Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive342

This is your unofficial reminder to

Ah, the impenetrable Meta Strikes Back. Well, at least as a venue, it isn't a ghost town like Fakebook's Meta (Truth Sokial?). BTW, the Glossary cracked me up. Q: what is X? A: See X on Meta. What, we are on Meta? Well, we're still not gonna link it for ya, peasants! And... scene. El_C 08:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I linked the most obvious ones. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, Affcom is the Affiliations Committee and not the Affections Committee? Now I'm extra-sad. El_C 15:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure if there is a logical discussion venue - no doubt there should be one, not sure if it should be here, somewhere else local, or there @MJL: - thoughts? Nosebagbear (talk) 10:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@

☖

16:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's pretty pathetic. Doesn't anyone there know how to link? Doug Weller talk 12:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

This was a reply to El C, but reply didn't put it in the right place. Known problem? Doug Weller talk 12:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:INDENT for the basic rules of threaded discussion: If you want to reply to a comment, but another editor has already done so, just position your own text beneath that other editor's reply, at the same indentation level. Floquenbeam's reply above (not made with the reply tool) is an example of one that is not correctly positioned. Modulus12 (talk

) 01:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

You're right of course. It's a problem with

WP:INDENT, not the reply tool IMHO, in that it's not obvious unless you carefully look and line up the replied. Like it or not, User:Floquenbeam's post is an obvious reply to El C, mine is not. Doug Weller talk

09:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Modulus12: Didn't read all of your post. So you are saying that the reply tool isn't doing what I expect/want it to? I did notice once that using it and saving after someone else posted didn't cause an edit conflict but put it after the other person posted, so I went in and moved mine. Doug Weller talk 09:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what you expected it to do. But in this diff the reply tool correctly positioned your comment as a reply to El C, after Nosebagbear's reply to El C. I don't think there's anything wrong with the essay

WP:INDENT either. Modulus12 (talk

) 22:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Question, asking for a friend. Do administrators have to sign their names in blood when forced to agree to this or will a regular pen or pencil do? Randy Kryn (talk) 10:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Are You Now or Have You Ever Been A Metamate? El_C 10:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@

☖

16:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

My friend is rejoicing as we speak, because apparently "All advanced rights holders" doesn't apply to admins, as in "The following individuals should be required to affirm (through signed declaration or other format to be decided) they will acknowledge and adhere to the Universal Code of Conduct: All Wikimedia Foundation staff, Board members, Wikimedia affiliate board members, staff and contractors; All advanced rights holders;". Randy Kryn (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Vote early, vote often, vote no. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Can someone please answer a procedural question (I don't want to e-mail the meta address to ask)? If I vote no, there is apparently a box to comment on why I'm voting no. Do I have to comment? If I don't, is there some kind of, uh, follow-up? I find the instructions confusing. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  Having just voted, you do not need to fill out the comment. There was no follow-up after submitting my vote, beyond receiving a PGP hash receipt of it for my own records. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  I think there actually is a box even if you vote yes, though I've not tested Nosebagbear (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  The comments box is available regardless of the answer to question 1 (Options: No, -, Yes); it is for overall comments, not necessarily a justification for your vote. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  For the record, upon voting No (a few min prior to commenting here, at AN), my vote box comment read (in full): learn to condense! I'm helping! El_C 15:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  "Learn to condense"? That's rude! BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 15:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  It's probably a violation of the UCoC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  To quote James Randal: I got scared. El_C 15:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  I highly recommend you include the reason why you voted no if you voted no. If ratification was to fail at this stage, then the revision committee that gets formed is going to use what people wrote as the basis for deciding what changes should get made. –

  ☖

  16:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  Leaving comments no matter how you vote is helpful. Either it will pass and there will be an amendment process in a year (at which time it would still be good to know what people liked/disliked at ratification) and a U4C building committee (who might be able to address some issues that were disliked) or it won't pass and revisions will get made in which case again it's helpful to know what people liked and disliked so the right things are changed. If you already voted and didn't leave a comment you can go back and vote - only your most recent vote/comments are kept. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• In other words, we're going to keep having the vote with minor tweaks until we say "Yes". Black Kite (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  Why would the tweaks have to be minor? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• They don't. But this is the WMF we're talking about here, I can't see them majorly revising this very important thing. Black Kite (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• This may be a gross misreading on my part, but does the section on harassment, as currently written, prevent us from sending non-public off-wiki information about other editors to ARBCOM? If so, that's immediate grounds for opposition; we cannot hope to deal with off-wiki harassment and coordination without the ability to handle such information. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  While I'm very confident that it's not intended as such, you're right that the base UCOC text doesn't include write-outs for it. It has a general category, that UPE (etc) combatting wouldn't fall into, and then names certain "included but not limited to" names buckets. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for this, Nosebagbear: do you know if ARBCOM members have commented on this before? I'm minded to ping some of them here, but I don't want to make a scene if it's been resolved elsewhere. I find this very concerning. ARBCOM has frequently banned users here because of their off-wiki activity; how is this to be brought to their attention going forward? Is the board aware that they are essentially preventing us from discussing off-wiki harassment anymore? Vanamonde (Talk) 15:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  I hate to yell for attention, but given the off-wiki harassment I've seen, I think it's justified; @Wugapodes, Barkeep49, and L235: I'd be interested in hear whether y'all think the the doxing section of the UCoC prevents editors from bringing off-wiki information to ARBCOM when it relates to things besides paid editing. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  Speaking only for myself, I don't get that reading, but if you are not confident that the policy is clear enough, then that is a good reason to oppose. Section 3.1 of the UCoC, Harassment, includes a definition at the start any behaviour intended primarily to intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any behaviour where this would reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome. Sharing non-public personal information with the arbitration committee in private for the purposes of administering the project does not seem to fall under that definition. My understanding of the doxing example in the text is that it is limited by that main definition, and covers the public sharing of non-public personal information as the main outcome of that action would be intimidation, outrage, or upset, but private reports have the main outcome of effective project administration. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks. I can see how it may be read that way; and if it's always read that way, it would address my concern. I'm not (yet) confident it will always be read that way, however. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  Just noting that I am not speaking publicly about the UCoC Enforcment draft, other than to encourage people to vote and leave comments regardless of which way they're voting. Courtesy ping to MJL who has been speaking about their interpretation of things. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  I don't have any special insight about the UCOC itself, so I try to avoid talking about it. –

