Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive338

The article Matthew Tye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been deleted three times, and is currently protected. The last AFD was 3 years ago, back in 2018. The AFD was closed by Sandstein who deleted the article. Last year, the South China Morning Post posted a story about expats in China which arguably gives Tye some coverage. Not a lot, but some.

• Fast forward a year. Admin WhisperToMe (who has commented on the talk page of Tye's broadcast partner Winston Sterzel) arrives on the talk page of editor Shritwod to advocate for the article's restoration on September 15. Though there are clear instructions about contacting the admin who deleted the article (ie. Sandstein), Whisper began a discussion with the nominator (from that AFD back in 2018) citing that article as a reason for restoration (from back in 2020).
• Four days later (on September 19), editor Infograbber19 happens to make the same mistake, independent of Whisper, and arrives at the nominator's talk page to advocate for restoration.
• Five days later (on September 24), editor
  Demetrios1993
  happens to make the same mistake, independent of Whisper and Infograbber, and arrives at the nominator's talk page to advocate for restoration.
• Turns out that on September 16, the day after Whisper's post in the wrong place, the subject of the article posted to Reddit asking his fans and supporters to help him have his article restored. He provided (slightly incorrect) step-by-step instructions as to how this should be done, along with a list of sources (many of which don't appear to be
  WP:RS
  ).

Having failed to convince Shritwod (which is not a requirement for restoration anyway), the article (and it's 3 year old AFD) were brought to DRV by Infograbber. Infograbber, whose very first edit was to request the article's restoration, is a new account that has made very few edits outside of this subject. The account has otherwise followed the article subject's instructions precisely, with the exception of showing up on Shritwod's talk page.

Demetrios has since provided an explanation for his involvement, but in doing do pointed out that my original interpretation of the chronology (at DRV) was incorrect. Whisper's randomly-timed advocacy for restoration came a day before the article's subject went to Reddit to request exactly that sort of advocacy for restoration. Whisper then provided an explanation at DRV saying that they read the Reddit thread and thought contacting the nominator was the correct process. And in doing so, they strangely pinged their own account. That's right, an admin responding to accusations of sock-puppetry accidentally addressed a comment to their own account. They then rectified the ping, then changed their story about the Reddit thread, and then changed their story about contacting the nominator. At a minimum, accepting those rectifying edits at face value, we have an admin confirming undeclared off-wiki canvassing and concerted

@Stalwart111: The post complaining about it was written by someone else (in other words, someone not "an article's subject"), I recall, not Tye. (It was a comment on some other thread merely complaining about it. I did not contact that person) I didn't see that as off-wiki canvassing: merely as something that jogged my memory to revisit the Tye case. I mean if it's interpreted as such, I apologize for that and won't use external comments as a basis for opening discussions. Anyhow I regularly edit like this, and the explanation for the editing style is that I'm trying to remember something that happened over a month ago. It's me retracing my steps and making changes as I write. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Updated I found the relevant thread. It was the top level comment on this thread that inspired me. In that comment CMilk/Tye was merely grousing about his article being deleted, but not yet advocating for it to be restored. I had decided to contact the nominating admin before CMilk started canvassing. It seems the news about the Wikipedia editors being blocked in China was what inspired him. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

You acknowledge you saw a different thread (and above) advocating the same thing, with the same instructions, supported by the article's subject, a few days earlier. Then you went straight to the nominator's page the next day to seek its restoration. A new account posted in that thread and then came to your talk page asking for advice as to how they might get the article restored. You knew there was an off-wiki effort to achieve just that. You knew because you were involved in that effort already. Rather than counsel that new account about the inappropriateness of

WP:ADVOCACY you continued your own advocacy, and made no mention of Reddit until you were facing accusations of sock-puppetry at DRV. That is wildly inappropriate behaviour for an experienced editor, let alone an admin. Worst-case-scenario, you and Infograbber are the same person and the advocacy, timing, location and editing mistakes all make perfect sense. Best-case-scenario, you're an admin who has intentionally involved themselves in some pretty underhanded conduct. St★lwart¹¹¹

04:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Stalwart111: I am not User:Infograbber and a checkuser should make that clear. Now, yes I did read laowhy86's top-level comment where he complained, that did inspire me to contact the nominator. I did not contact laowhy86 or promise him anything: the step to contact the nominator was done by myself without prompting from him. I did not interpret that as "canvassing" because laowhy86 was not yet outright advocating for action on his Wikipedia page: he was merely complaining about it, and I felt it was unnecessary to tell the nominator that I got the idea from a Reddit post. Anyhow this is my mistake and I promise not to do this again. As for Infograbber I didn't look into the account at all: I didn't know his background but I assumed it was an infrequent user. At some point later I recall reading the post posted by laowhy where he did advocate for that, but I didn't put two and two together. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

If you aren't Infograbber, you certainly knew why that

wasn't to build an encyclopedia. St★lwart¹¹¹

04:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Stalwart111: I didn't read their editing history. I personally felt that that they were not making a good case and were spamming too many low quality sources, but I didn't look into their contributions. Since I didn't read their contributions I didn't see that they were an SPI. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:36, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

And I opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/WhisperToMe on myself so a checkuser can confirm that I am not Infograbber. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

And? You were still fully aware of your own motivations for advocating restoration (which, to be clear, are a problem on their own). You knew the AFD was three years old and the best source you could come up with was a year old. It didn't strike you as strange that someone might have had an unrelated miraculous revelation that just happened to neatly align with your own 4-day-old, off-wiki revelation? It didn't occur to you, given your own off-wiki motivations for suddenly advocating restoration, to query if their advocacy might have been prompted by the same Reddit thread as yours? C'mon, mate,

we weren't born yesterday. St★lwart¹¹¹

05:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Stalwart111:

• 1. "You knew the AFD was three years old and the best source you could come up with was a year old." - That's exactly the point: when new information comes up, it can justify re-examining the previous decision. Cmilk's change to being an anti-CCP activist was a relatively recent development and that was covered by the
  SCMP, which is listed as generally reliable here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources
  . An article requires a minimum of two sources.
• 2. "It didn't occur to you, given your own off-wiki motivations for suddenly advocating restoration" - I didn't believe Cmilk's argument (which is perhaps why I didn't repeat the post to the original AFD nominator), but my motivation is that I wrote bios on other foreign celebrities in China, like Amy Lyons, Afu Thomas, Lee and Oli Barrett, etc. and since I knew Laowhy/Cmilk was also one and his had been deleted before, I figured I wanted to write one myself. But that meant talking about the deletion with people previously involved.
• 3. "It didn't occur to you, given your own off-wiki motivations for suddenly advocating restoration, to query if their advocacy might have been prompted by the same Reddit thread as yours?" - That would have required actively checking their post history, which I did not do. Because the user had content on his user page, the link did not appear red, so without clicking the account name and checking the contribs I can't see that it's a new account.

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• 1. A year-old source is not "new"; we're talking about two users with the same sudden interest 4 days apart (one of them brand new), and then 3 users 8 days apart. All at the
  WP:WRONGVENUE
  . It was clearly prompted by Reddit, not that source or "coincidence".
• 2. So you didn't believe him, but his post "inspired" you to advocate for his article to be restored?
• 3. No, it would simply have required you to remember what had prompted your sudden interest in the same 3-year-old AFD just 4 days earlier.

  Your entire explanation is so ridiculously incredible it borders on trolling. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

  1. It is in the context that the source did not exist in the last AFD.

  2. Yes, in that I remembered that he didn't have an article and thought maybe I could look into establishing one.

  3. Well... frankly the whole situation is ridiculous and stupid and I regret being in this. I feel really stupid right now.

