Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive330

The UK tax code is notoriously complicated and it seems to have spread here.

Can someone skilled with the more complicated copy & paste cases have a look at

I was the person who made the move request (apologies for the bad timing; I only noticed afterwards what a mess the whole thing is). In case it makes somebody's life easier, here is what I posted on the Requested Moves talk page: the article was moved in a strange way, first a merge [8][9] into another article, then a recreation of the earlier article by the same user but at a different redirect page [10]. Now the main page is

10p tax rate but the talk page is Talk:Starting_rate_of_UK_income_tax. I should also mention, I also first moved the article years before this, back in 2008. Though I've no recollection of doing this. --Lo2u ^{(T • C}

) 23:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done, though I think it was a lot simpler than it let on - the two copies to other pages can pretty much be ignored (near as I can tell there wasn't much in the way of content changes) and so everything should be where it should be. Primefac (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

When it is appropriate to re-litigate a prior RfC? I'm asking based on a RfC that

Please note that this is meant to be a question about best practice only. While I disagree with the other editor's actions this is not meant to impugn the editor. If consensus here is the RfC was valid I support restoring the RfC. Springee (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Springee, There's been a lot more discussion of this and other politically motivated conspiracy theories lately, so while the content should remain out of the article for now based on the 2019 RfC, a new RfC is probably legitimate, as long as the person proposing it can show new sources on which it might be based. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I would agree that if Snoogans presented new sources the old RfC could be revisited. However, the proposed sources are the same ones from the last RfC (or date to the same time period). Springee (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Yup. The takeaway is: bring new sources. I agree that a new RfC with no new sources is at least somewhat disruptive - akin to the endless retreading of failed move requests. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that a new RfC is procedurally OK in a case like this, where the last RfC was sixteen months ago, new sources may have been published (or come to light), some participants in the last RfC turned out to be sockpuppets or SPAs, and the initiator of the RfC is acting in good faith. Even if the closer of the previous RfC made an effort to discount SPA votes, socks are not always obvious, and some of them may have been caught after the old RfC concluded. (I don't know if that's the situation in this case). In any event, it seems these types of issues should generally be resolved on the merits rather than strict procedure. I do agree that a best practice is to propose some new sources, or at least updated wording (if applicable), but I don't think that's an absolute prerequisite. Neutrality^talk 19:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

This requires common sense. Since consensus can change, a new RfC might be justified. However, there should be some reason to do so. Snooganssnoogans says that "a large share of the votes to exclude this content were by blocked sockpuppets [etc.]" Yet the closing administrator wrote, "There is consensus to exclude the accusation, even after the views of SPAs and discounted."[12]

The main reason to exclude was that it was a comment made in passing in an article not about Pool. Nothing has changed. Furthermore, Snooganssnoogans should have discussed the issue first.

I would suggest therefore that Snooganssnoogans close the RfC and discuss the topic. I think too that he should realize that Wikipedia articles are not here to attack people we think deserve it, but merely to summarize what reliable sources say about them.

TFD (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Given that this is nothing more than rehashing the 2019 RfC with basically the same sources what is the best way to handle a situation like this? Springee (talk) 04:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• On Wikipedia, the consensus is that old discussions expire after a while. So for example, if something was AfD'ed two years ago and kept, you can still start a fresh deletion discussion now and it wouldn't be speedily closed. There is no consensus about how long the "while" is, but a gap of eighteen months or two years is, in my view, clearly enough time. It's unusual to begin an RfC without prior discussion, but the preliminary discussion isn't required by any rules. I think that behaviourally, Snooganssnoogans' actions are in order here.—S Marshall T/C 15:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

It's reverting CBeebies this. Please click to reading for contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silver1500 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• Technically, the IP is correct (I reverted them myself and then realised the IP was fixing the double redirect, not breaking it). The edit-warring is not great, but it appears to have ceased now. Black Kite (talk) 02:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

A motion regarding the MONGO case has been enacted after it reached majority support following a Amendment request. The motion is as follows:

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 09:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Motion: MONGO (alt) enacted

The

It was certainly not my intention to create a

merge

, per the POVFORK guidance. The discography article is currently at AfD:

• this entails that a merge should probably best not be operated before the AfD is closed, and only if the AfD's closure mandates such merge.
• afaik, improving/extending references of an article while it is at AfD is normal, even recommended, procedure. These are also the only edits I did since the discography article was listed at AfD.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 10:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Presumably the status of the discography can be discussed at the AfD. I agree that the discography should be just a discography and link back to the main article. A more serious problem, which I was considering raising until I saw this entry, is the current edit war at Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53, with Francis (who has already been pinged enough in this section) and user:Nikkimaria. They are both also posting at the talk page but playing ping pong with 10k of content at a time. This must stop. --Mirokado (talk) 11:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree. I have not reverted Nikkimaria again (current mainspace content is their version), and limited myself to a talk page reply after their last revert. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Re. "link back to the main article": fixed --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Re. "the discography should be just a discography": I've now created a "just discography" version of the discography article (which I've self-reverted for the OP's suggestion of a restriction on me editing the article I created). The "just discography" version includes a three-paragraph intro, some of the images, etc, – I suppose it is more or less what other editors may expect of such a version, but am open to suggestions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I regret that Francis Schonken's comments above are disingenuous (shall we say). On 4 February FS added links to his sandbox version noting these changes in connection with the RfC on referencing. On 9 February he then without explanation or warning (afaik) moved the sandbox to WP as the "discography" article, without attribution to other editors and any proper edit history, etc. (And, incidentally, with many faults in the article, including removing the references to to the doubt as to the work's attribution). This is not I think consistent with FS's explanation above. In any case, the deliberate creation of an article B, in the face of an ongoing discussion about article A, followed by a proposal to merge to article B to article A shows, at the very least, a lack of understanding and respect for the processes of WP. --Smerus (talk) 12:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I added a notice about copied material to the talk pages of both articles ([13], [14]). For clarity, the discography page is, thus far, mostly my work, as well content as layout (most of it already being introduced by me in the BWV 53 article before being copied to the draft, and then to the mainspace discography). --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