  ☖

  00:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• Other than the apparently obligatory fear and loathing of anything WMF does, can somebody explain what the problem is with the UCoC? I get the objection made by Vanamonde93 about off-wiki evidence, but I assume that's something that can get fixed with a minor working tweak. So, what else about this has people upset? I've read through the whole thing and I really can't find anything it prohibits which I wouldn't want prohibited. I assume nobody's saying that sexual harassment, doxing, threat of violence, etc, are actually things they want to allow. So, what am I missing? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  I'm perhaps in the "pass with fixes but not right now" camp. I'm leery about the lack of language describing who gets to decide when there are failures to resolve disputes locally or systemic failures to enforce the UCoC; if this is clearly a decision made by the community at the target project and/or Metawiki, there's no problem IMO, but right now it's vague and could be interpreted as a blank check for office actions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  But there already is pretty much a blank check for office actions, and this doesn't change that one way or the other. Is there any fundamental difference between WMF doing something we don't like and justifying it with "Because T&S" vs "Because UCoC"? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  I think it's reasonable to worry, even without indulging the "WMF is out to get us" mentality, that the community buy-in afforded by a successful passing of a UCoC would encourage the WMF to use its provisions more fully than the existing T&S. Given the possibility, I'd rather object now and push for language I am fully comfortable with rather than endorse something I don't necessarily agree with. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  @RoySmith: I'm not convinced about the possibility of a minor working tweak. I'm also not sure how this impacts on fighting paid editing. Without something more official I shall probably vote no. Doug Weller talk 16:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  Principal issues to me, @RoySmith with the enforcement guideliness (phase 2) include:

  i) There are numerous requirements of anonymity capacity, but no countervailing evidentiary safeguards for the accused. It moves the marker a very long way.

  ii) It also, despite it being the single most requested amendment to the 1st iteration of phase 2, has functionally zero right to be heard inclusion. Such a right definitely shouldn't be absolute, but given the community demand, its exclusion (other than one line that may refer to it, but only in specific regard to the U4C) is unacceptable

  iii) It is unclear - even in English, making the translations likely even harder to be confident on reasoning

  iv) The training is mandatory (the definition that grandfathers admins doesn't apply here), and doesn't give a community veto on its content

  v) We were guaranteed that phase 2 would be iterative, but they decided, right at the endgame, that we would not be permitted any chance to amend significant parts of the policy text prior to the vote. That is, we'd never seen it until December, and despite major discussion, if we don't vote no, we can't fix flaws with it.

  vi) We were not permitted a vote on phase 1, and then T&S policy stated that no-one in the community had requested a ratification vote prior to the ARBCOM open letter, and when I provided a diff demonstrating exactly that, six months earlier, they ceased communicating about it. Until all issues with prior engagement have been resolved, I am nervous about trusting future ones. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• I hope any admins supporting this are looking forward to their compulsory UCoC training course. This hasn't been developed yet but the WMF's anti-harassment course lasts 8 weeks and includes coursework. Hut 8.5 18:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  Where does it say there's going to be a compulsory training course? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  RoySmith "Individuals required to acknowledge and adhere to the Universal Code of Conduct will be required to attend training to ensure a common understanding of implementation". That includes all advanced rights holders. Black Kite (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)Individuals required to acknowledge and adhere to the Universal Code of Conduct will be required to attend training... That includes admins: the "Affirmation of the UCoC among certain groups" section says The following individuals should be required to affirm... they will acknowledge and adhere to the Universal Code of Conduct...All advanced rights holders. The glossary says that "Advanced rights holders" includes admins. Hut 8.5 18:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, OK. I had to go hunting to find that, but for future reference, it's here. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  lasts 8 weeks and includes coursework - Not gonna do that, personally. WP is suppose to be a fun hobby for me, and having to deal with a lengthy "seminar" and likely giving more personal information to the WMF than I would care to in the process of signing up does not sound enjoyable, plus whatever "follow-up" I'm sure they'll deem is necessary in a few months. I will almost certainly be resigning the mop if it comes to that. Hog Farm _Talk 20:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  I don’t think that’s going to happen. They must know that’s too much. Do we have any information about what they actually plan? Doug Weller talk 20:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  Call me cynical, but I'm not sure the WMF wants us to know exactly what they plan, or they'd be making it more clear. Either that, or Hanlon's razor is at play here. Hog Farm _Talk 20:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  @