  WhisperToMe (talk) 05:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@

☖

05:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Seriously though, you both have had your say. Other people will weigh in now; you know the drill. –

☖

06:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:DYN quality right there! ––FormalDude talk

07:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree. There appears to be material for an interesting DYK!--Berig (talk) 07:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised you don't know about

WP:CHECKME, MJL. I've closed the SPI with no action taken. That being said, I do agree that they've both had their say, and it's time for others to weigh in on the matter. Primefac (talk

) 07:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@

☖

23:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I would like to begin by correcting again something. Above it was stated that the "Matthew Tye" article has been deleted three times already. While an article by the name "Matthew Tye" has indeed been deleted three times, the first one seems to be about a totally different individual. So, in reality, an article about Matthew Tye – the YouTuber – has only been deleted two times. Second, although User:Stalwart111 did mention that i already provided an explanation for my involvement, he didn't elaborate, and i believe it is proper for me to provide the aforementioned explanation one more time here, for the rest of the users that are reading this thread.

• To answer your question, i ended up participating in the discussion, right after Uzer:Infograbber19 posted in the talk page of Tye's business partner, Winston Sterzel (diff). I have Sterzel's article in my watchlist, and after i saw his post, i simply reviewed his contributions and joined the discussion (diff). You can easily see this from the fact that both diffs are from the 24th of September and approximately three hours apart, yet the discussion had began from the 15th of September. Also, this is the first time i see this Reddit thread, and besides, i was interested in the creation of a new article from August, as i wrote in the aforementioned discussion. Furthermore, the Reddit thread didn't begin "a few days before the above nonsense started" (15th of September), but one day later (16th of September). – relevant discussion

Third, about the statement "[t]hough there are clear instructions about contacting the admin who deleted the article" by User:Stalwart111, at the very least, neither User:Infograbber19, nor myself, can be considered to have any experience with article restoration, or knowledge of its guidelines, prior of now. User:Infograbber19, doesn't have more than 50 edits (as of this post), while myself 2,290 edits in the English Wikipedia (and 3,494 in all Wikis), and i have never requested for article restoration. In short, there are indications that neither User:Infograbber19, nor myself, were even aware of a guideline that we have to contact the admin who deleted the article in the last respective nomination. You can even reason that based on what i wrote in my very first comment in

Demetrios1993 (talk

) 20:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I knew that the nominator was the nominator and not the closer, but I would not have filed a DRV if I wouldnt have gotten progress with the collective editors who participated in the prior discussions, and the DRV was filed by somebody else. I didn't review the DRV guidelines because I didnt feel I was ready to do so (if I had I would have read the part about needing to talk to the closer and not the nominator), and I never filed a DRV anyway. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, I've said nothing for a few days on the basis of advice from

WP:ADVOCACY. But, "I regret being in this. I feel really stupid right now" seems to be about as good as we're going to get while there is no appetite among his fellow admins to take action. What's the old parenting line? I'm not angry, I'm just disappointed. St★lwart¹¹¹

00:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Why is this admin still an admin? Off-wiki instructions/"inspiration"? Not understanding deletion process? Here's an old parenting line from my father-- "What gives?" --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

That they were appointed in 2003 - at age 16 - might have something to do with it. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

1. The initial post from the subject was not "off-wiki instructions" but merely frustration on his part. While it started on Reddit, it was a griping post from his, not the subsequent "instructions" post a day later.

2. Also wiki processes change from year to year so I have to review processes once in a while for finer details. Look at what

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion (now Articles for Deletion) looked like back then, same with Wikipedia:Deletion review. Of course I have been consistently active since 2003 but even within a year or two there may be policy changes. As for my adminship, Jimbo Wales said around then: "I just wanted to say that becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*." That was the mentality when I became an admin. If anything I consistently play a role as editor and hardly ever use admin tools (the last notable time was helping inexperienced editors at a meetup for women in art in Hong Kong get their articles fast-tracked). Despite having the admin status I rarely do admin stuff. I'm aware things have drastically changed since the old days. WhisperToMe (talk

) 20:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Sock, socksocksocksock.... sooooooooocccck. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• I submitted a checkuser to show it wasnt and that was declined, but you are welcome to re-start my checkuser if you still have concerns. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

This doesn't look good; if there were a Recall process I'm sure we would be trying it out. That said, I don't see cause for an Arbcom case; "being out of touch" is not cause. There are no blocks since 2014; the recent protection actions involve putting a URL in a wikilink in the summary, mistakenly full-protecting instead of template-protecting, and full-protecting their own talk archives. However, the deletion log is substantial and completely fine. The specific article that started this thread is more likely a COI issue (editing about a friend) than a socking issue. I suppose we could vote to encourage WhisperToMe to either become more up-to-date on site policies or resign the tools, but I doubt that would do anything. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• PS: while some people are forgetting about
  WP:CHECKME, it seems everyone is forgetting that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guide to filing cases says not to use CheckUser for Suspected administrator sockpuppetry – contact the Arbitration Committee. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν
  ) 03:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah, there is clear behavioural evidence of meat-puppetry and off-wiki coordination, but not a lot in the way of sock-puppetry. It would be a very, very clever sock-master who would intentionally submit themselves for CU, while betting on
  WP:CHECKME being enforced, while pleading ignorance of that policy. If Whisper and Infograbber are one in the same, its about the most clever deception I've seen since a sock-puppet ran for adminship and was almost successful (last week). Nonetheless, the admin corps has been nearly silent here so I guess we should close this and move on, knowing this sort of behaviour has their tacit approval. St★lwart¹¹¹
  00:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Those of us with longer memories can remember at least one sockpuppet
  Phil Bridger (talk
  ) 07:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

There's been some fighting over the close of the move request at the bottom of the page. I'm wondering if one of y'all could, you know, just close it, with your administrative imprimatur. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 22:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Things have now descended from bad to worse, with the arrival of fresh meat apparently canvassed from elsewhere. With such little gems to boot.

No such user (talk

) 14:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, I would like to emphasise that I take responsibility for what I did which resulted in the TBAN, which was to say that another editor's approach was "bolshevik" when discussing text changes in the Religion in the European Union article, and the ugly discussion on the Administrators' noticeboard, which ensued. Again, I would like to ask the administrators and the community to lift the imposed TBAN sanctions. Also, I can answer any questions regarding the original situation which resulted in the TABN, and also my current approach to editing. --E-960 (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• I would support that - Will elaborate later. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Blocked three months ago for breaking ban, and understates their disruption above. See ANI link imposing the ban. They should also be blocked for breaching the ban in their very recent edits, which include [1][2] (and others) to
  Catholic religious order and falls squarely in the middle of the Christianity and European secular politics ban. As they keep on breaking the ban, it should be widened to a more definitive scope.--Hippeus (talk
  ) 20:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

  Hippeus, have you interacted with E-960 before? Just wondering. Volunteer Marek 00:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

  Yes - Hippeus soon after their appearance filed a complaint [4] that lead to this topic ban. GizzyCatBella🍁 06:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Topic bans are meant to be "broadly construed", not tested to their limits. This, although not a substantial edit, is more clear-cut: adding a header called "The enlightenment and political turmoil" to an article about a European state is clearly about "European secular politics"... Given that they were blocked in June for a violation of this (their excuse back then was that they missed a reference to politics in a larger section: that at least seems credible. Outright adding "politics" in a header is less of an accident...); they should have figured by now that caution is more appropriate, i.e. a topic ban is "if you're not sure, it probably is under the topic ban, and if you're really really not sure, ask for clarification before violating the topic ban". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Thats ridiculous. By this interpretation any edit to, say, medieval history in Europe would fall under the topic ban. Because, you know, people were very religious back then. Volunteer Marek 17:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

*Oppose, block for breaking the ban, and expand ban to Christianity and European politics broadly construed. E-960 said way more than just the Bolshevik comment, his commentary included: [8][9][10][11]. E-960 had issues with the ban to begin with, which led to warnings and a block. Most of his recent edits are in violation of the ban. Any edits to topics pertaining to European

