Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	Total
CfD	0	0	2	20	22
TfD	0	0	0	7	7
MfD	0	0	0	1	1
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	0	49	49
AfD	0	0	0	2	2

• 1 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 2 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 9 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 8 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 130 sockpuppet investigations
• 13 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 1 Fully protected edit requests
• 2 Candidates for history merging
• 7 requests for RD1 redaction
• 111 elapsed requested moves
• 6 Pages at move review
• 28 requested closures
• 103 requests for unblock
• 1 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 11 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (30 out of 7627 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin User talk:Leonidlednev 2024-04-23 15:14 2024-10-08 05:50 move Persistent vandalism Acroterion William John Titus Bishop 2024-04-23 14:32 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ohnoitsjamie Zach Wilson 2024-04-23 00:42 2024-04-25 00:42 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts ScottishFinnishRadish Ilyas Qadri 2024-04-22 22:09 2025-04-22 22:09 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry Ponyo Russia under Vladimir Putin 2024-04-22 21:17 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:RUSUKR Ymblanter Afghanistan national futsal team 2024-04-22 20:48 2024-07-17 17:25 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry Ponyo Sport in Afghanistan 2024-04-22 20:48 2024-05-17 17:25 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry Ponyo Visa policy of Peru 2024-04-22 19:45 2024-07-10 23:38 edit,move Ponyo Visa policy of Russia 2024-04-22 19:41 2024-06-27 22:04 edit,move Ponyo Visa policy of Belarus 2024-04-22 19:39 2024-07-11 21:20 edit,move Ponyo Benzinga 2024-04-22 16:40 2025-04-22 16:40 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts, see ticket:2024021310006181 Joe Roe Module:Params 2024-04-22 14:20 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: see also talk page Xaosflux Draft:Pagal Khana 2024-04-22 10:20 2024-10-22 10:20 edit,move Persistent block evasion Yamla Narayan Vishnubhat Apte 2024-04-22 07:44 2024-04-25 07:44 create Repeatedly recreated Liz Bhonsle dynasty 2024-04-22 02:37 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/IPA; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Grand Mufti 2024-04-22 02:25 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/BLP; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Vivienne Martin (actress) 2024-04-21 20:07 2024-05-05 20:07 edit Socks all appeared to be autoconfirmed so adjusting to ECP and extending period to 2 weeks Xymmax Jobbykrust 2024-04-21 19:59 2024-05-05 19:59 move Repeated, disruptive page moves during AFD discussion Liz Template:Page views 2024-04-21 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2500 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Kaimla 2024-04-21 17:03 2024-05-05 17:03 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: previous page protection apparently was not sufficient EurekaLott 2023–24 Montreal Canadiens season 2024-04-21 04:38 2024-05-05 04:38 edit Persistent vandalism HickoryOughtShirt?4 Sinhalese people 2024-04-21 03:41 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: Sri Lanka has been designated a contentious topic per a recent Arb´com motion. The article has been troubled by the appearance of nationalist edit warring EdJohnston 2024 Columbia University pro-Palestinian campus occupation 2024-04-21 00:09 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Nilesh Patel 2024-04-20 08:10 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry Liz Dhruv Tara – Samay Sadi Se Pare 2024-04-19 23:07 2024-07-19 23:07 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry Ponyo Lakeland Heritage Project 2024-04-19 22:16 2024-04-26 22:16 create Repeatedly recreated Liz Mainspace 2024-04-19 22:06 indefinite create Repeatedly used by mistake by new editors Liz User talk:郊外生活 2024-04-19 20:59 2025-04-19 20:59 edit,move childish harassment Drmies Chitra Ramanathan 2024-04-19 15:57 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Joe Roe Lana Antonova 2024-04-19 15:43 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Joe Roe

RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 433#Closing (archived) RfC: Mondoweiss

WP:RSN (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RfC closure in question)

(Discussion with closer)

Closer: Chetsford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Notified: [1]

Reasoning: The following is copied and modified from my post at Chetsford's talk page. I think that Chetsford's close was generally correct, but I think that this aspect is an incorrect assessment of consensus: A few editors suggested that, regardless of outcome, it should not be used for WP:BLPs. No direct reasoning was presented for that, however, some indirect reference to our policies could be divined within the greater context of the remarks of those editors and these suggestions were not really rebutted. I searched the RfC and "BLP" was used six times in the discussion. Only two of those mentions are in relation to the reliability of the source, and as Chetsford noted, neither provided any direct reasoning:

• In addition, based on some of the past statements linked, a use for BLP or politicised situations within the fog or war would be very reckless at best.
• Yeah, I have very little faith in their editorial review which go beyond WP:BIAS and regularly WP:Fringe. At best, they really shouldn’t be used for anything related to BLP, Russia and Israel, at worst (and IMO this part is most likely) a full depreciation may be in order.

The only indirect reference to policy is to BIAS (as FRINGE is a guideline), and Chetsford discounted that argument in another part of the close. I can't really divine[] what other policies these editors may or may not have been thinking about. I'm not sure what past statements the first commenter is thinking about, and without more reasoning, I wouldn't say that this single argument is strong enough to establish a consensus that Mondoweiss should not be used for BLPs just because nobody happened to rebut it in a long discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Uninvolved

• Endorse close Amend While the specifics of BLPs weren't addressed in-depth, it's a reasonable addendum for clarity. They can be used but people should be careful with each individual article...not sure why that's not a blanket statement for every source on Wikipedia. For example, the NYT has published some egregious "journalism", but that doesn't mean it's always wrong on the basic facts. Every source should be evaluated for accuracy on its merits. If I say "Person AB said in an op-ed '<insert quote here'" and then cite it, there's very little reason to doubt that statement is true, but quoting it for purposes of establishing it as something that's true is inappropriate without additional verification. Buffs (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