  ☖

  23:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  Which makes it difficult to support. A bit of a pig in a poke. Doug Weller talk 13:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I'm just trying to share what I know. How the vote goes is beyond my control, but I'm glad the WMF is having a ratification process here. –

  ☖

  00:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  Roy, with insufficient clarity about local control vs WMF control of enforcement, I worry that without further clarification in advance, this process as written will make it much easier to weaponize the UCOC, even easier than it is to weaponize our local policies. Some may recall we had a little dust up about that a few years ago, involving Fram? Voting yes on this, as written, seems to me to be giving up all the local control we painfully clawed back from WMF that time. Once approved, WMF will have zero incentive to modify things they like that we don't. Of course we all don't support harassment, but there is a thread on ANI right now where an editor is threatening to report another editor they're in a content dispute with to T&S for "bullying". I do not trust T&S to evaluate such a claim fairly. I think it will be easier to pull the wool over the eyes of T&S than even editors at ANI, or our local ArbCom. One thing I'm curious about; if editors of other language wikis - where there may be no functioning ArbCom, and where something like this might make sense as "better than nothing" - vote for this, and English WP editors vote against, I'm guessing WMF is going to interpret that as an approval to go ahead and apply it to us too? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  If 50.1% of voters support the enforcement guidelines, they will be applied to all editors. The UCoC was implemented by a Board resolution making it binding policy under section 11 of the Terms of Use, but also means it can only be modified with the consent of the Board. I expect the enforcement guidelines to be resolution'd into force the same way. Neither document allows the community to make amendments to the UCoC itself or the enforcement guidelines, the only indication such a thing might be possible is an announcement that is not binding on anyone and was signed only by the current Vice Chair of the Board. The latest I've heard from the WMF is that if the guidelines pass even with widespread opposition, there will be no amendments for at least a year. Of course, the Board can modify either document by resolution whenever they want.

  Putting on my pile of non-enwiki hats, I think the UCoC will be a good thing for many wikis. But the enforcement guidelines are just not ready yet, and ideally the UCoC itself should have had another pass too. It is not possible to simply legislate social change into existence with a few Board resolutions, it is necessary to actively work with the affected people to fix problems and to find a mutually-acceptable solution. However, the WMF has decided to ignore this successful consensus-based model, and I think both documents are worse off because of it. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 05:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• WP:Fram, if anyone has forgotten. Please everyone: vote! I might disagree with "the powers that be" here on en.wp from time to time, but I have a heck of a lot more trust in en.wp that I have in WMF. Huldra (talk
  ) 20:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I realized that I have waited until almost the end to vote. There is lengthy discussion above that provides at least as much noise as signal. It appears that the rough consensus is that we should vote No because, as written, the enforcement guidelines will expand the powers of T&S without any particular constraint on those powers, and so increase the likelihood of another Framgate. Is that basically what has been said above? Is there another two-paragraph summary? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

That's how I've understood it, Robert. I 'm pretty sure which thread on ANI Floquenbeam refers to above, and yes, I can see how worrying WMF's handling of such cases could easily become. Full transparency: I've just voted "no", and have written "Because of the Fram fiasco" in the comments box. Bishonen | tålk 20:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC).

But that was kind of useless. I have re-voted (which is perfectly kosher) and adduced a much fuller rationale. Bishonen | tålk 10:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC).

Perhaps it goes without saying that recent events reinforce my concerns about bad-faith weaponization of the UCoC as a bullying tool. I don't see a lot of evidence that there are safeguards in place to prevent this inevitability, and I don't know that the WMF's track record inspires a leap of faith in that regard. MastCell ^Talk 19:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I've heard a lot of different reasons people had in the above thread. I don't believe anywhere in the proposed enforcement guidelines T&S have their authority expanded, but some people did mention above they did not restrict T&S enough (in their view). –

☖

03:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@MJL While direct authority shift to T&S is not a particular concern of the UCOC#EGs, assuming that T&S will be the ones writing the training, where the Community is only consulted on its content, rather than authority to discard it, that is a source of authority given its purpose is to standardise judgement. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a backlog at

On it. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

This is one of the more creative ways I've seen to request blocking your own IP. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed... and tagging admins in edit summaries after refreshing your IP... EvergreenFir (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Did I... look cool? El_C 20:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Things I never expected to see referenced on WP:AN: a Twitch VOD. –

☖

00:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

From the wisdeom of Twitch chat: fire is flammable. El_C 10:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Inflammable means flammable?! What a language! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, the user

Blocked by LuK3. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Primefac is stalking my edits on Christopher G. Hollins. After completing some research as to rules and regulations, I usurped a page on entitled "Chris Hollins" and moved the old page to "Chris J. Hollins," while also redirecting "Christopher G. Hollins" to the old "Chris Hollins" page. After some back and forth, User:Primefac seems to have unilaterally determined that my edits were contested and overroad my edits by adding a protection the page. Then, I moved forward by creating the page "Chris (Christopher G.) Hollins" and redirecting "Christopher G. Hollins" to that page. User:Primefac maliciously deleted the new page, citing vandalism??? When it was a good faith effort to move forward without permitting the ongoing confusion. I have spent countless hours on this page, including working google to clarify the difference between the two Chris Hollinses and User:Primefac is determined to steamroll my efforts. His own efforts are clearly hostile and done in bad faith (period). This is volunteer work, it should not involve User:Primefac's ego. I wish for some intervention to resolve this conflict. ChristaJwl (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC).