• Astral Leap, RandomCanadian and Hippeus, if you don't mind I'd like to respond to your comments regarding the TBAN, and quote another user who commented previously during one of the debates about me regarding this issue: Elemimele said: ...the phrase "broadly construed" only strengthens clearly-defined bans. It weakens any TBAN that contains a hint of ambiguity, because it invites the response "but construed broadly", that encompasses absolutely everything, which is clearly unfair! That, I think, is why this debate has come up so many times. the full comment can be viewed here [12]. Also, other users such as Dawid2009 wrote to me separately voicing their reservations about the TBAN, to which I simply replied that I'll try to appeal after one year. Just as well, you can argue that since Poland was a Christian kingdom, so I broke the TBAN there, or when I edited the page on Helmut Kohl, because he is a European politician, enlightenment, well that's science and art, so I'll be breaking the TBAN if I edit the articles on Isaac Newton or Michelangelo. Also, I would like to highlight a couple of important facts for your consideration, that the TBAN was imposed for a VERY specific incident regarding a text I added which covered the marginalisation of Christians in the EU on the Religion in the European Union page. Never before that, was there an issue with me and topics related to Christianity or Secular Politics of Europe. If I was a serial offender, constantly getting in disruptive arguments regarding the topic of Christianity or Secular Politics of Europe, I could understand your arguments of a very broadly construed TBAN based on several incidents. However, because this was a very localised flare-up, I simply do not understand why you would want to expand the understanding of the TBAN to such a wide scope. Please remember that the TBAN is not a punishment of some kind, it's a tool to prevent disruptive editing and it serve as a cooling off period. So, why would you want to expand the TBAN to areas which were not an issue before? Also, I did not edit text about the Teutonic Knights specifically, in the Battle of Grunwald article, just about Silesians and Vlachs who fought on the Polish side, so again you are stretching the understanding of the TBAN to about as wide as it possibly can gets. --E-960 (talk) 12:22, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not an admin, so I shouldn't really be commenting. But since I stuck my nose in last time, and have been mentioned again: my concern was (1) that the TBAN, as worded, unfortunately meant the exact opposite of what was intended. I believe it was a ban on "European secular politics, broadly construed". Pedantically, this would allow E-960 to edit on religious (as opposed to secular) politics, and anything non-political. I believe the ban was intended to cover something much narrower: "The politics of secularisation in Europe", which is actually religious politics. This wouldn't matter, except that people have been using the phrase "broadly construed" to stretch secular politics to encompass more or less everything. And that's problem (2): if you are going to ban someone whose primary interest is European history from writing about anything that could possibly be construed as European politics, you may as well admit it's a site-ban. Overall (3) I was unhappy that E-960 should be penalised for failing to keep to the terms of a ban whose extent seemed unclear even to the other admins. It seemed to me best to write off the whole rather sorry saga, start again, look at E-960's current editing (is it good, is it disruptive?) and if, based on this, it's felt that a ban is appropriate, create a new one, worded with less ambiguity. Elemimele (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Seems like the lesson has been learned. No need for further punishment, but the ban remains part of the record, and if any problematic editing resurfaces, next one will presumably be much longer, so please be careful. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Close without prejudice until the allegations of tag-teaming can be reviewed by ArbCom. I don't think E-960 is party to it and I'm sorry it has to be on their backs, but we can't have one group of editors and their controversial POV dominate the TA. I will support bringing E-960's appeal without prejudice once everything else is settled. François Robere (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I do not believe this user has properly addressed the reason for their topic ban, and I don't actually see a need to remove it.--Jorm (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

  If it's not lifted, then it should at least be clarified because right now no one knows what the hey it's suppose to cover. Volunteer Marek 20:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• Agree with User:Elemimele above (who I think is like the only "outside" editor here, and User:Elemimele you can certainly comment and !vote if you're not an admin) - if the ban is not lifted it needs to be reworded because currently it's just impossible to understand what it actually covers. My understanding is that it was suppose to cover explicitly "religious stuff" or disputes related to religion (including religion vs non-religion) but now people are pretending that any thing medieval is covered. Volunteer Marek 22:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

  François Robere, I would ask that you re-consider and strike down your OPPOSE statement. I believe that it is very unfair to me that you are opposing my request based on an unrelated dispute with other editors. At this point, that whole tag-team dispute has taken over my request. The irony is that it appears that on both sides here there are editors who follow the same topics or issues. Users Piotrus and Volunteer Marek often get involved in the same topics, as do you FR follow the same topics as Levivich or Icewhiz before he got banned for doing some funny stuff. I'm not implying that there is some nefarious connection here. Seriously, we all primarily edits Wikipedia articles related to history and current events, so I would not expect some Polish editor or whoever — someone who primarily edits pages related to astronomy or botany — to jump into this discussion, because we would have never interacted before. Most of the user here will be folks we interacted with in the past. --E-960 (talk) 04:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  I agree it's unfair to dismiss your request because of the involvement of third parties, but that's exactly what was done four months ago with

  WP:GAMING, and the community should be able to sift them out and consider only the merits; but in practice it doesn't, and when either is suspected the entire case is usually thrown away. Again, I do not think it fair and I'd rather your appeal proceeded all the same, but under the circumstances it might be better to close it without prejudice so it can be re-filed and re-considered later, and this time only on its merits. François Robere (talk

  ) 07:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  FR, this is a DEEPLY problematic statement here from you. Just like the last one. First you say you will oppose the request by E-960 because of how OTHER editors !voted. Then when this is pointed out to you you invoke... some completely irrelevant discussion from like 5 months ago, where you didn't get what you want (neither Piotrus nor anyone else commenting here participated in that discussion - so much for "tag teaming") in which E-960 didn't participate. In fact it had nothing to do with them! What in the flying chelubinsk does this have to do with this request? Let's review:

  1. You first choose to "oppose" this appeal request because of how other editors !vote. This is nothing but spite and the crazy thing is that you admit to it freely.

  2. You then amend that to effectively opposing it with the rationale that... there was some other discussion five months ago which had nothing to do with this one where you didn't get what you want to so you want to screw over someone else now. This is even worse! And the crazy thing is you admit to it freely.

  If there is a more picture perfect, quintessential, archetypal, representative, characteristic, emblematic and demonstrative example of what "

  WP:BATTLEGROUND" means then I haven't seen it in my 11 years on Wikipedia. This right here? THIS is why this topic area is a total mess. Because of attitudes like this one. Someone who expresses opinions such as these and approaches editing in a topic area in such a way needs to be removed from it ASAP. This here is grounds for a topic ban FR. Volunteer Marek

  17:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I'd like to follow up on the recent comments regarding my request for the lifting of the TBAN, and would like to re-state my arguments for the lifting of sanctions. Again, I think that it is important to keep in mind the ultimate purpose of a TBAN as an administrative tool, and that it's purpose is to stop non-productive/disruptive behaviour, or in cases of heated exchanges to provide a prolonged cooling-off period. In my case it was the latter, where a discussion over a disputed text got out of hand. However, it is important to highlight the fact that this was a very specific incident regarding a text on the Religion in the European Union page. Before that there were no issues related to my editing of topics concerning Christianity or Secularist Politics in Europe. This is an important fact to consider because of the repeated calls by some editors to expand on the TBAN, or opposition by others to lift the sanctions. As user Elemimele stated in their previous comment "why you'd want to inflict sanctions" and "what message would you want sanctions against E-960 to convey". At this point, in response to my request for the lifting of sanctions some editors are arguing for expansion of the TBAN because I made a couple of minor edits on the Battle of Grunwald article, where I added two small shield icons next to the links for Silesians and Wallachians, and I changed the description in an image caption from "Actor playing King Władysław II Jagiełło" to "A re-enactor dressed as King Władysław II Jagiełło". How are those edits, directly connected with the issue for which the TBAN was imposed — which was the topic regarding the marginalisation of Christians in the EU? In summary, I think that after over a year under sanctions, the lesson has been learned on my part, and the continued application of the TBAN only creates more unnecessary disruptions and confusion. To highlight the point, I would like to quote user Levivich who noted earlier "I have no opinion on the merits of this appeal: when I brought the TBAN violation ANI thread a few months ago, I walked away thoroughly confused about the scope of the TBAN, so I express no opinion about it or whether it was followed or not." So, in the end, I would argue for the lifting of the TBAN, and starting anew, also keeping in mind that another temporary TBAN or even a permanent TBAN can always be re-imposed if required. However, for now, I think that it would be of benefit to everyone if this TBAN is allowed to end. --E-960 (talk) 06:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I said this when they were blocked [18] and this appeal has re-affirmed my concerns. Talking about burying the lead "Since then, I have refrained form editing articles covering this subject matter" only to then mention whoops that time I didn't and so got blocked. "I served out the two week block without objection." yeah you accepted you were wrong, still found the time to complain [19] about "bit of a quick draw on the block" and "As before, it seems that Astral Leap is more interested in getting me blocked then to ensure that things stay orderly on Wikipedia". And then unsuccessfully appeal [20] [21]. As Hippeus and RandomCanadian have mentioned the editor is still testing the limits of a topic ban. This isn't an editor we should trust to be allowed back into the subject area, instead we should be considering if it needs to be expanded. BTW since people keep asking I've obviously interacted with E-960 per my first diff but AFAIK that is the extent of our interactions. (I could have forgotten something, I recalled the block but forgot the advice I offered until I found it when researching the history.) Since I think no one linked to it before now, the discussion which lead to the block was Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1070#E-960 community imposed TBAN. The clarifications and discussions in 1052 and 1071 were already linked by Wugapodes below and the original topic ban discussion as a permalink above but I noticed these two Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1044#Religion in the European Union — Status quo stonewalling Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1044#Offensive and disparaging comments discussions around the same time which may have added to the concerns leading to the topic-ban. I think that's the extent of topic-ban stuff in relation to E-960 on the boards. Nil Einne (talk) 12:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

