wikipedia article for several years, but the shorter version was recently added, and was on the article prior to the rfc, after a couple users expressed opposition to the long version. Prcc27 (talk) 06:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you observe this user Rasnaboy User:Rasnaboy

He or She intentionally undo all the updated or cited Tamil or Tamils or Tamil Nadu related articles back to its old description.

Possibly a user from North India with rivalry mindset.

For example take a look at Early Cholas page. you will have some idea..

Need some moderation please. 1.38.104.185 (talk) 08:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Content dispute. Use his talk page or article talk page.

Also read

Capitals00 (talk) 10:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Afternoon Dublin Airport was protected earlier because of an edit war with an ip address. Potentially the same IP editor is now reverting changes at Lublin Airport. Might need an eye on it; I'm wary of entering 3RR territory against an IP address. Thanks doktorb _words^deeds 15:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like

WP:LTA/BKFIP, both here and at Dublin Airport. IP blocked 72 hours; nothing to worry about as far as 3RR. ^Complex/_Rational 16:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. I'm always jumpy when reversions happen. doktorb _words^deeds 17:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal:

After months of being blocked from WP:ITN/C, I have come to understand that ITN is serious business, not a venue for jokes or personal comments. I again apologize for posting the wholly inappropriate joke I made about Chinese President Xi on Oct. 26, 2022, and for being too garrulous with my comments at ITN/C in the past. I also realize that ITN is a different place than it was in previous years. I absolutely promise that, if unblocked, I would exercise prudent, judicious conduct, seek to collaborate with other users active at ITN, and work cooperatively to make this Main Page fixture transparently informative and useful to its global audience. Thank you. – Sca (talk) 14:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

This is your second block from ITNC. Why should we now believe your promises regarding editing there? 331dot – (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you asked that. I was just about to add to this appeal a suggestion that the recipient review the recent history of my civil and collaborative comments at Featured Picture Candidates (

FPC

for years.)

I would add that the experience of being blocked was a harrowing one for me personally and made a deep impression. – Sca (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline – I'm not prepared to unilaterally lift the block; my suggestion is that you make an appeal at either

• Beeblebrox, What do you think? 331dot (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  If I'm being completely honest, Sca's reaction in the immediate aftermath of this block was so clueless and directly irritating to me personally (rapidly archiving discussion here, but persistently trying to appeal the block on my talk page instead) that I don't really want anything to do with reviewing this appeal.

  Beeblebrox 17:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  That was a technical/procedural mistake on my part. -- Sca (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's provably false. Here's you archiving a declined unblock request the same day it was declined: [50]. Here's me closing the first thread you opened on my talk page [51] on that same day. Here's you starting a new thread on my talk page about your block, directrly replying to comments of mine that you had just archived rather than reply to them on the page they were made [52]. Here's me closing that thread: [53], and here's you posting yet again: [54] and again [55]. At that point I came over here and again asked you to stop posting to my talk page about your block [56], which you removed the next day as "impolite" [57]. So, I'm the impolite one for asking you to stop harassing me on my talk page about it? I don't think so. I was going to stay out of this but this ridiculous denial changed my mind. The lack of clue here is staggering. I oppose an unblock.

  talk) 18:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

— Sca (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I won't either accept or decline this myself as I'm aware I'm potentially biased, but I feel it's worth noting that Sca's constant obnoxiousness is the primary reason I stopped engaging with discussions regarding ITN/C, and I'm sure I can't be alone in that. If Sca's continued absence makes ITN/C a better-functioning process (and I find it hard to believe it doesn't) then I'd be inclined to leave the topic ban in place—we currently have 57,232,304 other pages on Wikipedia to which the topic ban doesn't apply, so it's not as if it's causing a massive hardship. ‑ 
  Iridescent 19:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  WP:NPA !! -- Sca (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  The single most important line of

  WP:AGF is This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary; you've disrupted assorted discussion pages relating to the contents of the Main Page for a matter of years. Sorry if this looks like putting the boot in, but as Floquenbeam has previously pointed out your reaction to being prevented from making inappropriate and disruptive comments at ITN/C wasn't to stop, but to immediately switch to making inappropriate and disruptive comments at WP:Main Page/Errors

  ; this is not the behavior of someone who would exercise prudent, judicious conduct, seek to collaborate with other users active at ITN, and work cooperatively to make this Main Page fixture transparently informative and useful to its global audience.