Turns out

Christopher G. Hollins to the new page. I am allowed to retitled MY work. And I should not be prevented from working on an article I originated in good faith. Therefore, in addition to seeking some intervention, I am requesting that the block be removed. ChristaJwl (talk

) 00:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

You're quite clearly engaged in an

edit war, which is never appropriate, even if your edits are correct. Your partial block is only for one week, and it seems that it is necessary to prevent you from continuing to edit war. If you are willing to agree to stop edit warring and discuss the dispute on the article's talk page, it is possible Primefac

or another administator would be willing to remove or reduce your partial block.

You've also called Primefac's edits bad faith, but didn't provide any evidence. They're just following Wikipedia standards, and your accusations against them seem unfounded. ––FormalDude talk 00:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:NCDAB, then we will defer to our policies and guidelines rather than your preference. Note I am not commenting on any the specific title dispute, simple saying that it's not correct that you get to rename an article without considering the disagreement of other editors just because it's your work. Nil Einne (talk

) 01:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Also even where your preference as author of a page makes a difference, it definitely does not allow you to usurp or take control over some other title. The other title is clearly not your work so trying to take control over it solely because you created some other article is not acceptable in any way and frankly doesn't even make sense. Nil Einne (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

It looks like ChristaJwl moved an existing Chris Hollis article to Chris J. Hollins. Then after another editor turned Chris Hollins into a dab page, ChristaJwl copied and pasted the contents of Christopher G. Hollins into Chris Hollins. Primefac stepped in and protected the page to reverse the copy/paste move, which I see nothing wrong with. ChristaJwl also copied and pasted Christopher G. Hollins to

Chris (Christopher G.) Hollins, which needs to be speedied. Natg 19 (talk

) 00:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The last issue is another important point.

Chris (Christopher G.) Hollins [24] that there are other editors who wrote part of that work. Nil Einne (talk

) 01:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

To be clear this means even if your moves were otherwise completely proper and frankly now that I've looked into it in more detail I don't think any of them are, what you did would still be wrong since you didn't move them in the correct way. Note if you cannot make a move because an existing page is in the way, the correct process is to make a

WP:Requested move rather than edit warring to keep your version in place. You do not get to decide by yourself what's the primary topic when there is dispute. As I said above, this would apply even if you were the sole author of both the article and the title you're trying to usurp neither of which is the case anyway. Nil Einne (talk

) 02:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The cut-and-paste move problem goes even deeper than that, as there is Draft:Christopher Hollins, which has edits by ChristaJwl and is about the same subject. —C.Fred (talk) 02:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't look like ChristaJwl is responsible for that one though. I sort of indicated this above, technically it might be okay provided the draft isn't deleted since attribution was left in the article history, although not sure it was the best solution as I don't see a reason for the separate histories. By comparison, at least with the now deleted () article, I saw no indication the content came from anywhere else so AFAIK, it was not compliant with either licence so was definitely highly questionable IMO. Nil Einne (talk) 03:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I realize this is very much a minor detail in the scheme of this... incident, but the move from of the UK broadcaster from "Chris Hollins" to

Chris J. Hollins was clearly incorrect. It's very much not his common name -- we've managed the remarkable feat of creating not just the top reference in google searches for that term but the only reference to this individual as such. (After all, people don't generally go by abbreviations of their first names with an initial -- real stylistic mishmash.) Could someone reverse this, or if the double-dab at Chris/Christopher is deemed necessary, to Chris Hollins (broadcaster), please? Or if this is remotely contestable, I'll of course take this to RM. 109.255.211.6 (talk

) 03:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@FormalDudeYour response is inherently bias. First of all, there was a history merge request that was added to the initial change which I kept adding and which kept being deleted. Secondly, the rules do permit me to usurp a page which I diligently researched. Finally this is not my edit war. This edit war was begun by Primefacwho you chose not to reprimand or call to issue in anyway even though I’m the person who issued the complaint. Primefac also had a way of communicating in this forum which is unpleasant at best, and certainly rude as well as taking a tone that is intentionally superior. Regardless of whether he is, in this volunteer setting it is unnecessary - and leads me and probably others to understand him to be acting in bad faith. Note:

“It is permitted to usurp a page title for a new article, and it generally does not require administrative assistance, though good judgment should be used in determining if these are best positions for both the old and the new page.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Moving_a_page#Usurping_a_page_title

As a practicing litigator (and a fairly significant one), I more than understand how to read and follow some rules. What is against the rules is for you all to make your own rules in contravention of what the rules actually are.

If someone had a problem with my initial changes, they should have started a conversation about it. Rather they immediately decided to over rule my work without checking the rules themselves. And where edits were made with any respect or honor whatsoever, I did engage in conversation. That is not at all what Primefac did or event attempted to do.

It seems like although you say you appreciate my contributions, that’s not actually the case. I’m not getting paid to do this and I have no real stake in the fight other than to ensure the correctness and accuracy of the page, given the individuals pending candidacy and a desire to complete the work so I can move on to a different project that is currently underway. Unfortunately, the serious oversight and intensity of the editing war created by another, I can’t help but to believe is fueled by something derogatory or worse since moving the page was otherwise and entirely lawful act.

