Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive349

Appeal:

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

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

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

FPC

for years.)

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

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

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

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

  Beeblebrox

  17:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

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

  That's provably false. Here's you archiving a declined unblock request the same day it was declined: [1]. Here's me closing the first thread you opened on my talk page [2] on that same day. Here's you starting a new thread on my talk page about your block, directrly replying to comments of mine that you had just archived rather than reply to them on the page they were made [3]. Here's me closing that thread: [4], and here's you posting yet again: [5] and again [6]. At that point I came over here and again asked you to stop posting to my talk page about your block [7], which you removed the next day as "impolite" [8]. So, I'm the impolite one for asking you to stop harassing me on my talk page about it? I don't think so. I was going to stay out of this but this ridiculous denial changed my mind. The lack of clue here is staggering. I oppose an unblock.

  talk

  ) 18:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

  WP:NPA !! -- Sca (talk

  ) 17:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  The single most important line of

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

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

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

  Iridescent

  18:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

  Anne Frank statue

  Idaho Human Rights Memorial

  Boise, Idaho, U.S.A.

  

• — Anne Frank, Diary of a Young Girl

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Iridescent

  18:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Iridescent

  06:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  Wikipedian, as I see it. Cheers, Jusdafax (talk

  ) 14:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

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

  Iridescent

  15:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

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

  @

  Iridescent

  06:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

  Iridescent

  20:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  I'm a native English speaker. I had absolutely no intention of a "boner". I'm not that stupid. It was just a lame, thoughtless joke about the verb. -- Sca (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

  The "you can't know my motives unless you're a mind reader" trope is tired and no one buys it. It's a terrible defense. People can infer motives by behavior and speech without having psychic powers. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  "just a dumb, thoughtless joke". Sca, that's the bit I can't understand. What was the joke however dumb and thoughtless? I don't mean it was so dumb and thoughtless it wasn't funny or it was a bad joke. I literally can't establish in my mind how it could be a joke or have any meaning at all unless it was about Chinese pronunciation (even more so, now that you've said it wasn't a "boner" reference). That being the case, it's not that I think you should continue to be pblocked because of a racist joke, but that I can't see how your request can even start to get off the ground while you continue to be - apparently - disingenuous about what happened. But to be honest, this is a side issue. The main problem is HJ Mitchell's point about a lack of interest in being here to improve mainspace. Edit some articles. DeCausa (talk) 10:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  @

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

  ) 20:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

Hello at all,

I'm forced to enter this here because I think it makes more sense than simply marking or writing to admins at random and I think it's a very important matter. According to an NGO report, there was (possibly there is) influence from Saudi Arabia on Wikipedia or administrators. In my view, this is already a highly problematic circumstance. I think it would make absolute sense to mark relevant articles, such as those on Saudi Arabia or Mohammed bin Salman, etc., with the neutrality template and to apply a semi-protection until we have a safer or better overview of the situation after a longer period of time.

Context:

https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/01/06/saudi-arabia-government-infiltrates-wikipedia-and-jails-two-staff-to-control-narrative Bildersindtoll (talk) 13:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikimedia denial Don't think this is the right place for this? Selfstudier (talk) 13:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I've responded to Bildersindtoll on two of their posts similar to the one above on two saudi related articles here and here. Bildersindtoll, this isn't the issue you think it is. DeCausa (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

It's exactly this issue and it's definitely the right place for this. Because a discussion about it and preventive measures would be very useful and necessary. It has something to do with transparency and credibility.--Bildersindtoll (talk) 13:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Well Wikimedia have denied it and the two articles where you've posted similar messages (which I know well: Saudi Arabia and Mohammed bin Salman) are hardly outposts of Saudi propaganda - albeit there are frequent attempts by random IPs and certain editors to "improve" the subject image. But that's business-as-usual for us and we have plenty of processes nd policies to handle that. I think you're in an unnecessary panic! DeCausa (talk) 13:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I can state that Saudi Arabia or its government does not influence me. 331dot (talk) 14:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

• Do we even know whether this concerns English-language Wikipedia? This is a very sad situation for the Saudi administrators who have been jailed, but I don't see what the actual problem is for our articles here. If the supposed problem is that there are rogue/corrupt administrators, I don't see how semi protection or neutrality tags would help. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

  It's all disputed by Wikimedia anyway. Authoritarian governments trying to get their image optimised on Wikipedia? Shock, horror...but nothing new. DeCausa (talk) 19:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

If you think it's affecting multiple articles but you also know it's blanket-denied, it at most makes sense to have one central discussion and is not appropriate to fork that discussion into any specific article(s)'s talkpage, pending any change in the sitewide position on the matter. DMacks (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello. This user (@HistoryofIran) is not willing to Aziz khan Mukri talk page. He imposes his content on others by force. I brought him an old book (as a source) written by a historian and consul, but he rejects it and finds a research paper on a site (Iranica) more acceptable!