  For you to claim my comment is a "personal attack" shows either a level of cluelessness so deep a total

  Iridescent 18:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• "Inappropriate joke"? More precisely it was a racist joke, wasn't it? At first I thought I might be biased as I hail from South Korea, so I kept quiet. But now I realize I probably wasn't. BorgQueen (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, it was a racist joke. Sorry, Sca, it doesn't mean anyone is saying you're a racist, but my immediate association, too, was that of putting on a racist and clichéd accent. I watch TV shows (outside the English speaking world) where to this day white people additionally try to make their eyes look like they have an epicanthic fold, in addition to such linguoracist jokes. If you were actually thinking of an archaic usage of 'erected' (or to be fair, simply creating a possibly figurative one), then that only shows that shooting jokes from the hip (e.g. in what are supposed to be somewhat serious discussions on which events to feature on ITN) can totally misfire. Personally, I'd allow you to return to ITN, provided you stop making jokes, as they don't appear to be your forte. --Sluzzelin talk 20:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• For the umpteenth time, it was NOT a racist joke, and I had no idea that it would be taken as such. Of course, I regret that some did misconstrue it that way. But I haven't a racist bone in my body, as my user and talk pages have long attested.
  I'm sick to death of being portrayed as a 'racist' -- and deeply offended by being called that !!!! Everyone, please stop slandering me!
  This is character assassination on the pages of Wikipedia, and must cease immediately.
  

  I've been strongly in favor of equal rights for all persons ever since I heard John Howard Griffin, author of Black Like Me, speak when I was in high school in the mid-'60s.
  

  Here is a photo I took in 2007 and posted on my user page long ago:

  Anne Frank statue

  Idaho Human Rights Memorial

  Boise, Idaho, U.S.A.

  

• — Anne Frank, Diary of a Young Girl

• -- Sca (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• To save everyone else here the scavenger hunt, here is the comment/joke in question (despite my signature I'm a white American, so I have no personal stake in this). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sca: I'm not sure how you're going to pick up support for an unblock while you so vehemently deny it was a racist joke. Unless it was a reference to the r/l racist cliché, it doesn't work as a joke or indeed make sense at all. It wouldn't have any meaning. Admitting it was a moment of madness/misjudgent is one (understandable) thing but claiming you didn't know it would be taken that way is very hard to believe. What was the joke behind it unless it was a reference to the Chinese pronunciation cliché? DeCausa (talk) 14:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As I've tried to explain before, it was posted during a ITN/C discussion of what verb to use regarding Xi Jinping's third term. I was getting tired of this long (about 10,000 words of comments) debate, and jokingly suggest that "elected" be changed to "erected," not having any idea that it could imply an ethnic or 'racist' comment. I was shocked by the reaction of some to it. Further, I was fine with the verb ultimately used, and the discussion concluded with the following comment:

  • Comment – Current blurb using "is named" is a good solution. Thanks to whomever. -- Sca (talk) 12:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  -- Sca (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  jokingly suggest that "elected" be changed to "erected" - so... nothing to do with the way Asian speakers distinguish /l/ and /r/, then?  Tewdar  16:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Not at all. Didn't enter my mind. -- Sca (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sca, you would find more support here if you understood that, sometimes, it's not about intention, but about perception. Even if you didn't mean for it to be racist, that's how most of the community took it. If you are not willing to accept that and apologize, then editors are likely to believe you will do it again. Isabelle Belato ^{🏴‍☠️} 16:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've apologized many, many times. – Sca (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it was about the l/r thing, but they don't think the joke was racist? Personally I find jokes about prosodic systems funnier:

There was a young man from Japan
Whose limericks never would scan.
When asked why that was,
He replied "It's because
I always try to cram as many words into the last line as I possibly can."