That all being said, I would like to elevate my complaint - and to the extent that is not done by virtue of this message - I will do it myself in another forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristaJwl (talk • contribs) 02:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, why is there a dispute about retitling a page at all? That’s actually and honestly absurd given the ease by which a history merge request can be effectuated and was so requested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristaJwl (talk • contribs) 02:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

If you think a page is improperly "named", and there is another page that has that name, the proper procedure is to open a

requested move and explain why you think the page name(s) need to be changed. It is not correct to either copy and paste content into another page, or to create several redirects to new names. I don't think you are reading that section on "usurping pages" correctly, as this is for creating NEW articles. Natg 19 (talk

) 02:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Just because a problem can be fixed doesn't mean it's acceptable for you to create the problem in the first place requiring some other volunteer to fix it. Notably history merges are something only admins can do, and even for simple ones not all admins are comfortable doing them. Also, a problem can only be fixed it someone notices it. By making a cut and paste move and leaving no notice that you've done so, you've create a copyright violation until someone notices and fixes it. Since your a lawyer, you should be aware that a copyright violation is not acceptable. It doesn't matter when it can later be fixed, you've already violated someone's copyright and technically they could sue for the time when we were violating their copyright. As for the rest, I don't know how to make this any clearer but your understanding of the rules here is more or less completely wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 02:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I maybe should emphasise there are two issues which you seem to be conflating both of which are very important. One which I emphasised a lot is that the way you tried to move the page in two or more instances is wrong. You don't get to move pages by cutting and pasting the content around no matter that it can be fixed, our policies and guidelines make this clear so I suggest you re-read them if you think they allow it. The other issue is that even if you had performed the move correctly, it's clear that people disagree with your move because they are unconvinced about with your primary topic argument. To be clear, this means they don't just disagree with your move because it wasn't performed correctly but they disagree with the reasoning behind your move. When you make a

WP:Edit wars are disruptive, move wars are especially the case as noted in the earlier link. So you should never get involved in a move war and in so much as one may be said to already exist, they should always end with the reversion of an undiscussed move. Nil Einne (talk

) 03:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@ChristaJwl: This is the highest forum to wage a complaint against user conduct. And where did you make a merge request or requested move? I don't see any such edit in your contributions. ––FormalDude talk 03:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I've moved "Chris J. Hollins" to Chris Hollins (broadcaster) in response to the quite reasonable request above. ChristaJwl, be very careful about commenting on the "legal" aspects of this matter. Deb (talk) 03:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm much obliged. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Hopefully I'm reading too much into some of these choices of wording -- "litigator", "lawful act", "elevate my complaint" to "another forum" -- but you should perhaps also be aware of

personal attacks on Primefac. Starting perhaps with the entirely inappropriate section title. 109.255.211.6 (talk

) 03:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@FormalDude every reversion included the merge history requests that I very quickly thanked another editor for adding after he reviewed my revisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristaJwl (talk • contribs) 04:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Is Christopher G. Hollins going to be moved to Chris Hollins (Attorney and Politician)? ChristaJwl (talk) 04:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I would tentatively suggest a move to

WP:RM. 109.255.211.6 (talk

) 05:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Responding to ping by Nil Einne. Thanks for the ping. I haven't read all of this. In responding to the initial complaint by ChristaJwl, I would say, thank you for your efforts, and I hope the experience with this complaint does not make you want to leave Wikipedia in anger. You wouldn't be the first! I saw that you said you are a litigator and were following the rules. I'm sure you were trying to. Unlike law (I have a paralegal degree), for every rule here, there seems to be other rules that trump it. The hard part is that you haven't edited long enough to know what rules are the important ones.

For example, when you file a complaint here, you are supposed to provide

In this case Nil Einne is correct that if you are going to do a page move or merge, you open up request and solicit input form other editors before doing the move or merge, unless it is a trivial move involving, for example, pages only you edited or pages with practically no content, etc. In this case, it seems you moved a page that had a long history without asking first. Not a good idea. As an editor with few edits, it's an understandable newbie mistake.

As for the tone of people responding you to you, I'm sorry if you experienced something unpleasant. Countless new editors experience it and leave. It's been a long-term problem on Wikipedia. I hope you stick it out. Because you didn't provide any

Delightful thing to wake up to, not really bothered by what has been said (or by the section header).

As mentioned,

Chris (Christopher G.) Hollins was created (a straight copy-paste of the CGH article), plus there were another couple of warnings on their talk page, and I determined that a partial block was the only way to actually stop the disruption. And here we are. Primefac (talk

) 08:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Primefac Your actions seem to me to be above reproach. Deb (talk) 08:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Since it looks like the histories etc have been fixed and it seems to matter a big deal to the OP, I've boldly moved

WP:NCPDAB and the US Hollins notability seems to come from their involvement in politics, so it seems to me to be the best disambiguation if it's needed. I felt I wasn't furthering the move war since that seems to be mostly about the primary topic with some unfortunate very poorly implemented attempts at parenthetical disambiguation that followed. My move isn't intended as commentary on the primary topic, that can be resolved via an RM if needed, instead my hope is that this will reduce the OP's apparent concerns about the old title and allow them to focus on whether they want an RM to establish whether either Hollins is the primary topic. I'd note that the same outcome could likely have been achieved without all this drama if the OP had simply asked on the talk page, and then sought feedback elsewhere if there was no response. Nil Einne (talk