User:El_C blocked User:Mathsci for iban violations at the BWV 53 article. Isn't this another violation of the iban, this time by Francis Schonken? Doug Weller talk 07:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, Doug, I'm not immediately seeing it. What did the violation actually consist of? El_C 07:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@El C: I may be wrong, but shortly after you blocked MathSci for edits on the original article, FS creates this discography which had been part of a dispute between FS and MathSci on the earlier article. Given the nature of MathSci's ban stemming from his actions on the original article, I wondered if you might consider this also a violation of the spirit of the iban. Doug Weller talk 13:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Doug, briefly, because I'm a bit in transit at the moment: I blocked MathSci because, among other things, he had directly reverted Francis Schonken on the parent page. Not sure how this sister page actually connects to any possible interaction between the two, though I'm happy to review any pertinent diffs to that effect (later). Gotta glow now! El_C 14:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Conny the Cow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Vandalism-only account on

Now blocked. Feel free to close and/or remove this section (though page protection may still be needed...) Magitroopa (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

More than a decade ago, death threats popped up on my watchlist — two children apparently had a fight, and one threatened the other. I wasn't aware of emergencywikimedia.org, and I was in a college class and couldn't alert local authorities, so I found an active editor in the relevant time zone and asked him to alert authorities, and the authorities handled the situation. Some time later, another admin ran across these edits and revdeleted them, since they were definitely "purely disruptive material".

Has anyone ever asked for assistance with old edits that were emergencies when they first happened, but weren't anymore? If so, what happened? I'd like to ask whoever monitors [email protected], but I don't know how to reach them except by sending an email to that address, and I don't want to make them think this is an emergency. Nyttend (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Nyttend: If I'm not mistaken, Trust & Safety monitor emergency@. You should be able to reach them via cawikimedia.org . SQL^{Query me!} 18:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Email sent to ca@wikimedia. Nyttend (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth (speaking with just my admin hat on) if the edits were severe enough to merit RD when they occurred, they should probably stay revdel'd; going through a page's history and seeing people threatening other people is rather jarring, even if the acts that preceded or followed those edits are well passed. Primefac (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Most anything that needs Revdel today, needs it forever. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

This has been open more than 24 hours and is unanimous, so @

WP:AELOG momentarily. --Floquenbeam (talk

) 20:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

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

---

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive232#Capitals00

G'day all.

I am here to appeal a topic ban (hereinafter referred to as simply a 'ban' for simplicity's sake) that was imposed on my account on May 15, 2018. Limited in scope (it applied to 'pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan), the ban nonetheless effectively curtailed my range of editing. I must at the outset acknowledge the fact that this ban was put in place in the first place because my editing and concomitant conduct in the said domain was deemed to be

WP:ARBIPA domain, writing a number of good articles and DYKs such as DRDO Smart Anti-Airfield Weapon (), PSLV-C42 ( ), Ankita Bhakat ( ), and Baby Rani Maurya (), besides occasional but significant contributions here and there over these years in what might serve as an eloquent example of my bona fide intention to serve this project.

Three years is a long time and I truly believe that this ban has outlived its utility and has over the years become more of an impediment. Prior to the this whole episode, I had been working on articles like Vikram Batra (which I singlehandedly developed from almost scratch to B-class, adding tens of thousands of bytes in the process,[16] using a vast pool of resources) and User:MBlaze Lightning/Myra MacDonald

. I had plans to eventually develop the former into my magnum opus and take the latter to at least DYK... I therefore ask, nay, request the community to kindly reconsider this ban and lift the same in light of my vastly reformed conduct, my eagerness to make amends for the past misconduct, and to continue to contribute to this project, particularly in the said domain, not under the constraint of any ban but with the freedom to choose and contribute wherever I want to. I shall forever be grateful to the community.