  Amended: This sounds like a WPian hearing what they want to hear. There isn't a need to add additional steps beyond what we normally do if people are going to abuse that to exclude the contributions of others. I'd prefer to keep it as-is, but I certainly can see that point. Buffs (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Wow...the EXACT reason I said it SHOULD be included was used...#clairvoyance Buffs (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Amend Remove the BLP clarification: 1) Regardless of the sources' reliability, we always them with great caution for biographies of living people. 2) No valid reason was given for why Mondoweiss should be treated differently from the other RS. 3) Such an unneeded clarification can easily be misconstrued to mean that Mondoweiss shouldn't be used for BLP. Just this week, one of the RfC participants used the close statement to claim that we should avoid using Mondoweiss for BLP. Obviously, it ended up in RSN again. M.Bitton (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
• Amend to remove the statement about BLPs. If only two editors made an unsupported assertion and nobody else discussed it, then it isn't a valid part of the consensus. I'm all for interpreting arguments to try and pull a consensus out of the flames where it isn't obvious, but "divining within the greater context" in this manner is a left-field supervote and should be removed. The rest of the closure is reasonable. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
• Amend per M.Bitton and Wordsmith. We already treat BLP with caution, and this issue was not discussed enough to reach consensus. If needed, a new discussion on how to use MW with regard to BLP can be made. Meanwhile, I’m wary of using the ‘average’ value of 2.6 to conclude that option 3 should be reached. Note that since option 2 is essentially the middle ground, option 1 and 3 have the same weight, but option 4 has twice the weight of option 1 when skewing option 2. This doesn’t seem very fair, and then rounding 2.6 to 3 because of this is increasing the unfairness, leading to essentially 13 editors overruling 21 editors. starship.paint (RUN) 03:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  A-men Buffs (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Involved

• I've archived my discussion with Voorts here for ease of review (versus diffs). For what it's worth, considering the contentious topic area involved, I am in full agreement with Voorts that review of the close is appropriate. Chetsford (talk) 07:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
• Amend close to read "and that it should either not be used at all — or used with great caution for biographies of living people." I don't think that the relative silence on the issue should have been construed as agreement with the two editors raising that specific, there was a lot else going on in the discussion besides that, especially since one of those editors appears to have construed the close as a license to remove citations for BLPs. Selfstudier (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
• Amend close to 3 (Gunrel), optionally clarify the statement about BLP requirements per the qualifiers suggested by Chetsford per the arguments made by @Chess and @BilledMammal, which were not sufficiently addressed; also using the votes as an indicator. Acknowledging that I advanced the BLP arguments poorly (and thanking @Chetsford for his generally accurate deciphering of what I meant), I would suggest the following, in the spirit of his comment made here, @Bobfrombrockley here and as a compromise: used with great caution for biographies of living (and recently deceased) people, and not to be used in cases of (a) for statements that, if proved false, would be legally defamatory; (b) for extraordinary claims (c) for analytical statements about the person; (d) for quotes and facts the accuracy of which is contested by RS or the subject him/herself. In addition and as a partial clarification, perhaps e) should be content marked as activism and similar would be appropriate. FortunateSons (talk) 08:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  You're going to need to bolster your opinion more than "we should do what I want", when support for #2 had ~6.5:1 support over yours. This is not the place to relitigate this RfC, IMHO. Buffs (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  I‘m pretty sure you’re off on the math, as I voted 4 (which obviously endorses 3 over 2). That option obviously does not have consensus (and just for the sake of clarity, removal of problematic BLP uses is not backdoor deprecation, the overwhelming majority of MW uses are non-BLP or unproblematic). The straight vote count (as stated by Chetsford) has the average at 2.6, and of the counted votes, 14 votes included at least 3 (including 2 or 3), while 21 did not, of which an overwhelming amount were 3 or lower (please check my math).

  I was unaware that we are not supposed to reference specific points when requesting a reassessment of the outcome, and have struck that part, except in context of the phrasing to avoid (light) plagiarism. Thanks for making me aware, this is one of my first contributions to such a noticeboard :) FortunateSons (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  When giving a list of options (1. Action A 2. Action B 3. Action C 4. Action D and 5. Action E), saying "the average is 2.6 so we should choose option 3" is a horrible misunderstanding of statistics. You are heavily weighting all other actions other than #1 (Example, 20 people !vote 1, 2 people !vote 2, and 3 people !vote 5, the "average" is 2 despite an overwhelming preponderance of people !voting 1...in other words, a 5 is worth 5x a 1). Rounding up only further exacerbates the issue. Buffs (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Second attempt at a more policy-compliant argument, please correct me if this one is also wrong:

  The relevant arguments regarding BLP usage were not addressed, and similar arguments where not fully rebuffed in general; therefore, the section regarding BLP should remain as is, or be alternatively clarified while remaining in the spirit of discussion and close.

  Regarding the status of the entire source, I believe that the arguments made by those voting for „higher than 2“ should have led to a close of 3, and respectfully request that it is amended (as well). FortunateSons (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  "The relevant arguments regarding BLP usage were not addressed" They were addressed. You just didn't agree. Buffs (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

CAT:RD1 severely backlogged

Hi there – dropping a quick heads up that CAT:RD1 currently has nearly 50 pages needing to be reviewed for copyright revdel. Admin assistance would be greatly appreciated. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 15:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Looks like there has been someone (or multiple someones) taking a pretty big chunk out of it -- there were only about eighteen when I looked -- but I worked through a few of what was left. jp×g🗯️ 05:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Nazism, really?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This userbox seems wildly inappropriate, and could be easily used as an anti-Semitic dogwhistle, and very loud whistle at that. Especially during the rise of antisemitism during the Israel–Hamas war (not a political statement, by the way). The userbox was approved in Feb 2024. A KKK userbox would be immediately taken down. How was this approved? There are steps that take place to review each userbox, what was the process in this one being approved? And who approved it?

GThis user is a Grammar Nazi.

Source: User:KomradeKalashnikov/Userboxes/Grammar Nazi

TheSpacebook (talk) 03:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Userboxes aren't "approved", and anyone can create one. I'm not sure why you decided to bring this to AN - if you have problems with it, you can talk to the creator or take it to WP:MFD. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 03:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this should go through WP:MFD. I would encourage TheSpacebook to {{Atop}} this section and file an MFD. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

"if you have problems with it, you can talk to the creator" You want me to communicate and negotiate with someone who creates Nazi-like content? WP:NONAZIS. Plus, I’m not versed enough on the intricacies of anti-Semitism or Nazism to engage in a debate about something, but I can clearly recognise Nazi symbols. TheSpacebook (talk) 04:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