) 12:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

My hot take is that of Hollinses, the UK one is likely somewhat the more notable, especially over time. But I'm also aware that I might be being biased by which one I'd actually heard of, and by google's fiendish algorithms second-guessing me too. I'm far from certain that he'd pass the standard of being much more likely to be the one sought, per

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The TX chap is conversely slightly the more recently newsworthy, and might be about to become more notable, or drastically less so, depending on his political fortunes. Nor are these two necessarily the be-all and end-all of all possible Chrises Hollins that people could be looking for -- I happened across two others while checking. So I'd favour not troubling RM at present, and find the status quo largely satisfactory. Glossing over the bumps in how we got there. 109.255.211.6 (talk

) 20:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@David Tornheim Thank you for the feedback, encouragement and advice. I'll leave this here and take you up on your offer to review the information on your user page. Best and, in good faith, thanks to @Nil Einne for the move. --ChristaJwl (talk) 12:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I will appreciate if some admins volunteer to handle the backlog at the spam whitelist. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Editor has been engaging in disruptive editing for sometime within the Somaliland/Somalia space, more recently they have been edit-warring across multiple pages (e.g. Sool:[26], [27], [28], [29], also on Sanaag: [30], [31], [32], plenty more of this edit warring behaviour can be found in their history.

This editor has a history of disruptive editing, they were blocked last year for the same behaviour (edit warring about Somaliland versus Somalia on many articles) [33], here is a link to the last report to illustrate the scale of their disruption Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive431#User:Shirshore reported by User:Dabaqabad (Result: Blocked). They do not seem to care all that much for edit warring warnings: [34] as they persisted to continue the same disruptive behaviour within minutes of the warning.

It is important to stress here that the Horn of Africa section is under discretionary sanctions per

• Comment Editing wars are not a good thing, but neither is the other party (User:Jacob300, User:Kzl55). It is clear from the BBC and VOA articles that these areas are disputed areas, and I think this issue should be discussed in RfC, not AN.--Freetrashbox (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• This block request I see as a disingenuous attempt to stop my contributions to Wikipedia. I have been on Wikipedia for over 4 years and in that time I committed to the community's guidelines and have been a constructive member. If you briefly browse through my contribution history you will see that I have consistently adhered to guidelines by all always citing credible sources for every edit I make. Despite this effort on my part, a group of editors have persistently frustrated my contributions and have made it impossible to edit certain articles over a long period of time. This group includes Kzl55, Jacob300 and others (I personally suspect that some of these users are sock-puppets). I believe the group who edit as a team have an agenda to project Somaliland as an independent state and are not interested in neutrality at all. If you see the cause of the current dispute in the Sanaag talk page, you will see that I have tried to reason with the reporting editor to try and understand why they reverted the edits I made despite the plethora of credible sources I cited. However, it was impossible to reach consensus with them as they continuously reasserted a subjective standard that followed their point of view. I hope that this decision is not taken lightly and it is probably assessed to render a fair result. Shirshore (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• Note to closing admin, I hope the above filibuster further illustrates why sanctions are necessary in this case. Other than personal attacks and attempting to frame the issue as a content dispute, there is little acknowledgement of the persistence of the pattern of behaviour that led to their block last year [35], nor any respect for the fact that the section is under discretionary sanctions. There is a long history of combative tendentious nationalist style of editing in this section [36] which is what led to the general sanctions being enacted in the first place. Kind regards --Kzl55 (talk) 13:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  @

  WP:NPA to call a discussion partner as a nationalist.--Freetrashbox (talk

  ) 22:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• comment Apologies if this has been construed as a personal attack. This is not my intention. However, I do not think the reporting editor does this in good faith. Initially @
  Dabaqabad: and @Gebagebo: who also displays similar patterns of editing might be sock-puppets. I could be wrong of course but this is worth investigating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shirshore (talk • contribs
  ) 16:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  • @Shirshore: I have no proof, but I think they are different people as far as their thinking and what they post.--Freetrashbox (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Note I might not be involved in this case but as an editor who has dealt with Shirshore (and who filed the last report that was linked here) it would be relevant to mention that Shirshore has earlier today removed significant chunks of sourced material since he sees it as "derogatory" ([37], [38]). This is very similar to when he blanked the Isaaq Sultanate article almost a year ago as mentioned by the previous report ([39]).

Overall he's displaying the very same behaviour as covered on the last report. Doubt he's here to build an encyclopedia to be honest given his blatant disrespect for the discretionary sanctions placed on anything Horn of Africa related, not to mention his personal attacks. Gebagebo (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Without any comment as to the merits of any of this, I will just note that because Horn of Africa is now an ArbCom Discretionary Sanction,

• @
  WP:AE, please feel free to add anything I've missed there: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Shirshore
  .

@Barkeep49: many thanks for highlighting that, I've filed a request there. Kind regards --Kzl55 (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

hi

• I made an article (dotin)
• Removed based on G11 and G12 criteria.
• I asked the deleting user to return the text of the article to my practice page to correct it
• I asked the user to specify which part of the article has a copyright issue or includes ads
• Replied It won't be restored and you will not be allowed to post this advertisement again.

what's the solution? Thanks--N (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Part of the reason it was deleted was that it was alleged to be a copy of this page. That page is in Persian, so it may be helpful if an admin who reads Persian could compare it to the deleted text. For me, looking at an AI translation of the source, it doesn't look similar enough to be a copyvio, but I also have no familiarity with the Persian language whatsoever and a healthy skepticism of machine translations. I don't know if Deb or Praxidicae (who tagged it as a copyvio) know Persian or not.