Thanks, MBlaze Lightning (talk) 09:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support. No need for this to be longer than it already has.
  WP:FORGIVE, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here}
  09:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support Having watched the edits from this user in the histories of South Asian military articles, I can safely suggest that the area will benefit from his presence. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 10:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support rescinding. A cogent, heartfelt and reflective appeal. Also factoring abuse amelioration, with myself having declined a bogus AE complaint 2 weeks ago that falsely charged the appellant with contravening their ban (the filer has since been blocked by the Arbitration Committee). El_C 11:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Holy Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive279 — did I really close 11 of 14 reports? I think Sandstein would be proud. Hum hum hum. El_C 11:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

  unblockables, and ArbCom doesn't seem to want it to work in these cases, so I'm now spending my time elsewhere. But I guess that's an experience everybody needs to make for themselves. - While I'm here I might as well also support lifting the ban based on the convincing appeal. Sandstein

  15:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support, let this user contribute to the topic area they want to improve. Nicely crafted appeal.
  talk
  11:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Support The user has had a couple of AE hits, one bogus, one out of scope, so clearly fine, and the other such a minor technical breach (that their own actions helped stop) that even AE decided the best course was no action. Given the timescale, I feel that only a support is an appropriate outcome, in lieu of evidence to the contrary. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment)Support If the user starts behaving battleground-ish again, then they can be re-TBANNED, but as long as they don't get into the same problems as before, unblock to reduce unnecessary discontent and because at most the damage done will be none or limited. 4D4850 (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. How the system should work. Good appeal and evidence of them moving on. Britishfinance (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Very good appeal and a constructive user. I and all my socks support lifting the ban. Bishonen | tålk 16:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC).
• Support. A good appeal, and a solid portfolio of constructive work outside contentious areas. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Everybody deserves a second chance.--Berig (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support per everyone above. Hell yeah Sro23 (talk) 06:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Fram (talk

) 08:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I actually never thought about it like that. But I got no problem, so I have done the needful. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 10:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you!

Fram (talk

) 16:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support Very clear cut case. Mblaze hasn't been sitting out watching the clock to pass $x months, or $x edits, or making excuses. Instead, they've become a better editor in every respect during this restriction, clearly demonstrating that restrictions aren't needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Hi there. I'd like to appeal a ban made against me here, more specifically the TBAN. Wugapodes suggested I wait a few days before making an appeal, and I have waited a month couple months now, and even though the ban is over soon, it would be good for me to understand whether and why others agree/disagree with my suggestion. Additionally,

1. I don't believe a TBAN against me can be considered to be the just outcome from the discussion. Only one administrator suggested a TBAN, while the others suggested an IBAN. As Wugapodes wrote on ANI, there wasn't much debate on the ban. When I responded to that one editor's suggestion of a TBAN explaining why this would not be the just outcome, I did not receive a response unfortunately. Furthermore, as Wugapodes said, the reason for the suggested TBAN is that an IBAN could be hard to enforce against editors if we edit in the same topic. However, Isento said "I really don't have a deep interest in editing Beyonce articles" and admitted to editing in such articles more just because I was editing in them as well, so I don't think an IBAN would be hard to enforce if there is no TBAN. Additionally, the issue with an IBAN would only stand if neither editor has a TBAN, but enforcing a TBAN on one editor will produce the same result as enforcing it on both. Also, this will be a long story so I'm happy to clarify further if requested, but the claims made against me that were used as the basis of the sanction (e.g. wikilawyering) were unexplained and unsubstantiated, and I asked many times for these claims to be clarified, but no diff was ever cited for such behavior. I do not see why I should be banned because of unsubstantiated claims made about me that I repeatedly asked for explanation of and received no response.
2. Isento and I received the same sanction despite a significant difference between our previous behavior and between our receiving of prior warnings and sanctions. Isento previously received multiple constructive talk page messages about his behavior, a final warning from an administrator after he told me: "Don't ping me with your pseudoliberal horsehit, little girl. Do you know of any -ism I can throw at you for smattering your hypocritical, self-righteous condescension with fake manners and exclamation points?", and a block from Ivanvector after further personal attacks were made against me and other editors and also modifying another editor's comment on a Beyonce-related talk page which QEDK and BD2412 warned him about, and this block happened shortly before the ANI report in question. During and after that block, he continued to make personal attacks against me and other editors, such as when he admitted his personal intolerance of me, called the administrators "hypocrites" and called ANI a "kangaroo court", as well as repeatedly telling me I have mental health issues during the ANI discussion in question as explained here (and later inappropriate behavior is explained below). This explains why a strong sanction such as a TBAN was placed against Isento, as talk page messages didn't help, formal warnings didn't help, and blocks didn't help. On the other hand, I have not once received a polite talk page message from Isento. As explained during the ANI discussion, Isento just repeatedly places warning templates on my talk page, including two within 24 hours, and replies sarcastically when I ask him to clarify, such as here. Importantly, for the issue that the ANI report was on, there was not even any form of talk page message or dispute resolution attempted before as should have been done, with Isento going straight to ANI over an issue that could have and should have been addressed through several possible means before an ANI report was necessary. Further, as well as not receiving constructive messages on my talk page, I have not even received any formal warning or block for my interactions with Isento. I do not see why someone who has never received any formal sanction for this let alone received constructive talk page messages should receive the same sanction as someone who has received multiple sanctions from administrators for his behavior in order to provide him with multiple chances to improve his behavior, which unfortunately has not been successful.
3. Isento and I received the same sanction despite a significant difference between our behavior on Beyonce-related articles after the ANI report in question, as exemplified by the discussion on Talk:Beyoncé#RfC:_Should_the_subject_of_this_article_be_defined_as_a_songwriter_in_the_lead?. I always kept cool in this discussion and made constructive contributions, despite the fact that I faced several false accusations, personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith by the few "no" voters. Worst of all, one of those editors (HĐ) made a false accusation about me to ANI citing solidarity with Isento, which Games of the world, TruthGuardians and HandThatFeeds all said was a false accusation that was highly inappropriate. The fact that I kept cool and did not make personal attacks even in the most severe cases where I was faced with strong attacks and provocation, means that I would never make such attacks, and so a TBAN is unnecessary. On the other hand, Isento hasn't made such changes to his behavior, and instead has also continued to make false accusations and assume bad faith about other editors during that discussion. He even made complaints to ANI about a "Beyonce-related coterie of editors" (Xurizuri and Israell) who disagreed with him about a Beyonce-related issue, also making false accusations and assumptions of bad faith against both of them, without even notifying them on their talk page. When Isento was told how inappropriate this was, such as by Binksternet, he did not take accountability for it. Such behavior shows that this isn't just a behavioral issue with me, but that this is a chronic issue that Isento has with editors who disagree with him on Beyonce-related issues. I do not see why someone who has learnt from their mistakes, is evidently trying to becoming a better editor and has not engaged in personal attacks etc since (even in the most severe of cases), should receive the same sanction as someone who - despite being on Wikipedia for 13 years and receiving sanctions for his behavior - does not indicate that he is learning from his mistakes or trying to become a better editor, and instead continues to engage in personal attacks etc specifically against editors who disagree with him on Beyonce-related issues. This is why I do not believe that the TBAN should be enforced against me. TBANs are meant to be preventative, not retributive, and my behavior since the ANI discussion has shown that I will only be making constructive contributions to Beyonce-related articles and discussions, no matter how much provocation I face.