While "Grammar nazi" is a common term that is not associated with Nazism, I think that logo pushes the bounds a bit too much. Would be better to use something less suggestive like a book or pen. — Masem (t) 03:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• This appears to be precipitous, and very likely an overreaction. While in questionable taste, I am doubtful this is some kind of crypto-Nazi imagery and would certainly not support any administrator intervention at this point. I am somewhat disappointed by the OP's shoot first and ask questions later response to this. Perhaps they are unaware that the term nazi is often used as a synonym for a martinet or someone who is very strict in a particular subject area? I also note that there has been no notification as required of all reports at AN. No communication of any kind, no notification (required) and a likely unjustified failure to WP:AGF. You may color me unimpressed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• KomradeKalashnikov helps out at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Userboxes/Ideas, creating userboxes that other editors request. This particular one was requested by another editor at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Userboxes/Ideas/Archive 24#Request - February 9, 2024. I don't like the image either, but I'm guessing they just grabbed the first result on Commons when making it. Anyways, not seeing anything that MFD can't handle. DanCherek (talk) 04:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  MFD is not needed yet; just talk to the editor about it, I bet they'll be receptive to someone pointing out that the design is a bit too close to actual Nazi symbolism to be in good taste. They'll probably just redesign it to something more grammary and less Nazi. Levivich (talk) 05:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Is there a Soup Nazi userbox? Cullen328 (talk) 07:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• I don't see this as glorifying Nazism or Hitler, and it is a common term, "grammar nazi", so not sure what the big deal is. We're a big tent, not everyone has the same sense of humor, but I think we are better off spending time dealing with people who are actually trying to inject bad POV into articles, rather than worrying about userboxes with pop culture references in them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion about the OP

• @Dennis Brown I agree. I've often seen the term used and have no problem with it. For me it doesn't imply that the person is actually anything like a Nazi. I do have a problem with the OP though as they've deleted their talk page which now reads "Not to be confused withThe Space Book" with two innocuous userboxes. As User:Acalamari said in the declined Arbitration request here., this user shows up at the drama boards to often. Comments there included suggestions that they were trolling and that a ban might be appropriate. It's ok to remove all the warnings etc from a user's talk page, but making it look like a user page just seems to be another example of the problems I and others have seen with this editor. Doug Weller talk 08:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  You prodded me to go look at this: [2], which shows 10% of his edits are to articles. 53% are to WP: and WP Talk: I'm not sure what s/he is here for but it doesn't seem to be to edit articles or build an encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  If someone's actions are brought to WP areas, it's likely that they will spend a lot of time there. There's also the fact that many big issues are discussed and resolved just so ONE edit can happen. Others contribute in WP in order to enable others to edit. I wouldn't look that much into WP vs mainspace percentages. Buffs (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  To clarify, the post was about the image, which clearly displays Nazi symbolism, NOT the phrase "grammar Nazi". The ‘not to be confused with’ on my talk page is a clearly a joke, no? And my user boxes are also satire (which is where I came across the userbox), I’m just trying to WP:ENJOY myself. Lots of editors have userboxes on their talk page and I haven’t made a user page as I want one place for everything, people can still leave comments. And the comments were removed as I’ve reflected and had a fresh start. How can anyone have an issue with this as per WP:DRC. What is the problem here? I’m here to build an encyclopedia, if you look at my recent proposal User:TheSpacebook/lifeline, clearly a lot of work has gone into it to make Wikipedia better and solve an issue that keeps popping up. 53% of my edits being backend shows I’m personally more skilled with suggesting and building improvements. And I used the correct avenue to suggest it (village pump). But I do have some drafts on my computer which I’m meticulously fact-checking each cite for mainspace articles too.TheSpacebook (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  To add to the above. My issue was that Nazi symbolism is being used a humorous manner, NOT the phrase "grammar Nazi". And I’m not versed enough on the intricacies of Nazism and anti-Semitism to debate anyone on it, but I can clearly recognise Nazi symbolism. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  And I’ll also just add my extensive edits on the Where is Kate? article to keep it reliably sourced and free from targeting her and propagating conspiracies (the other editors I was working with to do this also thanked me for helping in the effort) has now been deleted from public view. TheSpacebook (talk) 14:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Update: I’ve placed all the relevant items on my talk page into a 'talk page banner' (something I just discovered). It looks less like a userpage now. I just want to manage as little amount of pages as possible, to keep it compact. TheSpacebook (talk) 12:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  @TheSpacebook Of course you are free to remove comments. No one should leave comments on your userpage, that should be yours alone to manage. You might want to read WP:ARCHHIVE and set up one for your talk page. Doug Weller talk 12:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Amazing! Thank you for telling me about that. I can see that bots can do this automatically, which saves a lot of time. I thought every user cut-and-pasted the comments into their archive. I’ll get one set up then, thank you! TheSpacebook (talk) 12:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  TheSpacebook, please stop modifying your comments after people have responded to them. --Yamla (talk) 12:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry! Currently travelling and I don't have Grammarly on my phone. Just thought the topic was a bit more serious (Nazism and anti-Semitism) that I shouldn’t be misrepresented on. TheSpacebook (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  You have been told not to do this often enough that you should have learned your lesson. Don't modify if they've been replied to, just reply saying something like "What I meant to say was...". Doug Weller talk 13:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  The OP is clearly taking the piss. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 13:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  By notifying that Nazi symbolism is being used in a humorous manner (my issue wasn’t about the phrase)? Or that I suggested and programmed a solution to the issue of the inclusion of suicide helplines, which often gets raised, in a manner which is more subtle than a banner or disclaimer (User:TheSpacebook/lifeline)? I have now reverted my comments to the pre-reply state and followed the advice, by replying. It’s just a serious topic. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Community ban

• Propose community ban. I'm sorry to do this and I hope I don't take too much flak for it. I find TheSpacebook immensely tiring. Many editors have made suggestions to them, including myself. Occasionally, TheSpacebook will agree to those suggestions and then rampantly ignore them. They cause an utterly disproportionate amount of wikidrama and rarely contribute constructively to building an encyclopedia. I'm sorry to say, I think Wikipedia is simply better off without them. --Yamla (talk) 14:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest if you are tired of the poster, you skip over his material. I would also advise him, presuming he is reading, to get off this page ASAP. Carrite (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

(I put this comment in the wrong place, but won’t delete to avoid edit conflicts) The pie chart is inaccurate as the Where is Kate? edits have been deleted. Me, along with other editors worked tirelessly to keep it free from targeting her and propagating conspiracies, whilst it was going through the deletion procedures. It can be found here: https://web.archive.org/web/20240327121008/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where_is_Kate%3F TheSpacebook (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Consider making this sanctions proposal in its own subsection, or it may get too messy to close. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Since no else has, I have done so. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

• (ec) When I saw the OP's contribution pie chart, combined with nearly a week of radio silence over the Easter holiday, I was concerned that this might be a troll account intent upon creating mayhem for the sake of mayhem and NOTHERE. A respected Wikipedian made the good argument in a thread about him at WPO that pie charts for newbies venturing into controversial areas are apt to be unconventional — particularly when comments on project pages are edited and re-edited, as the OP is wont to do.