  P.S. If anyone wants to nitpick over articles vs parts of articles I'd just say 3 things. One is that you're missing the point. Two well since I like to nitpick too, these are articles covering the subject matter otherwise the edits wouldn't have been a problem. I don't expect E-960 to stay away from the entire Belarus or even Holocaust articles but technically if you wanted to stay away from articles covering the subject matter you would need to. The alternative is to take proper care that no edits cover the subject matter when editing articles which do in part. Either way, when appealing don't make it sound like you've been perfectly behaved only to then go and explain you weren't. Actually the main reason I replied even though it already seems this appeal won't succeed was because I read the appeal and had a WTF moment when I saw E-960 saying the bit about how "since then" as I did recall the violation/block. Which leads to my third comment, repeating my first again, you're missing the point with such nitpicks. Nil Einne (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Nil Einne, I don't agree with your comment, I feel that you keep assuming bad-faith in my case, and I would ask that you withdraw your objection based on the fact that you in the past were Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. Statements like this one for example: "yeah you accepted you were wrong, still found the time to complain" — is this such an egregious violation that I complained some? Over the years the one thing I noticed on Wikipedia is people complaining (I mean just look at the earlier comments in this discussion). Here is another example, this one you left on my talk page back in June[22] saying: "Instead I suspect at least in part, you feel you were unfairly targeted because of your views and/or religious beliefs. This makes it hard for you to edit in the area without causing more problems. Perhaps this will have changed in 6 months, but I doubt it. Although you have to stay out of this area I find it likely that your feelings on the matter will still have filtered through to your edits enough even without any violations" so right there you already made up your mind how this will play out — this is a blatant example of Wikipedia:Casting aspersions you basically said my religious views (or related thoughts - not sure what you mean specifically) will disqualify me for editing, as they will continue to get in the way. I think you should consider what user Elemimele noted perviously: "the phrase 'broadly construed' only strengthens clearly-defined bans. It weakens any TBAN that contains a hint of ambiguity, because it invites the response 'but construed broadly', that encompasses absolutely everything, which is clearly unfair! That, I think, is why this debate has come up so many times" and "E-960 should not be penalised for failing to keep to the terms of a ban whose extent seemed unclear even to the other admins". Finally, to emphasise this point I would like to draw your attention to user Levivich who noted earlier in this discussion: "I have no opinion on the merits of this appeal: when I brought the TBAN violation ANI thread a few months ago, I walked away thoroughly confused about the scope of the TBAN, so I express no opinion about it or whether it was followed or not." --E-960 (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

    Also, I want to emphasis this point because it is a crucial one, that I don't think you actually know my religious views, as in those 5 years of editing on Wikipedia I stayed out of editing pages specifically related to Christianity or Secularist Politics in EU, concentrating on history topics instead. So, you are casting the net very wide on this TBAN, based only on ONE and I want to emphasise ONE flare-up related to the issue of Christianity and Secularist Politics in EU. --E-960 (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

    Yeah, I don’t agree with Nil Einne either. They are almost entirely wrong. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Wug· and Girth Summit, I'd like to comment on my overall thoughts regarding some of the solutions proposed during this discussion, as what I find very unreasonable (and impractical) is the desire by some users to not only keep the TBAN, but extend it some more, despite the fact that already other editors voiced concerns about its scope and definition. Also, I want to ask, what is the logic of keeping me under a TBAN indefinitely (note that I've been under sanctions for over a year)? Being a bit facetious here, but even in prison you get parole. If the TBAN is lifted, and I learned my lesson, this saves everyone a lot of time on AN discussions like this one next time around. But, if I breach conduct rules on these "issue" topics, I can get a site ban or something, for being a repeat offender — problem solved permanently. So, again what's the point of keeping me under the TBAN as a precaution, just in case I might do something in the future? If I'm still clueless then let me trip up again and flip out on the exact same (or related) topic, so I'll get a site ban (if I totally come off the rails or something next time around). Instead of raising issue cause I changed an image caption to note that the person dressed as King Władysław II Jagiełło is an re-enactor and not an actor. --E-960 (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

E-960, I haven't read the discussion above - it's a long one, and I'm on mobile while making dinner, so I'm not in a position to read through it now. I remember being involved in a previous discussion about the scope of your TBan, but I can't bring the exact details to mind now. I will try to find time in the days ahead to look at this again, but cannot promise anything. I will say this though - as individual admins, neither Wug nor I have authority to override a community decision. Admins can block/unblock people, but community bans appealed at AN are handled by the community, with consensus weighed by the discussion closer. So, even if I were to agree with your observations (no comment either way at present), all I would be able to do would be to offer my own view - if the consensus was against me (I haven't attempted to weigh that), I would have no authority to overrule it. Sorry if you were hoping for more than that. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@E-960: this isn't a game where you get off on a technicality. We're not a court, we don't write laws, and our goal is not write unambiguously. Is your topic ban perfect? Probably not, but do you think the community is going to volunteer tons of time to indulge wikilawyering over stuff you should probably just be avoiding in the first place? Unlikely. If you want a good chance of being unbanned, go do something else. There's a whole wide world outside of Europe. You know what has nothing to do with Europe, Christianity, or secular politics? Biographies of Canadian hockey players, geographic features in Africa, women scientists from Asia. The ban is hard because you keep dancing around the edges of it. Frankly, if you want to play around in the grey area, the onus is on you to make sure that you are behaving perfectly. If that's too hard don't do it. This isn't the first time that it's been explained to you and it's not even the first time that I have explained it to you. I said almost the exact thing to you on my talk page in July. Independently, Nil gave you similar advice in June. So sure, we can reduce the grey area in your TBAN, but don't be upset when it's not in the direction you want.