Thank you very much to anyone who can help with this. Bgkc4444 (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• prohibitively lengthy, so myself, I am unlikely to review it for those reasons alone. Thanks and good luck! El_C
  18:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• @El C: Sure, sorry about that! Hopefully this is better. I believe that the TBAN should be rescinded because:

a) the TBAN was the suggestion of one editor and was not properly discussed and the consensus more indicated just an IBAN

b) the reason given for the TBAN isn't a strong argument (it was said that an IBAN is difficult to maintain without a TBAN, but the user I am in the IBAN with said he edits in Beyonce-related articles more because I do too, and also having one TBAN causes the same effect as having two)

c) the claims made against me that were used as reasons for sanction were unsubstantiated without any diffs given despite my repeated requests for explanation

d) the other user had received multiple constructive talk page warnings, a final warning from an administrator and a recent block from an administrator regarding his behavior towards me on Beyonce-related issues, whereas I received none of those (most importantly, the editor did not try the correct methods of dispute resolution and went straight to making the ANI report against me)

e) during and immediately after the ANI discussion where the other editor was blocked, as well as during the ANI discussion in question, he made multiple personal attacks such as calling the administrators hypocrites and repeatedly telling me I have mental health issues, whereas I did not make such attacks and yet we received the same sanction

f) since the ANI discussion finished, the other editor and I were in the same disussion on a Beyonce-related article. I was faced with personal attacks and false accusations, including a false complaint to ANI cited in solidarity with the other editor. Despite this, I did not make any personal attacks in response, which shows that no matter how much I am provoked, I will no longer respond inappropriately. The other editor himself, however, made false accusations about editors and made a false complaint to ANI about a "Beyonce-related coterie of editors" who disagreed with him, without writing a message on those editors' talk pages. This shows a clear disparity between how the other editor and I will edit on Beyonce-related topics going forward, and yet we both received the same TBAN. TBANs are meant to be preventative, not retributive, and my behavior since the ANI discussion has shown that I will only be making constructive contributions to Beyonce-related articles and discussions, no matter how much provocation I face. Bgkc4444 (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Bgkc4444, honestly, you may be right about the unequitable warnings and otherwise sanctions — or maybe not. No idea. But the point is that you are asking reviewers here to do a fair bit of investigating for a topic ban that, what, expires in 2 months? So, maybe just sit this one out...? I'm just preparing you for the possible consequence of how scarce volunteer resources may be, especially about a really narrow sanction that expires soon(ish), anyway. Still, I can see you wanting to clear your name or whatever, notwithstanding these more pragmatic considerations. But as an active admin, I, for one, would not treat you differently due to this sanction (like as a problem user), if that helps at all. Anyway, who knows, maybe reviewers who are familiar with the case, or ones who possess the time and inclination to investigate, will show up to opine, after all. Good luck. El_C 20:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Allow me to take this opportunity to add my thoughts on topic bans. Wikipedia has well over 6 million articles now, covering literally hundreds of thousands of topic areas. It is possible for any author interested in working on the project to spend all their available hours working productively in any number of these areas. Topic bans are rare enough that I would counsel any editor subject to one to find something else to do for the duration. BD2412 T 20:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