OP explained he was on vacation with his family over Easter and has engaged meaningfully, if critically, off-Wiki. My worst suspicions have been set aside, I believe this is a newcomer intent on addressing problems or engaging in quality control of content at WP, particularly in the area of BLP. I've advised him to do some conventional editing here to build some social capital before wading into the next content swamp, but that doesn't seem to have appealed to him. I would advise that people treat this account as a well-intended newbie, however, as I believe that is the case here. —tim /// Carrite (talk) 14:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

The pie chart is inaccurate as the Where is Kate? edits have been deleted. Me, along with other editors worked tirelessly to keep it free from targeting her and propagating conspiracies, whilst it was going through the deletion procedures. It can be found here: https://web.archive.org/web/20240327121008/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where_is_Kate%3F TheSpacebook (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

This comment wasn't a reply to you by the way, but I’m not going to delete it as per the edit-conflict-ice I’m skating on being razor thin. TheSpacebook (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

But thank you for this comment, I believe it accurately reflects my intentions, in a way that if came from me would sound suspicious. TheSpacebook (talk) 15:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• And the comments were removed as I’ve reflected and had a fresh start. Does not look like it at all. For me, every single watchlist update from AN today has been this editor making minor edits. It's annoying just seeing it in the watchlist. I can only imagine how disruptive it must be to actual attempts to edit the page. I am starting to think they need a ban from editing highly watched, highly edited pages at a minimum. I don't think I'd support a community ban just yet because there have been some good things, I think. Lesser remedies should be tried to encourage the good, and keep the bad in check until they start doing better. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  This was about edit-warring, contentious topics, and canvassing off-wiki (which I haven’t done for any of my new suggestions) etc. Off-wiki, I have worked to pool opinions on topics, so I’m better informed should I bring it on-wiki. My suggestions were taken to the right place: BLP talk page, village pump etc. I bought this humorous use of Nazi symbolism straight to the Admin noticeboard due to how serious the issue is, and I’m not educated enough on Nazism and anti-Semitism to engage in a debate about it, if I was to put it up for deletion. Admittedly the comment editing is a place I need to work on; to note, I was on a train and some of my comment edits were sent when there wasn’t a reply, but weren’t received by the Wiki servers as trains in the UK are known to be intermittent with the connection as they pass through areas like the countryside. TheSpacebook (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  So what we are looking for is you acknowledge the concerns raised. Moxy🍁 15:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  I said "Admittedly the comment editing is a place I need to work on" in the comment you just replied to. And I notified this noticeboard about the humorous use of Nazi symbolism (not the phrase 'grammar Nazi') as this issue is way above my pay grade to engage in a deletion debate about. I fail to see how I’m not acting in good faith.TheSpacebook (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Neither I nor Moxy questioned your good faith, but you're not making it easy. You brought your good faith up, then went on to make 20+ more edits, which included appending an unsigned note to Sandstein's close with some interesting edit summaries. I am assuming Carrite did not say lightly that they're convinced you're a good faith newb, and not a troll as it increasingly looks like you are. Good faith or not, you need to stop or be stopped. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  That's my best guess anyway. The WPO thread is worth peering at, YMMV. Mark me down as opposed to a C-Ban and Good Block tossing him from here for a day for failure to listen to pretty much anyone... Will he figure it out? Betting heavily against but we shall see... Carrite (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• I’ll just make one more comment, me taking this straight to AN was reactionary. But in hindsight, I should’ve taken it to MFD. Thank you to those who made me aware of this process. I was just shocked to see a userbox humorously displaying Nazi symbolism (again not the phrase ’grammar Nazi’, rather the image of the userbox), and thought it required immediate attention. I also should’ve made absolutely clear that my issue wasn't the phrase 'grammar Nazi' too (a phrase I was already aware of). If you look at my specific actions (and look past me being unaware of certain procedures and policies) I hope that editors can see that my intentions and the issues I raise are well meaning and in good faith. Thank you for telling me about MFD and the talk page archiving bot too. My talk page is always open to drop a link to policy if I go against it, and it will be always well received. TheSpacebook (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Before Doug tagged me above, I'd already seen TheSpacebook appear yet again in my watchlist on this dramaboard. While I actually agree with TheSpacebook that the image of the userbox was inappropriate (and the userbox itself is questionable, as it can be read as anti-Semitic and / or making light of the Holocaust), the manner in which this was handled suggests that it was meant to cause as much drama as possible. Besides the abysmally low percentage of mainspace edits, the user doesn't take on board feedback, as evidenced by being told yet again not to modify their comments after people have already replied. Support Yamla's proposal for an indefinite block and community ban, with the rationale WP:NOTHERE. Acalamari 17:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  I said my previous comment would be my last, but I must respond to this. Me bringing this straight to AN was to quickly get the userbox taken down if deemed inappropriate. If I took it to any deletion request (such as MFD), or even WPO, it would’ve caused way more drama than having admins (which is a small group) quickly take action on what I deemed to be a serious matter. There are wider implications of opening discussions about Nazism and anti-Semtism, and with the current climate, it’s best not to open up such discussions due to how nasty they get. The discussion about whether the userbox was anti-Semitic or not would’ve turned sour extremely quickly if a large group of editors got involved, it’s best left to the experienced admins. I’m glad we agree the image in the userbox was inappropriate and could read as anti-Semitic. TheSpacebook (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  I’ll add again, that the low percent of mainspace edits currently doesn’t take into account the deleted article Where is Kate? Myself and other editors worked tirelessly to keep it reliably sourced and free from promoting conspiracies: https://web.archive.org/web/20240327121008/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where_is_Kate%3F TheSpacebook (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Spacebook, you've made eight edits to this page in the last 15 minutes despite multiple editors saying this is a problem. Either stop posting or learn to use the preview screen -- ideally both. You are literally digging a hole for yourself at this point. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  The problem raised in this discussion was that the comments that had be replied to but admittedly editing comments in general is something I need to work on. With the discussion being directed at me, it’s important that I’m not misrepresented, so I’m trying to get the responses posted as quickly as possible. TheSpacebook (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Spacebook, the problem is that: No. No edits need to be replied to. That's you [erroneous] thinking. I'm telling you this: if—instead of rep[lying to all those comments that just needed to be replied to—you ha had said something like, "well I'd like to reply, but I recognise that's not the best response, so I'll step away for the rest of the day", then I could almost guarantee that Yamla's proposal would rapidly lose traction. Because for the first bloody time since you first edited—in between all the noticeboards and requests for arbitration (!!!)—you would have shown a degree of restraint and self-reflection that people want to see. But. ——Serial Number 54129 18:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked TheSpacebook from this page for 24 hours for disruptive editing, bludgeoning, still not using preview or making sure their statement ready to publish, and throwing dirt all over the place. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. But I’m not going to put any money on them learning their lesson. Doug Weller talk 18:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Good block. We don't need unnecessary drama, and TSB seems to have a track record in that department. I would strongly advise them to devote more of their energy to building an encyclopedia and less to starting or throwing gasoline on dumpster fires. All of which said, I respectfully oppose a C-Ban at this time as premature. Let's see if they take any of this onboard. But yeah, there needs to be some changes going forward. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Oh I agree a C-Ban would be premature. They should be given another chance. Doug Weller talk 19:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Good block, too lenient if anything.