• ho ho ho...  Tewdar  16:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose lifting block per Iridescent, also, I am not encouraged by the responses here. --Jayron32 16:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, it was just a stupid joke, a lame attempt at humor, and that's absolutely all it was to me. -- Sca (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And entirely coincidentally, currently I'm watching "Inspector Wexford: The Speaker of Mandarin," on You Tube. As if that would make any difference to you. Sometimes life seems to be full of strange synchronies -- Sca (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Erm... i don't think the account who posted that vid is holding the copyright. Should that be shared here? 188.118.188.145 (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Unsigned. -- Sca (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Me not having an account is really what you want to argue here? You do you, but you know where to sort it if you think i am doing anything malicious. 188.118.188.145 (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No it shouldn't; link removed. Sca, stop digging a deeper hole; deliberately posting links to copyright violations, particularly when it violates the copyright of highly protective companies like ITV, is the kind of stunt that gets people kicked off Wikipedia altogether. ‑ 

  Iridescent 18:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  And even without the YouTube link this kind of irrelevant meandering comment is precisely kind of stuff I'm concerned would return to ITN/C if the topic ban were lifted. Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Just thought it was a strange coincidence, nothing more. -- Sca (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sca: You're not helping your case. Continuing this line of defensiveness and doubling-down on the same problems that led to the block are unlikely to help your cause. I suggest trying the tactic of not doing that. --Jayron32 18:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  OK. -- Sca (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support appeal per Sluzzelin, who covers the issues at hand. I'm a longtime contributor at ITN/C and have been concerned by the culture there for many years. Sca has also been a contributor there for many years, and while I am in deep sympathy with much of what opposers are saying, feel Sca has earned a last chance, even despite his bumbling here in this appeal. My strong suggestion is that Sca, and by extension all others at ITN/C, self-refrain from any and all editorial commentary or attempts at humor. A !vote and extremely brief reasoning will do. And a Happy New Year, all! Jusdafax (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you very much. And I agree with what you said about comments at ITN/C. -- Sca (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Iridescent 06:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Wikipedian, as I see it. Cheers, Jusdafax (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I'm not saying his years of disruption—of which the "I wasn't trying to be racist, I was trying to be sexist" incident that led to the community finally losing patience was just the final straw, not a one off mis-step—are banworthy in the sense that Sca needs to be banned from Wikipedia. I'm saying Sca's toxic presence at ITN/C, which consisted almost exclusively of inappropriate comments and trying to bully anyone who didn't share his personal opinion of what was and wasn't important (