El_C, BD2412, thank you both for your comments. I fully understand both of your points and recognize the practical challenge. However, I was told that I can make an appeal "any time before" the end of the ban, as well as that I shouldn't make an appeal too close to the ban's initiation, so I still hope that the appeal can be considered even if I have missed the short period of time in which making an appeal would be the most practical. Still, of course, the administrators have the power and superior knowledge of bans here, and I guess I don't have a choice in what admins choose to look at or don't. Bgkc4444 (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps this is simply a problem with English language knowledge but I feel, if a topic ban was imposed on "6 January 2021", saying "waited a couple months now" on 7 February is likely to be considered misleading. Yes it's very slightly over a month, but it's hard to call that 2 months. (I don't think 2 months or 1 month matters much in a case like this, but it's still better not to confuse or mislead.) To be fair, Wugapodes also confusingly set their 3 month topic ban to expire on 6 March, but I'm fairly sure I haven't either entered a parallel universe or suffered a head injury that made me forget that there's an extra month between January and February. Perhaps one of the sources of confusion is that the discussion itself started on 12 December and so I guess the stuff that lead up to it was even before then. Nil Einne (talk) 11:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Nil Einne, that's a great point - thanks for noticing that. I saw the three-month ban was intended to end in March and assumed it had been two months - I've corrected it above. I assume the end date was a mistake and it should end in April. Bgkc4444 (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I've clarified on Bgkc4444's and Isento's talk pages that I'm bad at math, and out of fairness clarified that we should honor the end date I gave over the time frame since, when instructions conflict, we should prefer the specific over the general. to be clear, the sanction is now 2 months, still ending on March 6 as I told the editors, not three months as I stated in the close. As for the appeal, I don't have much to say beyond what I said in the discussion closure. Consensus for a TBAN was admittedly weak, but the reasoning was strong an unopposed: if we want to prevent disruption, pairing a TBAN with the IBAN would probably work best. If editors here think the TBAN is not

WP:PREVENTATIVE then it should be removed. Reading the appeal, I'm not sure it makes the case for that clear, but I think point 1 in the OP which relies on this diff gets closest to answering that question. In my experience Bgkc4444 has been taking advice well, so I'm not really worried that lifting the TBAN will cause huge problems. — Wug·a·po·des

​ 22:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:PREVENTATIVE which says "Deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition" to mean that a TBAN is only used when it is believed that an editor will repeat their inappropriate behavior if the TBAN isn't implemented. I believe that this is not the case for me. As explained in the last point of the appeal above, there was a discussion on Beyonce's article that both the other editor and I participated in after the ANI discussion died down and before the IBAN and TBANs were implemented, and to me our respective behaviors during that discussion are indicative of what our behavior would have been if the TBAN wasn't implemented, and so are indicative of whether a TBAN is necessary. I was constructive in the discussion and receptive to others' concerns. Other editors did not do so to me, and even one complained about me to ANI about a false situation cited in solidarity with the editor I am in an IBAN with. Despite this, I did not retaliate or show inappropriate behavior to this editor, and I believe the fact that I did not show inappropriate behavior in such a severe case shows that I would never do so no matter how much provocation I face. I believe that this is what shows that the TBAN against me is not preventing anything. Just having the discussion on ANI showed me the appropriate way of interacting with others (which is why I said above that instead of the other editor going straight to ANI when he had a problem with my edits, he should have used the correct methods of dispute resolution such as a talk page message), while a TBAN doesn't help me with this. I am not saying that the TBAN for the other editor should be rescinded as well, as he assumed bad faith about the editors who disagreed with him in that discussion and made inappropriate complaints about them to ANI, but of course that is up to the admins to decide. Thank you for your help with this. Bgkc4444 (talk

) 13:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: Sorry to ping you again, but in case you haven’t seen I replied above :) Thank you. Bgkc4444 (talk) 12:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)Bgkc4444

No worries! I had seen the reply but don't have much to add. It seems removing the TBAN may be worthwhile, but that requires more input than just mine imo. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I had some trouble with this bot recently. I posted details on the operator's talk page. But I now notice that this user has not posted since 26 July 2020. As the bot seems to be faulty and driverless, please can someone block it or otherwise resolve the issue. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• Andrew Davidson I don't think the bot is exactly faulty (or at least this is an edge case) - it is expecting text in the Source field and I am going to guess that it was (unsurprisingly) unable to evaluate the template that you used ({{citation}}) and therefore it thought it was empty. You'll see that now there is text in that field, the bot is happy. I think this is probably a rare event - 99.9% of the time people will simply fill in the fields with text (which is fine) or leave it blank (which the bot will catch). The rest of its taggings appear to be fine, as far as I can see. Black Kite (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• A {{citation}} template is a standard way of specifying a source, which is why I used it and will continue to do so. It contains standard data items such as a date, author and URL which one would expect when specifying a source. If the bot is unable to parse these then it is not fit for purpose. If it is unable to make sense of what it finds, it should still recognise that there is something there and pass this as an exception to its human operator. It should not in the meantime go dropping misleading and hostile tags and messages.

A bot operator is expected to provide good communication per bot policy,

WP:BOTISSUE

.