  Star Mississippi 01:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• How many times are we going to have to ask TheSpacebook to preview their edits before submitting? This is a very basic thing to figure out, and their refusal to get it is emblematic of their broader inability to learn from their mistakes. They either can't or won't listen, and at this point the community has expended more than a reasonable amount of time and effort trying to help them. Two pblocks from this noticeboard in a span of less than three weeks is flat-out ridiculous. I realize that several editors whom I respect have stated above that a cban would be premature, but I'm not so sure I agree. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• oppose C-Ban We're going to block someone and not allow them to respond with a defense? "How many times are we going to have to ask TheSpacebook to preview their edits before submitting?" Really? Just wait until he's done. Give it a couple of hours and reply. Is it really so bad that he makes corrections/better states his point? Yes, he shouldn't refactor it AFTER someone replies. I'm not seeing DE, bludgeoning, etc warranting of a block. If someone advocates blocking someone and they vigorously defend themselves, I think that's reasonable. If you're in a trial, you get to have a chance to say your thoughts and respond to EVERYTHING people say. The idea that a person's reputation can be besmirched and people think "Well, he's responded to 5 comments, anything more is too much!" *clutches pearls* is a bit unreasonable IMHO. Let him say what he wants. If he's got a point, let him make it. If he doesn't, then he won't and he'll look like jerk doing it. If he's not defaming anyone or doing anything else illegal, just let it roll. Are we being charged by the byte now? Buffs (talk) 21:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  This is a public noticeboard. It is nonsensical to suggest that we should give an editor a couple of hours to finish editing their comments before we respond. Nobody here is that important. Asking an editor to use the preview button is a reasonable request. Yes, we all make mistakes and need to fix our posts on occasion, but The Spacebook has demonstrated a well-documented failure to improve in this regard despite repeated requests from other editors. But undoubtedly in the future they will quote your ill-considered remarks above as if they negate the concerns expressed by everyone else, so thanks for that. The Spacebook made 80 edits to this page within a span of 15 hours, so the notion that they were not allowed to defend themselves is preposterous. Buffs, the only thing your rant accomplished was that it demonstrated that it is not possible to reasonably defend The Spacebook's behavior. In light of the fact that the only defense that has been mustered so far is incoherent and devoid of substance, let the record show that I support a community ban at this time, just as I will likely support it again when we end up back here in a few weeks. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Point is well taken, I think, that it's not really........ kosher, ethical, what have you ........ to run a c-ban mob here when the accused is unable to respond. I would like to think those who have supported it realize that there won't be a consensus coming out of this particular incident and that we can just put down the executioner's axe for a week or two to see how things play out. If Spacebook is acting in good faith, he will quickly correct course. More shenanigans will be received most unkindly, it should be clear to him. He's been posted on what he needs to do and warned about what he needs to not do, let's see how he responds in action rather than blabber. —tim //// Carrite (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see a mob. Besides, the prospect of a community ban was first mentioned several hours before TheSpacebook talked their way into a pblock. I don't believe that we should stop discussing a proposed sanction because the editor in question earned themselves a separate sanction. Given that TheSpacebook has not corrected course on issues that were previously raised the last time they were in the community's crosshairs, I see no reason to kick the can further down the road. YMMV, LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  A similar issue came up at ANI and I find it fairly bizarre. Even if the block was for the same issue, it's been pretty much standard practice for at least 10 years and I think much more, that a block does not end discussion on sanction of the editor unless it's felt that the block is sufficient to resolve the issue. I mean in some cases it is, but in other cases here may be discussion of a longer block, ban or other restriction be it a site one or a more limited one. Some admins even say (as happened at the ANI) that I'm blocking but not intending to end the discussion on wider sanction. And of course blocks and site bans under discussion, including appeals, generally take place when the editor cannot edit the relevant notice boards. I mean even if we put those aside and only take cases where an editor has just been blocked but there's a suggestion for a wider sanction; I suspect there's at least one case a month where this happens. So I don't understand why there's suddenly a suggestion we cannot do this as editors need to be able to directly participate in the AN//I. I'd note that personally I've advocated that in all such cases including appeals, editors should be unblocked with the proviso they only participate about them provided we can trust them to obey such a condition and they don't do something which makes their editing untenable. (This would likely have worked in the ANI I mentioned.) However this has never gotten community support so standard practice is the editor can post on their talk page and someone copies it over. Also even if we did do that, this seems to be one of the cases where it would not work since the block was largely because of their behaviour here in this AN. Nil Einne (talk) 10:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  My point is in response to process. I resent your implication that my response was a "rant" (especially when your response was longer than mine). "undoubtedly in the future they will quote your ill-considered remarks above as if they negate the concerns expressed by everyone else, so thanks for that." Well I guess that all dissenting points of view must bow down to your inherent wisdom and all opposition will lead to "future crime". Are you serious? Geez. I posted my DISSENT with his opinion above. My opinion is my own. If he misquotes me as if to say the entire community believes as I do, you can correct him and an administrator would be well within his purview and capable enough to dismiss such a claim.