Remember that you were so disruptive in a topic area that the community got together and decided to ban you; it's not going to disappear just because you find it difficult. Quite the opposite, you find it difficult because you keep trying to find the edges of it instead of leaving the whole thing alone. Excluding comments from the regular factions and looking simply at uninvolved administrators, both Jorm and Nil point out that you haven't given any legitimate reason to lift the ban. The argument you make in this most recent comment is that we should just let you loose and site ban you if you mess up again. Why on earth would we want to do that? Firstly, we don't need to lift the TBAN to site ban you. If you insist on being disruptive, we can just do that. Secondly, how is that helpful to anyone except you? The question is whether you can be trusted to not disrupt the topic area, so why are you even entertaining the idea that you could continue to be disruptive? You're essentially asking the community to give you one last chance but haven't shown why we should. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Wug· and Girth Summit, thanks for the swift response and input. To follow up on the comments I would like to say that I'm not trying to game the system. However, I would like to provide some constructive and practical input, not to be disruptive, but (perhaps) to improve how the TBANs are instituted, in order to make them more fair, clear and effective administrative tools (including for myself). I'd like show that the TBAN recommendations were poorly articulated (and not because of any administrator summary at the end). The original AN case was filed by user Hippeus, and their original recommendation was I propose E-960 be topic banned from religious persecution, intolerance, and conflict. This was actually, a clear cut proposition, which addressed the exact topic which caused the incident (this way if a violation occurred in the future, it could be judged using the backdrop of the original topic which resulted in the TBAN). However, this is where things get a bit iffy, as shortly there after, user Snowded makes a comment and in bold letters writes Strong support for a topic ban for Christianity and European politics, broadly construed and three months off all editing. So, user Snowded "supports" the the ban request set up by Hippeus, yet actually writes something completely different. This created the issue we are in, because as user Elemimele noted perviously: the phrase 'broadly construed' only strengthens clearly-defined bans. It weakens any TBAN that contains a hint of ambiguity, because it invites the response 'but construed broadly', that encompasses absolutely everything, which is clearly unfair! That, I think, is why this debate has come up so many times" and "E-960 should not be penalised for failing to keep to the terms of a ban whose extent seemed unclear even to the other admins". I would also like to highlight the fact that there were 10 SUPPORT and 10/9 SUPPORT FOR THE WIDER BAN (as proposed by Snowded). Also, there were 5 OPPOSE and 1 reversal from SUPPORT FOR THE WIDER BAN to SUPPORT SELF IMPOSED TBAN. So, there was by no mean an overwhelming consensus to apply the wider/broadly construed and vaguely defined TBAN as proposed by user Snowded. This is why, I believe that this TBAN if not lifted, needs to be re-assessed and at least restored to what was originally proposed. Again, to emphasise the point there was no overwhelming support to institute a wider TBAN, in fact if my arithmetic is correct in the end there were more votes to impose the original TBAN recommendation. Fast forward to the current discussion, and some of the users who voted for the wider ban are here now arguing for an even more expansive TBAN — these users should pause for a moment and ask themselves what I can suggest to better define this TBAN, clear things up and make it fair, instead of blindly arguing to widen the TBAN. And, as far as I can tell their views were not the outright majority or constituted an overwhelming consensus even in the original AN. --E-960 (talk) 08:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

In the end, I would again like to quote user Elemimele who said: At the moment, to an outsider reading ANI, the whole thing risks sending a message that WP... can't write an unambiguous ban, but think it doesn't matter because one can always reach a consensus on what it was supposed to mean, later, and inflict justice retrospectively. That just doesn't look fair. This is the case here, the initial TBAN scope was clearly defined, and instead a broad and ambitious TBAN definition was embraced by some users, who now insist that it's being violated. --E-960 (talk) 11:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Support Per Piotrus: No need for further punishment, but the ban remains part of the record, and if any problematic editing resurfaces, next one will presumably be much longer, so please be careful. but I also agree with E-960 TBAN is not a punishment of some kind, it's a tool to prevent disruptive editing and it serves as a cooling-off period. This was one year ago, after apologies for misunderstandings, and promising to use more reliable sources, I do not see why can not E-960 edit pages related to that matter, especially substantially edit pages related to Christianity which generally is not the same as "secular politics in European Union"? I think we can give them (last?) chance per

WP:AGF. Dawid2009 (talk

) 16:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Support Let's give this editor a last chance to show that they can be a constructive contributor in their area of interest. Certainly, they realize that their work will be scrutinized. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree, and, as I declared before, I also support lifting the sanctions. I trust this user. I believe that the lesson has been learned. However, (this is to you E-960) I would like you to be extremely careful while editing subjects concerning Christianity or religion in general. If you find yourself in a situation of potential disagreement with other editors, stop making edits and walk away. Assume that you may be mistaken. Simple like that. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Support: User:E-960 has done outstanding work on a variety of articles relating to history, an area that frequently intersects with religion. User:E-960's appeal has demonstrated that he has familiarized himself with Wikipedia guidelines since being topic banned and has engaged in constructive editing since then. As such, I think he should be allowed to return to editing fully again. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 02:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Note - Hippeus (talk · contribs) has been blocked as sock of Icewhiz (talk · contribs). Quelle surprise. nableezy - 02:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

And Astral Leap (talk · contribs) - sock puppet of the same - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd very much like to hear what @Wugapodes has to say now. Because all I have to say is "I told you so". _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:BATTLEGROUND concerns. I'd take your gloating more seriously if you weren't taking credit for someone else doing what I said you should have done two weeks ago. — Wug·a·po·des

​ 19:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

And how do you know I did not provide said evidence? In fact, as you well know, I did send some of it to you to as well - which you soundly ignored (not replying to my last email). While I can't be sure how much my findings/analysis contributed to what happened now, I know I did something. This was your opportunity to say "oops, I was fooled by socks and didn't realize there was a sockmaster behind the screen trying to torpedo this topic ban appeal, sorry, I'll be more careful next time". Instead, I am hearing "I was right all along, move along". Color me not impressed. PS. Now, to keep this more constructive and on-topic, how about we collapse this entire appeal outside the initial request, ping all non-blocked editors who participated in it with a note that the appeal was disrupted due to the involvement of socks of a banned editor (who proposed this TBan in the first place), and try again? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus: who proposed this TBan in the first place - this is true. They even pinged Wug in that discussion. You got below warning "Piotrus accuses another editor of sock puppetry" but everything you did was informing: "Erin Vaxx made few or no edits outside that topic". This short info is also allowed here. Excluding comments from the regular factions and looking simply at uninvolved administrators, both Jorm and Nil point out (...) Wug, why you mentioned just Jorm who was interacted with E-960 but not for example Cullen328 who support lifting the ban and is example of properly uninvolved (administrator) user here? However let see what other users think in next days (discussion are not helpful if we are focussed on mentioning other usernames instead raching for consensus about E-960's matter, let focuss on his appeal, and focuss does lifting the ban would be useful to constributing into encyclopedia. I have nothing to add to that request except my comment below, I just hope E-960 is going to realise his matter). Dawid2009 (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Dawid2009: It may help to look at dates before accusing me of things. My comment below was from 5 october and Cullen's comment came 14 October. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: I assume good faith to you, I am not accusing you now. With regards. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Wugapodes made few mistakes describing the situation (how on earth would he suppose to know everything?) but at the same time they steraed the disussion into the right direction and thanks for that. I believe that was the primary purpose of their action - rolling back discussion into the appropriate tracks. Administrative duties are very challenging folks. Let's just move on, stay on topic and focus on this appeal. Should that be granted? I think it should, especially now. - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Support lifting of sanctions per

WP:BMB. E-960 argued as reliable a source which breathlessly categorises minor, garden-variety vandalistic tagging as "intolerance and discrimination against Christians", and made some very inappropriate remarks in their defense, which a sock of a banned LTA then brought to ANI, resulting in a topic ban from (1) any edit relating to the topic of Christianity, broadly construed, and (2) any edits relating to secularism, broadly construed, in European politics. A sock of a banned LTA later reported E-960 for edits made to The Holocaust and another edit to a history section, which mentioned churches, resulting in a one-week block. I count myself amongst the observers who do not discern a clear relation between The Holocaust and "secularism in European politics". I'm neutral on whether or not mentioning churches in an edit about history falls under the scope of "Christianity, broadly defined". E-960 makes a lot of edits about historical topics, which may have tangential relation to or include terms related to Christianity or politics, but their contributions to historical topics have been uniformly constructive. The two most vocal opponents of lifting the TBAN in this discussion have been socks of a banned LTA, and have highlighted such trivialities as using the word "political"

in an historical context.