Any admin is going to be extremely hesitant to restore something that was deleted as a copyvio, especially if they lack familiarity with the language.

As for

problem solving

19:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@ONUnicorn I need the resources used and the infobox to rewrite. If it is returned in my sandbox, I will inform another user to check before sending it in the original name space. Thankful N (talk) 07:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@

problem solving

12:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@ONUnicorn thanks a lot N (talk) 08:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure that even if I had never heard of Wikipedia before I would keep a copy of anything substantial that I wrote on my device. If you did not do this then please do so in the future, and you will never have to bother anyone with such a request again.

Phil Bridger (talk

) 21:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@

Phil BridgerSorry N (talk

) 07:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Ripples at White phosphorus munitions (diff)

Primefac (talk) 08:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I came across

Current hashtags: #W4HRNG, #W4HROWR, #W4HRLAG.

This is one part discussion on how we can sort this out amicably, and one part heads-up that over the next 24 hours (and then until April) we're likely to be hit with a ton of these hashtag edits. Tracking can be done with https://hashtags.wmcloud.org as well as edit filter 1017, assuming it gets updated by whomever said on IRC that they'd update it. Thanks for the vigilance. Primefac (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't appear the organizers have followed up or followed through on my previous complaints and I don't think a filter is sufficient given the massive disruption at this point. CUPIDICAE💕 18:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this does look disruptive. I have never seen a competition

Phil Bridger (talk

) 18:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The Core Contest is a fine one. DanCherek (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• This is a chronic problem with edit-a-thons. The idea is supposed to be to get new editors but what tends to happen instead is a bunch of people making clueless edits for the duration of the event, admins having to block the most persistent ones, and then the event ends and the new users never come back. It's essentially self-defeating for everyone involved. The addition of hashtags is a new thing I don't think I've seen before.
  talk
  ) 20:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  The addition of hashtags is a new thing... at least it makes it easy to track their edits. Primefac (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  I would add that trying to ban such events is probably a bad idea as it would just encourage them to be organized off-wiki and we'd have even less of a chance to get through to the organizers.

  talk

  ) 20:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  A previous hashtag asked users to add images to articles that didn't have them, which of course prompted people to add non-free images to articles, get reverted, get annoyed, and in some cases get blocked. I think a later one went less disruptively when it was made clear to users that the images should only be sourced from Commons. Black Kite (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, both years of Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos (identified by #WPWP) have been disruptive. The issue with was never non-free images (at least on the AN/ANI threads I was watching). The issue was Commons images being inserted by inexperienced editors at extremely high rates of speed resulting in numerous errors (compounded by their limited engagement with experienced editors). Many of the images didn't actually belong in the articles they were being jammed into, the captions were at best vestigial or at worst downright misleading, and the formatting was often wonky. Individual editors got blocked, and edits with the hashtag were throttled in 2021, but many contest editors continued to try to jam the edits through despite the throttle, so the whole thing continued to be quite disruptive. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Filter 1073 generalised to cover this contest. No actions beyond tagging and logging, but of course this can be changed if needed and consensus is found. firefly ( t · c ) 20:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Are there any reasonably active admins who would be interested in conducting a reorientation for old admins such as myself who'd like to pick up the mop again? Many of the technical and/or cultural changes of the past years may be dissuading some old-timers from making a gainful return to the wiki they loved so well. Babajobu (talk) 08:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• I hope you can get back up to speed, but the mood towards long inactive administrators returning with their mops is not so friendly right now. You've made less than 500 edits in the last 15 years, so expect some push back. But welcome back and good luck. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• You can start here:
  WP:ADMINGUIDE. Jauerback^dude?/_dude.
  13:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• Thanks for showing interest in coming back! Which areas are you interested in?
  WP:DYK always needs more admin help and would be willing to give you a refresher/crash course. What specific areas are you interested in working in? Hog Farm _Talk
  13:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  I could be of help in

  requests for protection. Many changes there, not the least the introduction of pending-changes protection. Lectonar (talk

  ) 13:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  I'm happy to cover AfDs for those that have that as a focus area - while Hog is absolutely right regarding the current furor area, I'm happy to cover the field more broadly, whether for Babajobu or others.