  My concern is procedural and focused on the precedent it sets. People should be able to voice their concerns (even inartfully) and make corrections to make their point. While it should be done in a clearer manner than TSB has done, opposing views have still made their points. His changes only hurt his case, not help it. Let it go and this will resolve itself. Buffs (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  Well I guess that all dissenting points of view must bow down to your inherent wisdom and all opposition will lead to "future crime". Are you serious? Geez. I posted my DISSENT with his opinion above. The ranting continues to not be helpful. You seem to have decided that you have the moral high-ground because you are defending an editor under fire, but unfortunately your comments have failed to engage with reality. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• I'd support a temporary ban from project space. Let them show they can contribute to the wiki before a cban. Pinguinn 🐧 21:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose a community ban at this time, but
  • • User:TheSpacebook - In the past few weeks, there have been three editors who have made real nuisances of themselves, among other things seeking to Right Small Wrongs. We have a guideline that Wikipedia is not intended as a place to Right Great Wrongs, but I found it necessary to write an essay about editors whose efforts to Right Small Wrongs hit them like a boomerang. Two of those three editors filed stupid Requests for Arbitration that were dismissed. Two of those editors have been indefinitely blocked. As you can see, some editors think that you should join them. For now, I disagree. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support: At the since-declined arbitration request, I said I had no further plans to interact with this user, so I do not wish to go into excessive detail here, but this user has continued to do all of the same stuff that everyone has told them is a terrible idea that will waste time and cause giant amounts of drama, including the guy on Wikipediocracy who doxes people, in one of the several new threads Spacebook has created on there since the last AN thread about them. jp×g🗯️ 08:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as an overreaction at this point. They've been here four months and fucked up a few times. Who hasn't. Bloody hell, we've got long-term editors fucking up all the time. If they carry on fucking up, then they've fucked up. And not just up, but right up. But that'll be for then; right now, they should be given a chance to adjust literally the single main thing that has drawn the broadest ire: their keyboard diarrhoea. If they can manage that (and yes, not running to ANI, arb com at the drop of a hat would be an added bonus!) and do some basic spadework in article space, then we got a win. And if we are being trolled, frankly, to fuck, then he won't be able to resist coming back for a bit more—the Lokian lust for commotion reveals itself—and we say goodbye. No messing, end of. ——Serial Number 54129 12:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support CBAN. Four blocks and an ArbCom case request all inside in three weeks is too much, and the issues that led to those blocks (disruptive editing x3 and alleged canvassing) are not the kinds of things that are solved with a TBAN. I said at ARC that their behavior was indistinguishable from trolling; the fact we're back at AN again is not doing much to change that. Giraffer (talk) 13:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose on principle. I'm not comfortable with the idea of boomeranging an editor that came to a noticeboard to report their concerns about nazi imagery, even if there's some other underlying issues with their behaviour. I don't like the possibility that this might have a chilling effect on other editors with good faith concerns. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think jumping straight to a CBAN is the answer here. Furthermore, I agree with the thoughts by Clovermoss. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Project Space Ban

I propose that User:TheSpacebook be banned from posting to project space and project talk space, with the sole exception of responding to complaints against them. They have shown that they don't know either how to post to noticeboards, because they edit their posts repeatedly after posting, and that they don't know when to post to noticeboards.

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support, particularly after their reply to Yamla "I would suggest if you are tired of the poster, you skip over his material.". Absolutely clueless. Honestly, I would prefer an indef block, but recognize that might be a little harsh. This project space ban would cut their current output by over 50% and would be a good start, and the lesser of the available "evil" solutions. A reasonable compromise. We do not need this person in WP: space, at all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Dennis, point of order: Carrite posted that, not TheSpacebook. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I stand corrected, but I still maintain that they are clueless or they wouldn't spend over half their time in WP space doing these things. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support. A time-sink who is here to drama-monger, not improve the project. We've already lost one good admin over this user, it's time to put an end to the nonsense. Since they seem unwilling/able to stop, a forced one is needed. Note, I would also support a larger block. Star Mississippi 01:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  What admin did we lose over this user? Levivich (talk) 03:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  GeneralNotability didn't technically turn in their bit but ceased editing after resigning OS and from ArbComm after their block of this user was taken to task. It is just my opinion but the loss of their work is significantly more than Space's. Star Mississippi 03:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe you know something I don't know, but I don't know that GN's absence has had anything to do with anything related to Wikipedia (as opposed to RL), and even if it does even partly have to do with the poor way GN was treated by some over that block, you can hardly blame the editor who was blocked for that. I'm not even saying Space hasn't been disruptive or shouldn't be sanctioned, but it seems massively unfair to saddle them with GN's absence. Levivich (talk) 04:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  You don't think it was related to being doxed earlier in that same day? jp×g🗯️ 08:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  I think GN's absence probably has multiple reasons and maybe that was one of them, maybe it wasn't, I don't presume to know, and I won't assume it (and it's none of my business anyway).

  More importantly, it doesn't matter for purposes of this discussion because Space didn't dox anyone and isn't responsible for those who did.

  If we want to hold editors responsible for that, I could post a list of names. If we want to hold editors responsible for choosing to associate with it, I could post a list of names for that, too. Space at least disavowed it clearly, as have others, but not everyone, including not everyone participating in this discussion.

  If we want to sanction people for harassing GN, I'm all for it and could post a list of names, but Space wouldn't be on it. Let's not blame this person for it while allowing more culpable people to continue editing without blame. Sanction people because of what they do, not what others do. Levivich (talk) 15:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support as better than nothing, but still not enough IMO. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• I would suggest an exception be made for the teahouse (but not other help desks). I was also thinking AFDs but I think they can appeal for that carve out after a few months of writing articles. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I would disagree with any exceptions. They can partial appeal as needed, when it is appropriate. If you carve out an exception for Teahouse, we are likely to be back here in a month seeking to add it back. Cut the head off the snake, let them actually edit articles, and grow up a bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking they may need help if they start to make significant mainspace contributions; WPO is their preferred help desk currently. But I don't have strong feelings, since user talk space would remain available to them. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with any exception for XFD. XFD is a quarrelsome arena. We have had three ArbCom cases about conduct in XFD in six years. I do not have a strong opinion about a single exception for the Teahouse, but they would be likely to annoy the friendly regulars by editing their typos as the regulars respond to them. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I'm just voicing an opinion here but I don't think a Project space block would be effective as that covers everything from RFDs to AE to AN to to RSN to AFDs to Teahouse to Policy pages. I think if there is a support for this block, it should be a partial block from particular noticeboards where disruption has occurred and it should be limited to, say, 3 months. But after reading through this discussion, I think a specific page block would be better than a namespace block. If an editor starts to game a partial block, that would also be immediately apparent in case the editor doesn't get a clue and there needs to be follow-up. I wasn't aware of the situation with GN but I hope that withdrawal isn't due to conflict over a block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I get what you are saying, but to me, they need to be removed from the entire administrative portion of the website and limited to actually editing articles. If anything, the restriction should be MORE restrictive, not less. If they can do that successfully for 6 months, they have a basis for a partial appeal. Otherwise, I would support an indef block for NOTHERE. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I think I agree. They are claiming the block is punishment, I've told them it gives them a chance to edit articles and develop their editing skills. Doug Weller talk 08:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Realistically, do we really want them editing articles? Does it not seem highly likely that they'll just start wikilawyering over article content and talking other editors to death until those editors simply walk away from the articles in question? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Better to just give some metaphorical rope anyway, and see if they do. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 11:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I realize that this is the conventional approach, but I'm not sure I understand why. When someone repeatedly drains community time and demonstrates a battleground mentality, why don't we simply believe that they are what their conduct says they are? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