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Many, perhaps even most, botops are inactive or otherwise not actively maintaining their bots. For this particular issue, it's likely blocking the bot will result in its features being unavailable for an unspecified period of time, perhaps forever. An ideal resolution would be you adding the licensing information in the standard way which the bot can understand. It may also be worth contacting the botop by email. Your current way of doing things is not machine-readable anyway, which makes it problematic. See the various added categories such as Category:Files with no machine-readable source. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The policy

WP:BOTCOMM states that "Users who read messages or edit summaries from bots will generally expect a high standard of cordiality and information, backed up by prompt and civil help from the bot's operator if queries arise. ... This is a condition of operation of bots in general." If this and other bots are not compliant with this condition then they should be shut down. Complex software requires continuous support and so should not be launched in a fire-and-forget way. Andrew🐉(talk

) 14:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to file an RfC to shut down the bots of any operator who hasn't edited in 6 months or a year. I imagine you will find a snowing consensus against. Even when the operators are active various bots are mostly unmaintained afaik, such as the GA bot. Various codebases are taken over from past operators who went inactive, and are mostly just maintained for stability. In any case, this still ignores the fact that your method of tagging images is not machine readable and thus is not the correct way of adding the data. I'm not sure why you're insistent on seeing the bot make a change, rather than just changing your wikitext into the machine readable format...? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

[Ignoring the what-to-do question] Andrew, {{citation}} is not a standard way of specifying an image source. It's a valid way, so the tag was a mistake and Wikiacc correctly removed the tag, but the standard way to provide an image source (and a good way of avoiding this situation in the future) is to describe the image with {{Information}} and to put the source in the |source parameter. Nyttend (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

To be fair to Andrew, there are no such instructions on the file upload pages (mainly, I suspect, because the issue hasn't come up previously). Of course the vast majority of users are simply going to provide text rather than fiddling about with templates so it's not surprising. Black Kite (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Nyttend: note that I didn't remove the tag, I just added some more text to accompany it, both for added context and to make ImageTaggingBot stop. Wikiacc (¶) 02:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

ImageTaggingBot expects source information to be in the form of free-form text on the image description page, or a filled-out "source", "author", or "artist" field in an {{Information}} or {{Image information art}} template (or a template that transcludes one of those templates, such as {{Non-free use rationale}}), or a filled-out "source" field in {{Non-free media data}} or {{Non-free audio data}}, or any of 23 templates such as {{self}} that provide boilerplate sources, or any of 114+ copyright templates that provide source.

{{citation}} isn't on the list of known ways to provide source information. I'm not going to add it, because it's fairly common for people to use that template in non-source-providing ways on image description pages. If you want the bot to see what you're writing, use a standard method (I recommend {{Information}}). --Carnildo (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not interested in servicing a false-alarm-bot – I improved an article with a valid PD image and then want to be left alone per
  WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. I'd still like to know why the bot tagged the image for deletion when its documentation explicitly says that it shouldn't do this: "ImageTaggingBot does not tag images for deletion." Reviewing the approval
  , the bot seems to be exceeding its authority by trying to make sense of the image description (and failing).

The more general issue of machine-readability seems to be a

Phabricator: T194465

: When the author/source is indicated with a template, it is categorized as "Files with no machine-readable author/source" ... Maybe the first step of resolving this issue should be some publication (or link to past publication) of machine-readable marking, expected by the software. At the moment those categories are useless, as they are filled with millions of files with correct templates and author/source info.

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I figured that this question was coming from someone new, but Andrew has been here since the 2000s. Let me be blunt: it was tagged for deletion because you didn't follow standard procedure, and it's not compulsory for the bot operator to change the bot's operation just because you want to use the wrong template. Since you've been here for this long, you know that plenty of deletions are done rather carelessly, so you shouldn't be surprised if plenty of your images are not only wrongly tagged but wrongly deleted. Nyttend (talk) 13:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Given apparently

This is not the appropriate place for such a discussion. May I suggest raising this at Wikipedia:WikiProject England? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Samsara: Could you provide a link to the discussion in question. Number 57 17:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Number 57: Yeah, sorry for omitting, was going to come back to this after notifying. Here's the link: Talk:GameStop_short_squeeze#Request_for_comments and here's the notification diff for the record. Samsara 17:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Samsara: Have you contacted them to undo their close? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Samsara:, I think it was a fair close - definately on AOC and probably on Musk; obviously participants should not be closing RfCs they !voted on, but the RfC seemed to have gone dead for a few weeks, and the closer discussed their intention to try get closure on it. Wrong process, but fine in the end. Britishfinance (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I mean it's not technically a formal close - only an uninvolved editor can do those - but it is a proper end to the RfC per

WP:RFCCLOSE. The consensus there is clear and the meta discussion about the consensus is appropriate. Not every RfC needs a formal close to have done its job of showing consensus as part of the dispute resolution process. So at best we have a minor "maybe don't use the RfC close template" here but otherwise I see no problem that needs addressing here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk

) 19:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

+1. Incredible article btw; great level of detail and fact-base on a complex subject in a very short time frame (even has the Citidel angle). wow. Britishfinance (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

talk | contribs

) 20:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I think this was a proper way to end the RFC per

WP:RFCEND. This was nearly-unanimous, not a controversial outcome at all. Having an uninvolved editor close this discussion would have been a waste of editor time. What we call "involved closes" are OK if the outcome is clear and such involved closure should be encouraged, not discouraged, so as to save editor time. Levivich ^harass/_hound

21:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The point is not that it's controversial, but that it lacks detail in covering the more complex issues that were discussed. The close covers at a rough estimate 1/3 of the issues that were being raised in the discussion. Samsara 10:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The article has been under some possible self-promotion/advertising for the past few months, seemingly in regards to an audio technician by the name of John Krepol.

This has been going on since about October by now three different users: John V Krepol, Jesse Cute, and most recently Galbicsek. The first editor, John V Krepol, also had an page deleted back in October at User:John V Krepol (I had seen it myself before it was deleted, and it was basically the person's entire resume of work).