  Iridescent 15:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• I don't comment on drama lightly, but throughout my years of participation and perusing of ITN/C, Sca would rank at the top of my list for unhelpful contributors. Most of his contributions are 1) tersely opposing serious nominations for lacking "lasting significance," 2) adding comments or pile-on supports as an excuse to provide his personal commentary on the news, or 3) snarky jokes and asides. I'd say he is emblematic of a group of users at ITN/C who are not here to improve the encyclopedia but instead just use it as a forum. I would want to see evidence that he is here to build an encyclopedia before he rejoins ITN/C, as I don't think his contributions have demonstrated that yet. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 15:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I haven't been a regular at ITN for some years but the unpleasant atmosphere there has not escaped my notice. The volume and nature of Sca's edits appear to have contributed to that and regular contributors are saying above that his absence has improved the situation. For that reason alone, the block is worth keeping, or replacing with a topic ban if the software block is causing unintended problems. The more I looked at Sca's last 1,000 edits (going back to last August), the more concerned I became. This is a user who spends all their Wikipedia time pontificating in project space and none working on the enyclopaedia. Of those 1,000 edits, barely any were to the mainspace and I can't tell when they last added sourced content to the encyclopaedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  Iridescent 06:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Oppose. Conduct here gives me no faith their behavior would be a positive on ITN. Star Mississippi 17:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. I'm unsure whether or not to believe his explanation. In my opinion, there is a ring of truth to it. In addition, I also don't really have much room to criticize his contributions to ITN since I'm probably among that group of editors that Bzweebl cites as being a toxic influence at ITN/C. So I don't know if my judgment would be considered impartial in any way. --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 18:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Ha I don't think you're nearly so bad, WaltCip. You at least make an effort to engage with others constructively and have some self-awareness. The user in question has neither. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 20:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for the reasons given by HJ Mitchell above, and having reviewed their recent contribs. The obvious lack of interest in mainspace verges on the
  WP:NOTHERE. I also can't believe their story on the original "joke". It just doesn't make sense. DeCausa (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I can think of a couple of implausible-but-possible explanations for the original 'joke'. One is that it was a wildly misfiring attempt at a boner-joke (which I think is the defense Sca is trying to make); the other is that Sca is a non-fluent speaker relying on a thesaurus or a translation program who has misinterpreted the alternative meaning of 'erection' as a synonym for 'construction' and thought "Xi was erected as President" meant something akin to "Xi was installed as president as part of a pre-arranged plan". As I say I don't consider either remotely plausible, but if one's willing to stretch AGF to the limit I can just about see it. As I also say, given Sca's history I have no inclination to AGF at all in this case let alone to the extreme limits that would be necessary here. ‑ 

  Iridescent 20:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I'm a native English speaker. I had absolutely no intention of a "boner". It was just a dumb, thoughtless joke about the verb. -- Sca (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  PS: All those who posit my motives or thoughts would seem to be claiming omniscience or clairvoyance. -- Sca (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The motives don't really matter. If we take the most generous possible interpretation, it was still inappropriate and completely contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia discussion pages. It's not even as if you tacked on to an on-topic comment as a throwaway comment, you actually made a whole new edit just to make that joke. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  Iridescent: They have a box on their user page saying they are a native English speaker. Yes, "boner-joke" is what they say they were going for. But what would actually be the joke? That doesn't extend to "lame", it's literally not there - close to being as random as putting in the actual word "boner". I don't know about "construction", but in archaic British English it's possible to be "erected" to a bishopric or an aristocratic estate. That might make sense if there was other evidence of Wilde-ian wit from them.... but...DeCausa (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Oppose, not because of the joke (which deserved censure for sure), but for the deeper problems highlighted by
  Iridescent, HJ Mitchell and others (and having had a look at some of Sca's posting history). We need fewer people driving productive editors away from project pages by trying to dominate them and constantly filling them with whatever irrelevant nonsense happens to be passing through their minds. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  As someone who is mainly just lurking but sometimes commenting at ITN, while Sca never made me ever feel welcome at ITN.. I do have to say that to hold their stance towards new people with accounts or IP editors in general against them is deeply unfair. And everyone else 'productive' will just not be dissuaded by it much, as they already are established and know and accept the culture. The way Sca acted was not even comparable to what happens in regards to actual content work. That really drives people away. That is just the culture of Wikipedia. It is a deeply unwelcoming place that always tries to go above and beyond to 'save' people, instead of actually being welcoming and trying to just attract new editors- Many surely are just put off by the culture of the community. Sashis unblock request above is a good example. And i do remember their disruption well. As well as comments they made at WO at the time. How you want someone like that back... just wow. Anyway, i personaly believe that ITN is better off without Sca, but the same goes for numerous other people that are contributing every day. Walt actually not included as they have been nothing but welcoming and just a nice person. Saying, there is more to it than just contribs... who would have thought. ITN is an outlier, a visible part of the main page and so attracts people. Same as DYK that do content work, but mainly bare bones articles that highlight some rather UNDUE point to make any given thing 'interesting' and reach the bit/word count. No offense intended, obviously. Just my impression of that project. Or the ref desk, whiele less prominent, also has loads of people that only reside there, even more forum-y. And probably in a couple other areas as well. People want to be part of something that is visible. Shouldn't blame them just for that. Same person as above, just FYI. 188.118.188.145 (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, following up on the comments of HJ Mitchell and DeCausa, since the block from ITN Sca appears to have made just 20 mainspace edits. There are other ways to contribute to Wikipedia of course, but there isn't a huge number of other edits either, and there has not really been an explanation as to how lifting this block would contribute to Wikipedia. Contributions to FPC are nice, but I don't think they directly translate. CMD (talk) 03:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose To be frank ITN/C has been better without them, and their replies here don't give me any confidence that they would be less garrulous (their word) if they were to return. They basically just use Wikipedia as a forum, with only 18 percent of their total edits being to mainspace. If they could start making some useful contributions to articles that would undoubtedly help in a future appeal.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone supply me with examples where Google Knowledge Graphs have made any extremely serious errors based on taking wrong data or images from Wikipedia articles? I vaguely remember a case a few years ago where a briefly-vandalised article was used by Google to assemble seriously flawed information about a person, and there being an urgent need to report and fix it - but I cannot recollect any details.