Recent discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard has included the perspective that Sockpuppets are not allowed to edit. Any successful disciplinary measure initiated or spurred on by a sock should be re-evaluated unless there is incontrovertible evidence backing the decision. [23] I believe that E-960's level of disruption in their topic area has been negligible since their initial outburst at RSN which led to sanctions, and further that their sanctions have been unclear, and most saliently that in order not to encourage continued abuse by LTAs, that any sanctions they initiated should be re-evaluted with prejudice towards lifting. Folly Mox (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Weak oppose I'm changing to weak oppose. I detest socks and their involvement in this. And although I'm generally cautious with

  WP:ROPE or removing a ban under the assumption we can just re-impose it again if needed, I'm fine if that's the way that goes here given the socks. But I still have very strong doubts about the ability of E-960 to edit constructively in this area. And I'd note that despite the involvement of socks the original ban discussion had widespread support from established editors who've been around since long before the master started to sock. I won't get into the issue of whether the specific ban imposed had wide spread support or we should clarify it for other reasons, it seems likely the ban is going to be lifted outright anyway so it's sort of moot.

  However I will say that if E-960 felt the closure was improper, they needed to appeal this and not just ignore the ban. Likewise where they were uncertain about specific areas, they should have asked rather than ignored it or edited and hoped for the best. As I understand it, E-960 accepts that at least one of the edits which lead to their block was a clear cut violation. While the report was unfortunately by a sock, the violation itself doesn't seem to have been caused by a sock or anyone besides E-960.

  It seems something I said back in June was misunderstood which I have apologised to E-960 for. (E-960's comment above lead me to realise this although I initially misunderstood why E-960 said it leading to a long reply here which I ended up removing [24].) I was in no way intending to suggest E-960's views or religious beliefs prevented them from being able to edit constructively. I do not know and do not care what these area. Instead what I was trying to say was that E-960 seemed to think that the topic ban itself was unfair and that instead felt they were being unfairly targeted for their views or religious beliefs. And I mean a ban in general rather than the specific ban imposed. And as long as they continued to feel this way, it would be unlikely they could edit in the area constructively.

  To be clear, their (general) views or religious beliefs are completely irrelevant as they should be. What matters is whether they accept and understand that their editing was a problem. (Which with so many non sock editors supporting some sanction, my view is it clearly was.) My view and experience is that any editor who continues to reject that a ban was needed, especially a ban supported by so many members of the community, is likely to continue to have the same problems if allowed back into that area. They remain unable to understand when and how their editing becomes a problem and therefore cannot avoid it.

  Perhaps I shouldn't have proscribed a specific reason E-960 seemed to think their ban was unfair although I assume it was the impression I got from what they'd said and done. And this was a talk page message I hoped would help them although it clear didn't. But despite having forgotten about this part of my June response, I came to the same basic conclusion here i.e. that E-960 still felt there was never any need for a ban even if I had no inkling why E-960 felt that way. (Failure to address the reasons for the ban etc.)

  Further than that as said above, to me it still seems they are downplaying any wrongdoing on their part after the ban which from my experience and view also likely means an editor will continue to have problems when returning. They accept they made a clearcut violation in June but only mention this as something akin to an aside. And while there was nothing majorly or egregious wrong with how they responded when blocked back in June, it was definitely not just accepting it in completely good grace like their appeal suggested to me. The fact it was a sock who reported them doesn't change this since even if at the time they had justification to be aggrieved at this editor we now know is sock and so maybe really was just out to get them; this doesn't explain why they implied they just accepted their block without any fuss.

  Nil Einne (talk

  ) 15:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Nil Einne - Thank you for adjusting your opinion and taking into consideration the circumstances that lead to this TP. Please keep in mind that the ban can be always reinstalled if the problem reappears. I would advocate for it myself. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Conduct warning

I was pinged here having closed the original TBAN discussion and want to note my participation in two related discussions as well: a Nov 2020 clarification discussion and a July 2021 report. These discussions follow a pattern where the same editors show up to carry on interpersonal disputes unrelated to the topic at hand. This is disruptive and discourages outside input. As I said three months ago when this last came to AN, "I'm not convinced the TBAN as it stands is preventing disruption so much as spreading it to new people and venues. That needs to be fixed in whatever way we think appropriate." To stick to this thread, however, the bulk of discussion has been Volunteer Marek and Piotrus making accusations and having discussions unrelated to the topic at hand.

• Marek accuses an editor of gaming the EC permission
• Marek accuses editors of tag teaming arguing that critics of him are holding grudges about an SPI from two years ago.
• Marek calls for another editor to be topic banned and accuses them of battle ground conduct because he disagrees with the editor's rationale
• Piotrus questions Astral Leap's motives claiming AL is a "relative newcomer" and asking how and why they are interested in this discussion, despite both AL and Piotrus having commented in the November 2020 discussion on E-960's ban scope.
• Piotrus accuses another editor of sock puppetry after they provide evidence of tag teaming
• Piotrus claims that discussion about his conduct is a personal attack

Of course, a battleground usually requires more than one faction, and other parties have contributed to the disruption of this discussion.

Just for the record, this statement and analysis is mind numbingly wrong. You and I apparently did not read the same discussion. Volunteer Marek 21:54, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

FYI, Astral Leap has been blocked as a sock of a banned editor. nableezy - 03:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

LOFL. Volunteer Marek 03:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi all - off the back of this little discussion about maybe using {{ANI status}} at ANI, I had a little think about how we'd potentially preload it

I've created Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Preload, which we could link to like this in the ANI header, and was wondering what y'all think? ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 17:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I've boldly gone ahead and just done it^TM and ANI didn't implode! ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 19:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Good idea! I like it. Makes the page easier to scan and triage. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

You're a minority in that opinion it seems 🙃 ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 22:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The preload now no longer includes {{ANI status}}, lest it add any more in the meantime ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 22:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

What would be really nice would be a javascript based form, like the one we have for RFPP or the one that commons uses for setting up deletion pages. You could have a form where you enter a title, the users involved, the pages involved and your explanatory text, and when you submit the form it generates the appropriate {{

page links}} templates, and automatically sends talk page notices to everybody tagged as involved. 192.76.8.77 (talk

) 23:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

That'd be good ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 00:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

In the meantime, there's User:Enterprisey/strike-archived. Enterprisey (talk!) 23:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce that GeneralNotability (talk · contribs) has been appointed a full clerk, effective immediately, concluding his successful traineeship.

The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by e-mail to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee, Maxim_(talk) 13:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § GeneralNotability promoted to full clerk

Please restore the latest revision of this article at User:NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh/Battle of Dien Bien Phu on Sea. I am not requesting a DRV, nor I am planning to rewrite it, it's just that I need to have a look and will tag it for speedy deletion in a few hours. Thanks in advance. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 19:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

There's a backlog of about 36 hours at RFPP, would an admin be able to take a look? Joseph2302 (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks mostly  Done thanks to a number of administrators who lent a hand — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Someone claiming to be

I’ve blocked him for making legal threats such as [29]. If he has a problem with how he’s represented in the sources and on Wikipedia, there are better ways to go about resolving that. clpo13_(talk) 17:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Clpo13: I believe you blocked the wrong user. DanCherek (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you’re right! That’s what I get for editing on a phone. clpo13_(talk) 17:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

This was mentioned on a Wikipedia criticism site, which led me to look at

He's certainly made his bio article more notable. -- GoodDay (talk) 04:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I've put this up for deletion. Mangoe (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

It should be summarily deleted per

FWIW, the bio article was created on August 20, 2021, so it's existed for over two months. GoodDay (talk) 05:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Which is an indictment of how Wikipedia fails to enforce its own policies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

He certainly may have a point on the possibly

Iskandar323 (talk

) 06:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The 'biography' in question is no longer on Wikipedia: "speedy deleted shady attack page". [30] AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:36, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Did you say