Of all the additions of Krepol to the article, the only one actually 'sourced' is this edit, but it is from the John V Krepol user, so it's just blatantly self-promotion at that point.

What should be done at this point regarding this? Not sure it really warrants a page protection or anything, but the article looks like it's just being used for advertising purposes through each Krepol edit. I'm also not going to rule it out as 100% impossible, but I don't think this is sockpuppet case, each user with a different 'way' of adding info about Krepol to the article.

Any help with this issue would be appreciated, thanks. Magitroopa (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Also probably worth noting that being an audio engineer on two shows doesn't seem to be notable at all... if there were something more to it/an actual notability for including information on the person in the article, then sure, but just pointing out that they exist and had this job on the show with no real notable information on them is seemingly just promotion of them. Magitroopa (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting, Magitroopa. Whether this is truly one person or not, it's clearly a concerted campaign and they're only here for promotion. I've blocked the accounts and semi-protected the article for a month. Fences&Windows 00:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The below is actually nuts! Doing a dude a favor to have him remembered for his work on the show. That’s it. All the assessments are pretty ridiculous*** — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B01D:589F:40D9:5D0D:63D:EDFB (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note that I re-threaded this (was originally at the top of the section) so "below" is referring to "above" now. Primefac (talk) 13:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The same account sockpuppet of user User:Tokyointernationalschool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silver1500 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked by administrator Red Phoenix. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I've created WP:Two wrongs don't make a right, which may perhaps be of interest to editors and admins who read here. I'd like to particularly recommend it to admins who deal with complex and seemingly intractable disputes that generate walls-of-text. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Referring to the less common but simpler situation of a true

boomerang that you mention, it consists of throwing that interesting weapon at a kangaroo that isn't there. I have seen that a few times recently. It is more satisfying than the complex situations that you describe. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk

) 04:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. (For some comic relief in that vein, see: File:Fun Fail.gif.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

There are two changes to

1. When blocking an IPv6 address, you should now have the option to
   just block the /64 range instead.​
   It's a simple checkbox, so you've got the option to do so if you like. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
2. Thanks to
   WP:RfPP
   , and even link to the specific revision.

Nice! Two very helpful features. SubjectiveNotability _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 17:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm so excited about this /64 functionality. Thanks for all your hard work, Amorymeltzer. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 17:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh this is great, thank you! RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

That's very helpful. All we need now is a big, friendly button on the Special:Contributions page to quickly show all the /64 contributions of an IPv6 editor. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

A button would be handy but you can just add "/64" to the IP address as shown, then press Enter. Johnuniq (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I bet that'd be pretty straightforward to do with a userscript... maybe I'll poke around at doing it tonight. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

It could probably be added to MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer-anon though that's a little less visible. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

More than a few clicks, but opening Twinkle's block module does now provide a link to the /64 contribs page in a new tab/window. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for accommodating my laziness. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Again I am forced to have to resort here to report this and this. The behavior of the user in question seems absurd to me who in his eagerness to want to be the only one who creates articles about future films resorts to this type of maneuver. In

Here anyone can see a complete list with the thousands of subpages created by the user in order to later move them to the title he want. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear admins,

Let me put information here that explains the relationships between this user and me.

A While ago, I created a page at Draft:Spencer (film), which was deleted per G13. It was later re-created by another user. After I saw the news that it started filming (and subsequently was renamed to mainspace), I requested it be history merged with the now-deleted draft, but was reverted with this rather pointy edit summary. A subsequent request was later rejected.

That was only only interaction with him, when he immediately went to multiple admin talk pages behind my back here as well as here, and furthermore, and a further complaint here, to which was closed as a content dispute. (to be clear, I had self reverted my edits in the WP:AN dispute.

My second interaction was when someone elft me a talk page, and I removed it, intending to respond later, as I was rightfully called out over my a annoyance with being reverted by others. However, after I remove it, he comes on to my talk page with reverts such as this, this violation of WP:OWNTALK, and this threat of reporting to an administrator. For this, I’m sure he’s in violation of edit warring on my talk page.

I later tell him to stay off my talk page. He retorts by saying I am the unfriendly one.

Finally for 3rd time’s the charm, I had made this edit, querying a potential merge for the page, and immediately reverted, prompting the current message on this forum page. To address the initial sentence, I had batch created a bunch of pages back in July 2020, for plant pages that was listed in a prior revision of Eria, but lalter realized most of them are just simply synonyms of pages and I wasted the effort in making them, so I had decided it was worth repurposing them for other uses to create pages. As for the 2 Bong Joon ho articles, it was prompted by Bong Joon ho saying he is creating two films, one in English and one in Korean, which didn’t require him to be super aggressively bad-faithed about.

In brief, all my interactions with him is his assumptions of me in bad faith, all around, with no room of any positivity. Every single instance his painting of me as the vallain in his book.

Thus, I am requesting if possible 2 things 1) a one way interaction ban so he does not do anything to me again 2) a block for harassment and lack of civility.