Sir Basil himself lived among Aziz Khan's family in

The Kurd: Basile Niktin

This user is not familiar with the history of Mukri region and imposes his content by force. I have a complaint against him. Sardarmukri (talk) 09:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you have made no attempt to contact him on his talk page. You should do that before coming here. Additionally, once you do come here, you should notify him of that on his talk page. Animal lover |666| 09:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Ironically I am the one who created a section in the talk page for discussion [13], which I did 9 hours before this report. I'm not sure what they mean by "research paper", anyhow they are free to explain themselves in the talk page, which they haven't done yet. Instead, they have resorted to ranting. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, now that we're here, let's see some of the

WP:ASPERSIONS

Sardarmukri has already made towards me;

• "HistoryofIran considers that article as its own and has taken it hostage. It does not allow anyone to edit! See the history of the article; Anyone who has edited (even correct edits) he has undone. He is not willing to discuss on the talk page of that article. Even I brought a source, but the source rejects a historian (Basil Nikitin)!!"

I revert unhelpful edits, such as disruption, which your edit was. Ironically, you're the one rejecting Iranica and now another source I mentioned in the talk page. You still haven't explained why we should use a outdated 1926 source (

WP:EDITWARRING [14] [15]

, which you clearly still haven't, instead going on a rampage to force your edit through.

• Anyone can post their research in Iranica! Do you reject the words of a historian?? Stop distorting. This is not your personal article!!

No they can't, otherwise you would already have attempted to add your nonsense there as well. The articles of Iranica are published by academic historians, take a moment to actually read what it is [16]. I am not distorting anything, I simply follow what

WP:RS says, and I don't consider this my personal article either. --HistoryofIran (talk

) 11:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, more than 6 months have passed since this topic ban (see:

• Support Pofka should be given the opportunity to demonstrate that he can edit in that topic area without commenting on other editors. Schazjmd (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support What Pofka said. We can always drop the ban hammer if necessary. Buffs (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
• This is a
  WP:AE topic ban, but hopefully, it can be dealt with here. I'm pinging El_C who imposed the ban, and I Support vacaiting it. But Pofka, please, you need to edit this topic area (about Lithuania, Poland and centuries long shared history of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) dispassionately. I have my trust in you. (did I say that right? 🤔) - GizzyCatBella🍁
  23:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  For clarity, per

  Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeals by sanctioned editors, appeals for active sanctions can be made here or ARE by the editor sanctioned. It doesn't matter where the sanction was imposed. Nil Einne (talk

  ) 09:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I have a voice in the matter, but due to the fact that the ban was imposed in my case, I'll just say that I don't mind removing the ban, in the hope that Pofka will be able to keep more calm and a broader perspective. Marcelus (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

That’s nice of you Marcelus. I’m sure Pofka will remember about it. Right Pofka? - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Right. Thanks for your support Gizzy, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is an essential rule for me and I am sure it is one of the reasons why I was recognized as one of the finest editors in Lithuania's topic. -- Pofka (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

👍 - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support This editor recognizes and acknowledges their past mistakes, and is promising not to repeat them. It would be a benefit to the encyclopedia to allow them to return to editing in the Lithuanian (and Polish) topic areas, where they are knowledgeable, as long as they comply with our
  policies and guidelines. Cullen328 (talk
  ) 01:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Cullen above, and per
  WP:ROPE. --Jayron32
  15:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. While there appears to be growing consensus here, let me ping the enforcing admin one more time to give them an opportunity to comment if they wish @El_C. It's possible they may not have seen this since it's on AN instead of AE (though both are appropriate venues). Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Normally I suppose this would go to

Anyway, I don't believe this article qualifies for semiprotection, or is a borderline case. Let it be unprotected like is standard for TFA. Just means it'll have some casual vandals that get reverted, same as usual. If there's a sudden surge of vandals, it can always be semi-protected again. SnowFire (talk) 06:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

As I said at

WP:RFPP I'll endorse the protection. There may not have been a need to use IAR and just wait instead but I'm comfortable that the protection is within the normal bounds of admin discretion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs

) 06:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I certainly agree that TFA semiprotection is within admin discretion, no complaint there, but I'm contesting on the merits for this particular TFA. I didn't know it was raised at RFPP first since it wasn't mentioned in the diff, so thanks for pointing that out, but the RFPP reason seems weak. The editor (pinging User:Professor Penguino for transparency) cited "removing templates for no reason and damaging infoboxes" - that sounds like perfectly normal vandalism that just gets reverted, like usual. It really isn't anything special, those kind of bad changes are reverted all the time on normal articles without need for semi-protection. SnowFire (talk) 06:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• Farseer trilogy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

If I had seen the protection request (permalink) I would also have semi-protected the article. There are no edit requests or other messages on talk. The "IAR" in the protection edit summary is not a rationale for protection—the reason for protection was to prevent further disruptive editing. The IAR part is to cover the fact that Vanamonde93 was the only admin active at RFPP at the time so they protected despite the fact that normally they wouldn't have due to being involved. Johnuniq (talk) 07:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• Also endorse semiprotection, not merely because it was TFA but because it was subject to a flurry of vandalism, and endorse Vanamonde93's IAR involved use of the tools for what would (if not involved) be a non-controversial case. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
• This jogged a memory. Whatever happened to this? Genuine question here. Did this lead to anything more permanent? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse semiprotection. I just looked at it, what a flurry of vandalism! I wonder what caused it. In any case I think most Admins would have done the same and should have. Doug Weller talk 09:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse semiprotection as an obvious remedy to continuing vandalism. I see no borderline case, only a straightforward response to disruption. Vanamonde's contribution history is neither here nor there. I could argue that 24 hours is more than necessary, but that term is well within the bounds of admin discretion. Acroterion (talk) 09:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse protection, well within admin discretion. Tbh: many, many TFAs have to be protected sometime during the time they are on the mainpage; it kind of depends a bit on the topic coupled with the timezones which correspond to said topic. I tend to protect for 2 days then, because the ripples will run trough the internet, making waves even when the article is off mainpage. Lectonar (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

It looks like everyone else commenting thinks it's fine, so you can consider this request withdrawn. (The additional context that Callanecc brought up helps - to me, it looked like an admin swooping in unprompted citing IAR, since the request at RFPP wasn't mentioned initially.) That said, I think a larger discussion may be required on the status of the TFA protection policy, but AN may not be the place to do it (Village Pump, perhaps?). Obviously admins need to be able to speedily react to situations when there really is a major incident, but if any TFA that gets a hint of vandalism gets semi-'d, this is de-facto changing the default to semi-protection, which is not the community's preference. We expect that TFAs will see increased vandalism, that's okay, it just gets reverted. SnowFire (talk) 14:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

It is Template:War on terror infobox that the two of you are edit warring over. You both need to stop the edit warring and discuss the issue on the talk page. - Donald Albury 01:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

My point is not against his argument its the methods of him using an IP address to back up argument which violates

talk

) 01:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Also my point was due to Argentina being a major non-Nato ally they inherently supported the war on terror like Columbia has. Thats my point but I am willing to withdraw my argument if he comes clean about using IP address to back up his arguments.

talk

) 01:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I had mistakenly used the IP without my main account... Now, by another part, Colombia is also "NATO global partner", an superior status to Argentina, and they participated in the Operation Enduring Freedom – Horn of Africa, while Argentina did not even participated in that operation. Just view and read each of the articles about battles that are part of the so-called "War On Terror": Argentina does not appear in any of them. —Henderson Grumicker (talk) 02:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Content dispute. This needs to be closed. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] As Waltcip says, this is a content dispute. It does not belong on this noticeboard. Settle it on

Template talk:War on terror infobox. Do not edit war. Seek input from other editors by using the procedures given in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, but be sure to avoid canvassing. - Donald Albury

14:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Over the last half an hour or so, ShaggyAnimate (talk · contribs) has been making highly inappropriate and disruptive edits on the Talk:2023 page, editing user comments with profanities and linking names to inappropriate topics - edits such as [20] and [21] really speak for themselves, among many other edits by this user along the exact same lines. TheScrubby (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Looks like Bbb23 nipped that in the bud. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

When I saw his first edit regarding a lack of Argentine people in the deaths list I had already suspected he could be a troll. I suggest we watch out for possible sockpuppet accounts he will set up in the following 31 hours. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

ShaggyAnimate is now pleading

WP:GOTHACKED. Time for indef, maybe? —Wasell^(T)

🌻🇺🇦 13:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)