WP:DRV? Don't! El_C

06:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, that AfD turned out to be a waste of time. GoodDay (talk) 07:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Nothing that gets trash removed from Wikipedia is a waste of time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Seeing as the article-in-question has been deleted & the possible subject of that article, has no more reason to attempt getting it deleted. I reckon this AN report is rendered moot & should be closed. GoodDay (talk) 07:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay, your creation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Stevenson (businessman) has got to be one of strangest I've ever seen from an established editor. What am I missing? Weird. El_C 14:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Probably just a malfunctioning time machine. —Kusma (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

El_C 14:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes it was quite unique. I voted to 'keep' the article, before the final preparations of the AFD was completed. Now, I see the article has been re-created into a 're-direct' to the Jill Biden article. A lot of twists & turns. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• Well, since the article was indeed deleted as a "speedy deleted shady attack page" by El_C, I wonder if User:SecretName101 has something to say on the topic. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Yup. Why a long-standing contributor thought that article was even the slightest bit acceptable is one question that certainly needs answering. Along with why responses both here and at the AfD making insinuations regarding the 'Streisand effect' were seen as appropriate either, and whether Clpo13's suggestion above, "If he has a problem with how he’s represented in the sources and on Wikipedia, there are better ways to go about resolving that" is really true, or whether making a 'legal threat' so that attention is drawn to what was self-evidently an attack page is actually the best way to get it dealt with. There was a systemic failure here, and nothing I have seen so far suggests that anyone is willing to learn uncomfortable lessons. Entirely inappropriate reactions to 'threats' brought on by blatantly-biased behaviour by contributors are sadly far too common on the admin notice boards, as the gut reaction is inevitably to circle the wagons in self defence, rather than actually look at the underlying issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The article is now a redirect. Reckon this AN report is now moot & should be closed. GoodDay (talk) 05:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, well since my comment above regarding insinuations about the Streisand effect was clearly in reference to your posts (here and at the AfD [31][32]), I'd have to suggest that maybe you aren't the best person to decide what is or isn't 'moot'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not interested in having a quarrel with you. So, you can have the last word. GoodDay (talk) 05:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:DOLT strikes again. Levivich

06:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Precisely EvergreenFir (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I researched the individual, his operation of an influential nightclub seemed to warrant notability. From there, I created an article utilizing all the contemporary news sources I could find. The fact that there were strongly negative aspects was a reality of what I could find published on the subject, not any personal vendetta against the subject. I disagree with the deletion being an "attack page", but do not contest that the marginal notability meant we could veer on the safer side of deleting it. SecretName101 (talk) 06:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

So what led you to decide to 'research the individual' in the first place? Why have you suddenly started taking an interest in former owners of defunct nightclubs? And which of the sources you read discussing Stevenson emphasised 'strongly negative aspects' concerning events occurring almost forty years ago? If you, a prolific creator of articles on US political figures, are really going to try to convince people that this article had nothing to do with Stevenson's former marriage to Jill Biden, and to his more recent comments on the marriage, I think you'll need to be a bit more explicit with your explanations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:ARBBLP as well). El_C

13:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Rather than discussing Stevenson's supposed claim to fame, the section entitled 'Stone Balloon and convictions' instead concentrated almost entirely on Stevenson's legal and financial troubles. The section header was less than honest too, since it highlights 'convictions' while failing to mention the 'dropped charges' also discussed therein. This was a blatant hatchet job, and I don't believe it is in Wikipedia's interests to permit someone capable of producing such work to continue to edit biographies of living persons. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I too hold concerns about

WP:DRAFT so that it can be reviewed before going on the mainspace. EvergreenFir (talk)

17:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Charges were dropped only in one case against the subject. Two cases resulted in convictions. From other articles I had seen, you mention in the opening lead when a subject has been convicted. SecretName101 (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I thought it to be in line with articles like Patrick Cannon and other articles (which, I had recalled mentioning pretty early in its lead the convictions of the individuals, and which took care to elaborate on those charges). Perhaps the articles I was considering recollection of are problematic as well, and that led me to not practice best-practices. SecretName101 (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

You have yet to explain why you decided to "research the individual". What brought on this sudden interest in former owners of 1980s Delaware rock venues? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I had read about him in the news once or twice, such as when the whole Kathy Durst connection was revealed by him in and interview. When I later learned he had a prolific success for a period as an influential club operator, I decided “huh, maybe this guy has some notability.” Is that relevant? SecretName101 (talk) 17:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

So it wasn't Stevenson's rock-venue-management career that interested you in him in the first place, but the fact that he has made apparently unsubstantiated claims to have a connection to someone who disappeared in the early 1980s? Claims which the article again fails to elaborate on in any depth? Why, if that was indeed what led you to engage in "research", does the article say so little about the episode?

A simple question. Was your decision to "research the individual" in any way motivated by his connections to Jill Biden, and/or by his recent comments regarding the marriage? I'd recommend thinking carefully before answering. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm especially interested in the answer to this, given the inclusion of accusations against Biden sourced to (a) a wingnut right-wing site and (b) a local tabloid that merely reports what Stevenson said. Black Kite (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Which site was a wignut right-wing site? And the article said so little on that because there was not much to say. He said he had an affair with her, That was it. Until after the article was deleted (when it came out, just now, that police evidently have talked to him), there was nothing else to say on the relation to Durst. And I only said that the story (along with some others that mentioned him) were the reason I knew the person existed. SecretName101 (talk) 02:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

And, yes, I had become aware he existed in part because another article I had come across mentioned he was the ex-husband of Jill. Did that fuel any vendetta against the man? Hell no. SecretName101 (talk) 02:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I was legit in the "anyone but Biden camp" when it came to those seeking the Democratic nomination. So I have no rabid enthusiasm for the man. Would likely rate his presidency with "mild approval", extra-emphasis on the "mild". SecretName101 (talk) 02:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

So, you "became aware he existed" because he was Jill Biden's ex-husband. What made you decide to "research" him? And what, from the sources you 'researched' led you to conclude that such sources weighed the 1980s convictions so significantly that they merited describing him as an "American businessman and convicted fraudster" in the first sentence of the lede? Which of the sources you cited have done that? Are there any sources you have seen that did that? Have you seen such a description, or anything approximating to it anywhere other than in your own article and in the search engine results (e.g Google) which subsequently mirrored the article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I decided to research him when I learned he had operated what was apparently a very successful nightclub/college bar. I thought that might merit notability. I have said that before that that is what made me decide to research him. And I explained that articles I had seen before describing convicted politicians (such as those convicted of single charges of bribery) as convicts in the lead were what I was considering when I (mistakenly) thought his past convictions merited mention in the lead. 14:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

SecretName101 The site concerned is www.independentsentinel.com, which as of today, is currently, amongst other things, running a story claiming that COVID vaccines only work for 12 weeks, which contains the line "On that note, the man with dementia in the White House has instituted COVID traveler rules while allowing anonymous illegal aliens to pour in non-stop, by the thousands each day." Clearly a reliable source, that one. (Note: I just ran it through the source finder and luckily it is used on precisely zero articles in Wikipedia, which is both good and suggests how reliable it actually is). Black Kite (talk) 14:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• new page patrol process, where experienced editors cast an eye over new articles to ensure, amongst other things, that they aren't attack pages. It's not a perfect system (and it can always do with more reviewers), but it catches a lot of dodgy articles. It didn't have the chance to catch this one though, because SecretName101 had the Autopatrolled flag. Given the concerns that have been expressed here, I believe that it would be a good thing for their articles to be reviewed, so I have revoked that user right. Girth Summit _(blether)
  05:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Honestly,
  WP:ARBBLP (direct link). El_C
  09:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

  Apologies, El C, I should have been clearer - I didn't mean my action to be a barrier to any further action if others thought that necessary, or an indication that I don't think any further action was necessary. I saw it more as a bare minimum step - I haven't looked at the deleted article, but concerns that rise to the level of a G10 deletion are obviously not compatible with someone holding the Autopatrolled perm, so I pulled it. No objection to your topic ban, you've looked at this more closely than I have. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