Thank you. Starzoner (talk) 23:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Starzoner: and what happened to this interaction? You only remember what is good for you. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Nice. Another bad faith attempt to cherry pick, again. Any admin reviewing the abovementioned thread should go to Archive 329 and see the closing statement by an admin. Starzoner (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The fact that an administrator has not intervened does not mean that your action was correct, you yourself when I just reported your failed attempt to usurp my draft you deleted your draft to remove evidence. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Draft:Trolls 3 (this doesn't even exist)? Or Draft:Little House on the Prairie (upcoming TV series)? Or Draft:Untitled Bond film? And Draft:2030 in film - really? I appreciate that you do eventually expand some of these hundreds of drafts, but why are you not waiting until there's something to actually write before you do? You're just making work for people who have to go through and G13 them when many of them inevitably come to nothing. Black Kite (talk)
  00:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Black Kite, Well, for the spencer page, I thought there was some edits there that is useful, but I can’t see them. I created some of them as I saw the news or so about people wanting to create a film or so, as you pointed out for the specific draft pages. If you want to delete them as G7 instead of G13. please do, as I do not want to burden anyone to waste their time in tagging and deleting them. That can be applied to pages such as Draft:2030 in film, and above. As for subpages, I guess I wanted to create a blank page so that when I do add content, the initial edit is from early on.

I apologize for all the necessary page creation, and do invite anyone who wants to see them deleted, to actually delete them, perhaps by G7, without hesitation. Starzoner (talk) 00:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Starzoner from what I see your problems come from long ago (Starzoner mass page creation:32,000+ pages), it has been a long time since this report and you continue to have the same behavior. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

As for subpages, I guess I wanted to create a blank page so that when I do add content, the initial edit is from early on. And what would be the point of that, pray? It very much feels like gaming the system. And the only aspect worth gaming here that I can discern appears to be the retroactive usurpation of other people's drafts, by being able to claim the "earlier" version. Really, this is not a good look at all.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

This edit proves your point Elmidae. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Now that's a little grotesque, really. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll repeat it once more, since it was not clear from the messages on Graeme Bartlett's talk page. The page was in initially created by an IP, deleted, once again created by me, deleted per g7, and restored with the IP edit (that were a hoax) as initial edit. I tagged it so hoax ip edit can be chucked out, but denied by another admin, so I asked for it to be deleted and restored sans the vandal edit. So the question is, why are are fighting to restore a vandal edit? that is, if attitudes changed to vandal edits? To address the comment by Elmidae, I phrased it poorly. I prefer starting pages in my userpage rather than direct creation in draft/article space, so that it would not be tagged with G13 in the future, avoiding wasting any effort to tag as G13. Starzoner (talk) 01:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Is it that you don't realize? It is not only your request to delete certain editions that gives you away, the fact of creating draft articles that will be relevant in 10, 15 or 20 years, by itself. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 01:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• OK. I've deleted 1,258 empty subpages from Starzoner's userspace. Which only leaves the 20,000-odd plant pages. Which I'd quite happily leave there per AGF, but .. this makes me wonder. Black Kite (talk) 01:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I made this short list with a simple history search for Starzoner. Most deserve to be erased for their strategy of creating empty pages and then moving them whenever he want:

1. Draft:Untitled Parasite sequel 2
2. Draft:The Overstory
3. Draft:Tehek Lake
4. Draft:The Gilded Ones (TV series)
5. Draft:The Lord of the Rings (Season 1)
6. Draft:The Essex Serpent (TV series)
7. Draft:Untitled Jimmy Woo spinoff
8. Draft:The Wheel (American TV series)
9. Draft:Y: 1883
10. Draft:Untitled second Fantastic Four film
11. Draft:Untitled Gamestop documentary
12. Draft:Breakfast at Tiffany's (TV series)
13. Draft:The Serpent Queen.

Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't know you *really* want but I am starting to feel unwanted harrassment because you don't have a specified end goal. I think I want to report you to the Wikimedia Foundation staff. Starzoner (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Do it, and maybe the one who ends up blocked is you due to your persistent modus operandi. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 02:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I am requesting an admin or the community to hand a block to Bruno Rene Vargas for harassment and wanting to block me for little reason other than his perceived slight. Starzoner (talk) 03:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Bruno Rene Vargas, you've made your point (multiple times over) so please step back for a bit and let the admins discuss potential next steps. Primefac (talk) 11:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Black Kite is this ok? For me it does not make sense to create this type of draft only to then redirect it and thus avoid its deletion due to inactivity. Also it has no reference. The user so far has not requested the removal of this. Starzoner only limited itself to requesting the removal of the article you cited. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • It is an overreach to refer to this as "sabotage". It is entirely permissible, and even commendable, for editors to get a jump on likely future developments by initiating drafts reflecting the current state of knowledge on the subject. Redirecting such a title in mainspace is an issue for resolution at
    WP:RFD. That's why that board exists. BD2412 T
    00:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

BD2412, the point is that there is a difference between "getting a jump on a topic" (with the intention of making it easy to add incremental material) and "staking a claim on a topic" (with the intention of controlling authorship of the article). Things like the above diff, and those 1.2k blank subpages, are overall baffling, but pretty much useless for the former and readily interpreted as the latter. Maybe calling it sabotage is going too far, but it's not good practice and ought to be discontinued. Which, I hope, is kind of where we have arrived now. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 03:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

For the last few moths at least, controversial figure

I blocked an account and applied pending changes protection for 2 years. Hopefully that's enough to prevent the disruption. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The Arbitration clerks are pleased to welcome GeneralNotability (talk · contribs) to the clerk team as a trainee!