  In fact, the idea in general is very interesting - perhaps we should have a page with volunteers broken into admin-action categories for those interested in getting reacquainted. More broadly, just getting out and doing the core mission of some content edits is good for picking up changed norms in that area. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  In 2019 I implemented pending pages protection for the article on Eric Reguly. If you have any feedback, positive or negative, on the manner in which I did so, my attention is yours. Babajobu (talk) 08:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  Articles on the Middle East, the California Correctional System, and farm equipment would all make fine fare. Happy to hold off on closing any AfDs. Babajobu (talk) 08:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• You have made a number of uses of the admin tools, as recently as 2019. You are not as inactive as you think, or as others above think. ☺ You already know about pending changes, for example, because you set it on Eric Reguly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) twice. Some of the cultural changes are good things. We are nowhere near as willing to keep articles in the bands, businesses, and biographies parts of Wikipedia as we were in 2004/2005. But again, you know this. You deleted Deori Kalan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) last year. Three simple principles will keep you away from lots of minefields: Don't use the deletion, protection, or blocking tools to win arguments in your favour. Be prepared to talk to people. Don't rush to closure. And since you were around in the early 2000s, you can tell Hog Farm what the schools notability debate was like. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• Thanks for getting back to active mopping; we need all the help we can get! My suggestion is to pick an area to concentrate on rather than trying to do a little of everything. That way, you'll get up to speed on that specific area. In my own experience, I find I'm much more likely to do something stupid when I wander into an area I don't usually work in, thinking I'll just help out a bit. Often, it's more like a bull in a china shop.
  The big take-away from the recent crop of arbcom cases is that everybody understands that admins are human and make mistakes, but as long as you're quick to admit you goofed and revert your action, nobody's going to get too bent out of shape. It's when admins dig in their heels and refuse to talk about an issue that things go bad. If there's anything specific that you're unsure about, feel free to drop a question on my talk page, or if you prefer, email me. And, if I might do a bit of recruiting for the area I'm working in these days,
  WP:SPI can always use more patrolling admins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs
  ) 14:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
  • And, of course, always remember to sign your posts ^[FBDB] Nosebagbear (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
    • And date them, too... --Blablubbs (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• If the currently suspended recent admin conduct cases had proceeded, I would very much expect them to have centered around the admin in questions understanding of
  talk
  ) 20:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  Can you link me to those abortive cases? Curious where said admins got mixed up on

  WP:INVOLVED. Thanks. Babajobu (talk

  ) 08:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  @

  problem solving

  16:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  And the third one is Geschichte. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  Heh I remember Jonathunder. He and I disagreed rather fervently in 2005 over whether Wikipedia should follow Chicago Style or AP Style in the spelling out of numbers in non-STEM articles. He seemed committed to the wiki's welfare, I'll give him. Babajobu (talk) 00:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  Wow,I really did show back up at a heck of a time to be a legacy admin talking about re-engaging with admin functions. It does seem like

  WP:INVOLVED Babajobu (talk

  ) 01:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you for returning! Most admins don't bite and will probably be happy to answer any questions – it might be a good idea to watch areas of interest for a while, figure out which sysops are prolific in those areas, and reach out on their talk pages whenever questions arise. I'll also note that
  Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators has some pointers that may be useful. --Blablubbs (talk
  ) 20:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks to everyone for the input. Reorientation syllabus has been provided! Babajobu (talk) 08:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
• A couple of more things I think that need to be brought up is that the mop has a lot more strands than it used to... 15 years ago, there was just block-delete-protect, but each of these has gotten significantly more complex. There are many more levels of protection beyond just full- and semi-protection, and they each have their standards for when to use them (see
  arbitration enforcement procedures than their used to be... When working on adminning in Arb-Com sanctioned topic areas, use of admin tools needs to be logged (something I occasionally forget), and most of these areas also place articles under "editing restrictions", such as enforced 1RR and the like. --Jayron32
  14:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  I find the AE process very confusing. So much so that I just stay away from it, for fear that I'll accidentally do something terribly wrong. For somebody looking to pick up the mop again after a hiatus, that's not where I would recommend starting.

  Another new thing is that there's now a wide range of permissions which can be granted (and revoked in some cases) by any admin. See Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. Along those lines, you no longer have the autopatrolled permission; it got unbundled from admin rights by RFC a little while ago. You might want to visit Special:UserRights/Babajobu and re-grant that to yourself, which odd as it may sound, is perfectly acceptable. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  The two things that make AE particularly difficult to work with is 1) The logging requirements (all sanctions in the area (protections, rev-dels, blocks, etc.) need to be logged and 2) AE sanctions have a built-in first mover advantage. Unlike other admin actions, which any other admin can undo, AE sanctions should not ever be undone unless the blocking admin agrees OR ArbCom themselves over-rides it. I understand why this exists (in the past, disruptive or harassing editors could build a cadre of admin friends who would rescue them and protect them from meaningful sanctions), but it does make it a bit of a minefield to work in. --Jayron32 16:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  Along those lines, you shouldn't unblock somebody without first consulting with the admin who blocked them. Violating that is a relatively minor transgression, except in the case where the block log comment includes some variation on "checkuser-block". Unblocking a CU block is one of those bright line things that will almost certainly get you dragged to arbcom for a first offence. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  In the distant past I don't recall many wheelwars, I think most admins would not have considered unblocking someone without conferring with blocking admin. Non-admin editors thought there was inappropriate level of solidarity among admins and we were often referred to as "The Cabal." Sounds like there'd been change there. And honestly, AE and AfD now sound terrifying. Babajobu (talk) 00:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  @

  WP:AELOG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk

  ) 21:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  • While that is true in theory, Jayron32, WP:AE has migrated to be much more of a consensus board. Rarely does any admin just jump on a close/sanction. In fact, they often drag out until they are stale. This is one reason I've become more active at WP:AE, which isn't particularly enjoyable, but I'm one of those admin that isn't likely to wait more than a week to close cases. Most of the time, there is very clear consensus among admin (2 or 3 at most). If there isn't, I typically won't close at all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  Revision deletions seems like it would be very valuable in

  biographies of living persons. Blocking otherwise good editors from individual problem articles rather than sitewide...yeah, very good. I don't even remember how to log use of admin tools, will find out. Better that I probably not be autopatrolled for the time being, someone may catch something worth catching. Babajobu (talk

  ) 00:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)