No apology needed, Girth. I just felt that if we're gonna do anything, we might as well nip this particular problem in the bud. Which is to say: these sort of egregious BLP violations bring the project into disrepute, so I'm of the view that a firmer hand is called for. El_C 12:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll admit that the article should have remained as a draft, as was published far too early (if it ever should have been published). Should have not left the draft space. I have only been trying to explain I had no ill-intent in writing it, because that feels like what I am being accused of. SecretName101 (talk) 14:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

To avoid any doubt, I will state outright that I am accusing you of ill-intent in your creation of the Stevenson biography. I find your going-in-circles explanations for why you "researched" Stevenson, and on why such research made you believe he met Wikipedia notability criteria, anything but credible. And it should be noted that I have arrived at this conclusion not just because of your actions in regard to this article, but elsewhere. For example, the discussions at Talk:Michelle Wu (see e.g. here and the surrounding discussion) make it absolutely clear that your editing has been deeply skewed by political considerations, to an extent that simply shouldn't be permitted in such contexts. And I say that as someone who's own personal politics probably aren't that far from yours. All of us are influenced by our politics, all the time. That's a fundamental part of being human - homo politicus. A project like this though needs people with enough self-awareness to realise they are being influenced, and enough judgement to step back and ask if it is wise to use the project in such a partisan manner. Doing so may win a battle or so, but ultimately lose the war as the project becomes less and less credible as a source of information to those using it. And even from the most cynical analysis, as a tactic for political shenanigans, creating attack biographies concerning people who's political relevance is only even potentially of marginal significance is a poor use of your own limited time. I see that El_C has imposed an indefinite WP:BLP topic ban, a sanction which I consider entirely appropriate. At the very least, this might lead you to have sufficient time to put a little more thought into any other editing you do on Wikipedia. Or possibly to consider taking your political enthusiasms elsewhere. There are plenty of contexts where overtly-partisan political writing is appropriate, expected, and effective. Perhaps you might consider using some of your free time to learn how to do it properly: I'd recommend reading a little George Orwell as a starting point. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: With Michelle Wu I did not skew either way. I went overboard in outlining her policies and work, but neither attempted outright described her policies as having negative or positive implications. Which is what we are meant to do when we describe people's policies in their articles on Wikipedia. A liberal would have probably loved what they read, while a conservative would have been outright horrified by what her policy was. A moderate might have had mixed opinions. I attempted to let the positives or negatives of her policies, arguments, and actions stand on their own, for interpretation by the reader. That is not skewed writing. SecretName101 (talk) 21:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the comment you made at Talk:Michelle Wu that I linked above speaks for itself. You were arguing that content should be included in the article because of your personal belief that she may in the future be "primed to run for POTUS", thereby "fulfilling the dream some had of a Warren-style president". And the surrounding context in the discussion makes it clear that I'm not the only person who considered your behaviour in regard to that article inappropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:DOLT

Right now, the first is a policy, the second is "just an essay", a phrase I've been subjected to numerous times by people resisting what IMO was common sense. And right now it seems that the way everyone understands the policy is that "we just up and block anyone who makes a legal threat." Maybe that's appropriate for two established editors in an ongoing argument, but to someone who creates an account specifically because they feel they are being slandered or otherwise being attacked through our platform, it sends the message that because they are an outsider they are being deliberately dismissed. These people shouldn't have to be put through a bureaucratic obstacle course simply to have their complaints heard. At a minimum some of the essay needs to be moved into the policy, but it seems to me that a better process needs to be set up to deal with these complaints to ensure that they are addressed. As it is, this required an alert on an external site and a response by at least one third party to raise awareness of the problems with the article. Mangoe (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Like. Kind of a flip of

WP:PACT. Will Remix. El_C

23:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd support merging DOLT into NLT. Levivich 00:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Necessary, but not sufficient.

WP:BLPKINDNESS - the whole damn lot. That such a contributor can think this is even remotely appropriate is astonishing. That nobody else should identify the obvious issues over a period of two months is far worse. It is clear and unequivocal evidence that there are systemic flaws in the ways that Wikipedia creates biographical articles, but fails to apply its own policies to them. This in a context where Google for instance will, as a matter of course, cite and directly quote Wikipedia ledes as its top search result for biographical content. Directly quoting gross policy violations like 'convicted fraudster', because nobody has taken the necessary action to rectify it. The system is broken. It doesn't work. It fails to enforce its own policies. It needs fundamental changes in regard to how such material is checked and approved. This isn't 2001 any more. Wikipedia has a presence on the internet now where 'let anyone edit and we'll hope it all gets sorted out later' isn't even remotely appropriate. Wikipedia has to either find a way to ensure that such things cannot happen, or simply stop pretending that amateurism-by-design 'always-improving' wishful thinking is capable of producing appropriate biographical content in the context it now finds itself in. Tinkering with WP:NLT is not enough. Not remotely. The system is broken. Fix it. AndyTheGrump (talk

) 04:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Just spitballing here but what about 1. an edit filter that checks for

WP:NPP for BLPs, perhaps a feed that also checks autopatrolled creation of BLPs? Levivich

05:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Relying on edit filters to enforce fundamental Wikipedia policy would seem to be an indication of a deep-running issue that needed further attention, even if it worked. As for an 'enhanced' new page patrol system, I proposed something along similar lines in an off-Wikipedia discussion: that biographies of living persons are not permitted to go 'live' until they have been vouched for as properly-sourced and policy-compliant by at least two established editors other than the article creator. As for what would constitute an 'established editor', that would probably need some thought (maybe a new user-right?), and it should note that even this doesn't prevent blatant policy violations being added later. What is actually needed is a system that ensures that biographical material receives greater scrutiny throughout its lifetime. And a cultural change in Wikipedia that treats WP:BLP policy as one of its core values, not just another set of rules to be wiggled round when they get in the way. A free online encyclopaedia would seem to be a worthy project, but is it really so, if it also acts as a venue for free online character assassination? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• I also support promoting DOLT to be a requirement before action is taken. I think too many people know the rule (one strike and you're out) and enjoy the circus, and too many admins act without thinking first because rules. I am not commenting about this particular case as I have not investigated what the NLT-violations involved, but I agree with AndyTheGrump above that the (now deleted) article was a monstrosity. Johnuniq (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• Sounds like a great discussion to bring up at
  WT:NLT, it certainly would not be decided here. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.}
  09:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The page Draft: Dhoom 4 has been repeatedly recreated by multiple IP addresses talking about a non-existent and non-upcoming movie hoax, as according to the page log [33]. Using Twinkle I nominated the page for CSD under G3: Blatant Hoax, and also check marked the box "Request page salting". The reason why I think the draft page needs to be salted is because the IP crystal ball hoaxer usually copies and pastes the content on the page to either Dhoom (franchise)[34] or sometimes Talk:Dhoom (franchise)[35][36][37]. As you can see, the users who are actually taking time to take care of the article are annoyed at this point. The edits to these pages always occur after the protection for any of the two pages ends. The protection for the Dhoom article page is showing on it's log [38] has been seen going on and off repeatedly, and its current protection is slated to end at sometime in November. There is no way to get a message across to the IP user, as they use a public IP address that keeps changing once in a while. Pining users who are obviously annoyed by the Dhoom 4 hoax vandal. @Bollyjeff: Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 00:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold: I know nothing about this. – Athaenara ✉ 01:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Athaenara: I replied to you on your talk page. Accidently copied your username on the page history, when I was trying to copy another. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
• @
  WP:RFPP, too. clpo13_(talk
  ) 01:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Clpo13: Thank you.  :) Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The opening sentence states that she was born in red link philly Maryland and the second sentence claims that she was born a "crack baby" [sic], which I don't think is the correct medical term. Other parts seem borderline suspect and there is a lack of sourcing in parts of the article. Darkknight2149 20:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The redink town name has been corrected by firefly. The source on Crack Baby is no longer valid, so I deleted the term. — Maile (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I suppose it takes an arsonist to stop a vandal. Anyways, thanks for looking into it. Darkknight2149 07:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)