In this case at least, their behaviour has only been limited to project space. Jumping to a CBAN/indef would be premature, as it is better to exhaust all possibility of them contributing constructively before considering CBANs and indefs. There are many editors with TBANs that still contribute constructively, would you say "ban all editors with TBANs as they have a battleground mentality and have exhausted the community patience"? That would clearly be at the detriment to the project. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 18:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

No, I think you'll find that I'm saying we should ban this specific editor because they have a battleground mentality and because they have become a drain on the community's time. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@Matrix: Unless you're an admin, you may be unaware that they made extensive edits to the now deleted Where is Kate?, which may or may not have been disruptive, and made an extremely ill-advised move of another article. In their case, partly because they're still relatively new, visible edits don't give a representative picture of their activity. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

That does change the equation quite a bit, but a full indef/CBAN is still a bit too early IMO. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 07:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe a 6 month block would be more helpful, though the judge, jury and hangman seem to have already decided TheSpacebook's fate. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 15:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

That's a very strange way of describing our normal consensus-based process. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

From the looks of it the Wikipedia namespace block is more likely to be implemented than the cban proposal. It's still possible for you to scroll up and voice your opinion on the cban proposal if you wish to. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support, per my comment in the above section. jp×g🗯️ 08:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support, also per my comment above. Pinguinn 🐧 09:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support per my comment above. If they don't want to work on articles, then perhaps they don't belong on Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 10:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support but I very strongly feel this won't be enough. I proposed the site ban above and still prefer that option, though some entirely reasonable people disagree. --Yamla (talk) 11:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Pretty much per my reasoning above. ——Serial Number 54129 12:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Like Yamla, I'm not convinced this will solve the issue, but it's definitely worth a shot. Giraffer (talk) 13:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support I think the only way they can continue to edit here is if they are forced to concentrate on articles. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support I have avoided getting involved with any previous discussions, but I do read the drama boards every now and then. I have seen how much of a timesink this editor seems to be in project space, and this would give them a good chance to actually try and improve the encyclopedia instead of seemingly trolling the noticeboards. DrowssapSMM 15:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, I support this, too, and the community ban, as I stated above. Acalamari 15:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - Not sure if this is a case of obtuse or intentionally obtuse, but it's pretty clear where this train is headed. Carrite (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per below. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 11:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support as a WP:TIMESINK. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support I think this is reasonable and gives a chance to this editor to find other places on the wiki where they can edit constructively. I mostly agree with the points raised by the supporters above. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Unnecessary and an overreaction. They have just gotten a short block which was justified. This is starting to look like a pile on. Let's wait and see if they take what has transpired onboard. If not, then it's a lot easier to just indef them and move on. Why make things more complicated than necessary? Beyond which, I am not a fan of banning editors from noticeboards. As insane as it may sound, sometimes there are legitimate reasons why an editor needs to make a report. That said, if there is not a marked improvement in their conduct on the project, an indefinite block is probably not far off. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support with reluctance as the best option available to guide the editor into contributing to building and improving the encyclopedia before they talk their way into a ban. If the topic ban is implemented, the rules should be very clearly explained on their talk page, including what to do if a noticeboard discussion concerns them directly: how to post there a request to participate in a discussion or to have an argument copied over. The editor has a track record of not understanding or not fully reading advice and guidelines, and I want to give them every chance to avoid further blocks. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose on procedural grounds. Ad O above sums up my thoughts. This should not be construed as an endorsement/opposition of his actions. People need a place to report things. It's simple enough to say "no" and close it. Buffs (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  People have spent WAY more effort on this than was expended starting it. It should have been a simple "no" and we left it alone. Buffs (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 3: Project Space Ban from starting threads

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think a better proposal than the one above would be a ban from starting threads in project space. This way they can still contribute to places such as XFD and VP constructively but they don't end up starting new threads on righting great/small wrongs or whatever. Clearly they have an interest in contributing to project space, and maybe this would be better for the project.

• Support as proposer —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 11:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Need help at WT:WHITELIST

The few administrators responding at this queue haven't much interacted with a whitelist request I made 2 weeks ago. The vibe I get is that because the source in question relates to WP:MEDRS, anyone looking at the request would rather not bother with it. Could an admin take a look at my request in full, please?

(For additional context, I started out with an RSN thread, where I noted the source seemed reliable, and questioned why it's on the blacklist to begin with.) PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

More generally I would appreciate not being the only admin regular there, which I have been for months. I only started doing it because requests were being archived without reply prior to that. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I haven't comments on your thread because I'm not inclined to whitelist per your request as I'm not convinced it is in the best interests of the encyclopedia. I notice you also tend to get rather impatient, PhotogenicScientist, and you seem to forget that administrators are volunteers who are not required to respond on your timetable. Or at all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

you seem to forget that admins are volunteers I'm not sure where you're getting that from, considering I said "admins are volunteers" right here. And I waited 4 days actively on RSN, 7 days actively on WT, and another 7 days with no action on WT - does that seriously qualify as someone who tends to get rather impatient?

Look, feel very free to continue to ignore my request, Dennis Brown. I'm not holding it against you, or anything. Just asking here for support from any other admin. (Which I was advised to do from the RSN thread, by the way) PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

posting COIs (actual/potential) under TBAN

I am banned from editing topics related to Mormonism, but one of the main reasons for my ban is that I did not sufficiently disclose potential and actual COIs. I've talked to the admin in charge of my ban, and he is okay with me adding COI banners/explanations to talk pages even if they are in the topic of Mormonism. Please let me know if there are any objections--I will continue adding COI banners to talk pages on Monday, 4/22. I list some details of the kinds of things I would like to disclose over on my talk page. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

The TBAN is considered to be imposed by the community so there's not really an "admin in charge" of it. It's always good to ask when you're unsure; personally I don't see an issue with the specific task of adding COI disclosures to talk pages. DanCherek (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I guess then read this as a more "is this okay?" then "I'm going to go do this now." *smiling sweat drop emoji Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I do not see adding COI tags to previously-edited articles as a violation of the tban, and in fact I think we should be encouraging it as an indication that Rachel is operating in good faith. Valereee (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Persistent copying without attribution