I do remember thinking that on such extremely rare cases it could have been helpful to have a more direct route for administrators to communicate quickly with Google (or indeed other companies who are incorrectly using our data which could seriously embarass or defame people), rather than simply relying on the 'Feedback' link below each Knowledge graph. .

This request follows a recent conversation I had with a staff member at Google on this subject, who asked for some examples - and I couldn't think of any details offhand. I'd welcome replies either here (or by email if it helps avoid the Streisand effect.) Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The most well-known case of this is

WP:CALIPH, where Google searches for "current caliph of islam" misinterpret Ahmadiyya Caliphate to display Mirza Masroor Ahmad as the caliph. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 17:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

The Google Knowledge graph is dynamically generated in complex ways that depend on the subject, the time, the location of the reader, etc. etc. When it makes errors, those errors aren't ephemeral and aren't preserved in a specific document unless a third party documents it directly. It's basically an AI algorithm that scrapes the web and attempts to create a summary of the subject in real time. That's not going to lend itself to a permanent record of any errors, much less a canonical list of errors one could comb through. Like many things at Google, how it is generated is a "trade secret" and quite opaque. --Jayron32 18:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One that comes up a lot is when Google confuses two people with the same name, and uses data from person A's social media or personal website to illustrate text ripped off from the Wikipedia page on person B with the same name (or vice versa). Here's a quick example but it comes up fairly regularly. ‑ 

Iridescent 18:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I've personally dealt with several instances of Google confusing people with criminals, through them mismatching the image and the description. They can usually be found reported at the Help Desk. I'm not going to look them up, but searching for knowledge graph at BLPN or HD or Teahouse should bring up numerous examples. To be fair, IME Google often appears to have been quite prompt in responding to the feedback button, but that may be circumstantial. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 05:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I seem to remember this being in the news once: Google blames Wikipedia for linking California GOP to Nazism. It was just some vandalism that stayed in Knowledge Graph for a while. Somehow made it all the way to Kevin McCarthy's ire. Endwise (talk) 11:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee is considering a motion to add an additional route for closing clarification and amendment requests in certain circumstances. Comments are welcomed in the relevant section. For the Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 22:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At this discussion, the name of the suspect should be permanently deleted. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here as well. --Jax 0677 (talk) 08:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Iridescent 15:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Humour]

For the record, this situation was already well on its way to being known by everyone. It's even on The Unmentionable Site. casualdejekyll 20:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

This is already on two message boards, it doesn't need to be on a third. Let consensus form in one place, especially the first link where some well reasoned points are being exchanged. Star Mississippi 17:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]