This relates to Quayshires. I'm wary of not biting a relatively new editor. Maybe they haven't seen talk page notifications, or might be editing in a way that doesn't display them. This editor has started a few new pages with content copied from other pages. One of them was actually a good idea, being 2024 Limerick mayoral election, being a split from 2024 Limerick City and County Council election. The mayoral election is indeed notable enough to get its own page. However, I noticed it because a good part of the page was material which I had added to the other page. I notified the user of the etiquette, but I've since noticed that they have done the same, and for pages where there was much less need, such as 2023 Philip Schofield affair scandal with material copied from Phillip Schofield, and 2024 Børsen fire with material copied from Børsen. I was wary of Chancellorship of Jeremy Hunt, being a large page recently created, but it turns out that one is new, just mostly worked offline. The editor has made some constructive edits, but is both creating pages unnecessarily and not adhering to policy, such that I think some nudge from an administrator is warranted. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I was made aware of this by Iveagh Gardens, and will now clamp down on making unnecessary pages going forward. Quayshires (talk) 13:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your response. And also more specifically, remember to attribute any copying within Wikipedia. Copying within Wikipedia should probably be limited anyway, as each article has its own purpose, so it's better to let them develop in their own organic way, rather than copying text that was crafted for a different article. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

In a small addendum, can I urge you to read your talk page notices. I see there was a comment on your talk page about copying without attribution, with a warning of a block if there was continued infringement. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Quayshires, I know you have been given a lot of articles to read, but copyright is taken very seriously here as it has legal ramifications. Making unnecessary pages is a lesser matter than copying without attribution, so please read WP:copying within Wikipedia again and make sure that you understand it. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:CCI is the usual venue for reporting mass copyright violations, in case you need it in the future. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Appealling topic ban & 1RR

Hello everyone. In 2018 I was topic banned plus 1RR. I've been off Wiki for several years. The Admin who imposed the topic banned & the 1RR has been super kind and fair, and helped by pointing me to the relevant policy regarding topic ban, to which I am grateful, but that now leaves me even more confused as to whether I should mention the topic here or not. Since I'm not sure what to do, I rather not mention it here just in case I am not allowed to as per policy. Sorry guys, some of you maybe confused. I'm confused myself as it's been years away from Wiki and I forgot a lot, my Wiki brain is not working. My apologies. I'm not trying to play ruse here, I am honestly confused. I don't even know whether this is the right format for appealling this, and I'm weary of asking or mention something I shouldn't and gets a telling off. I have been blocked before, but have never been topic banned until the 2018 one, so the appeal process of this type of sanction is pretty new to me anyway. It has been 5 years (2019) since I came off Wiki returning back in March this year. During those 5 years I've learned a lot. I had been extremely difficult, driven by my passion for this Wiki project, but which sometimes got me into trouble. I have apoligised for that before and I would like to apologise for that again here. As a human being, I make mistakes too. Learning from those mistakes to be a better version of myself is what I do now. The 5 years absence had given me opportunity to self reflect, especially when I now have another grandson. My mentality is totally different from when I started over a decade ago. Yes, I have done some bad stuff over the years, but I've also done some good that helps contribute in a small away towards the advancement of this great project –which is what I am here for. I therefore urge the community to consider this appeal in the spirit it is written and lift the topic ban and 1RR. Thank you all for your time, and apologies again if anything is confusing. I am equally confused, but did not want to mention the topic's name just in case I'm not even allowed to mention it by name.Tamsier (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Quoting Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions, "Tamsier is topic banned from all edits related to the Serer people, and is also under a sitewide 1RR restriction. Both restrictions are broadly construed. They can be appealed to the community, for instance at WP:AN, but no sooner than 12 months from now, and are enforcable by blocks." Tamsier, when contesting the topic ban, you are allowed to specifically mention the topic ban. Thanks for being cautious! --Yamla (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• As the banning admin, I'm not going to opine on this appeal, but I'll provide a few courtesy links for clarification: please see my recent warning here, the 2018 discussion which led to the ban (the header says 2015, but don't let that worry you), and the formal notice in 2018. Bishonen | tålk 13:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC).
• Also see the ANI discussion here. I'm clearly involved and although Tamsier has been more than civil with me since I discovered he was back that's a 180degree change from when he was last editing. User:Drmies was also a target. Here is what I wrote in 2018:

"Tamsier, I'm going to be blunt. I have always been in favor of more representation of African subjects and have even spent money on sources besides of course time to improve some of them. Your enthusiasm for improving these is great. But I had a serious problem with your sourcing and content, which I think comes from your sincere belief in the old Serer religion and its truth, that the Serer have been in Africa forever, etc. This has made it difficult for you to follow our policies and guidelines when editing Serer related articles. I think that any unblock request needs to be made at WP:ANI via your talk page - there will be people who will repost comments you make here to your ANI request. I'm sure nobody, including you, wants a repeat of what happened that led to your block. Doug Weller talk 13:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)"

I've got no time to spend on examining current edits, but I would like to know, Tamsier, if your belief in how long the Serer have been in Africa has changed. Doug Weller talk 14:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks Yamla for doing that. Much appreciated. Hi Doug Weller, I think there has been misunderstanding regarding those people (I'm trying not to mention their name here as this is a Wiki page too, just in case I'm not suppose to) being in Africa forever. This might be due to the different styles of using the English language (and/or writing style) by people from different cultures. However, I have not purported and do not purport that group "has been in Africa forever." The only think I can do is report on what the sources say, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's were a lot of our disagreements stemmed from. To answer your question directly, absolutely no. If we are to go with the scientific view that humanity originated from Africa, it would not make sense for me to advance that group of people have in Africa forever. Do I believe or have I ever held the view that they have been in Africa forever? Absolutely no, because they couldn't have by sheer logic. If that is the impression I gave in any of my edits or comments, then I'm sorry about that, because that's not what I meant to do, but only reporting what the sources say as it pertains to their own history and the history of the region they settled in. I hope that helps in clarifying any misunderstanding. I noticed an editor (I can't remember who it was as I was on the move at the time) posed some important questions but later deleted it after looking at my talk page which were answered there. As mentioned on my talk page, I totally forgot about this topic ban and 1RR as it has been 5 years since I came back. The edits were not in anyway of me trying to game the system. To the contrary, I genuinely forgot. The fact that I logged on and edited rather than using an IP demonstrate that it was genuine forgetfullness (I'm not young anymore, lol). I have not been on Wiki for years, and totally forgot. Had it been an ordinary block, the system would have alerted me, and would have jogged my memory. However, as it was a topic ban, it totally escaped my mind after all these years. That is the honest answer. I just thought I take the opportunity to mention it here as well.Tamsier (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  When reporting what sources said about an ancient existence of the Serer, which you can mention here, did you always attribute their statements? Doug Weller talk 17:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  Just to be clear, I’m sorry if you took me literally when I said forever, I thought it obvious that was hyperbole. Doug Weller talk 17:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I think it's plausible that, after five years absence, Tamsier forgot about the topic ban. However, they have an unsettling block history, and some of their edit summaries since returning are concerning:

• Undoing disingenous edit and POV pushing by User:Catjacket. You can't call them Fula! They speak Pulaar but that does not mean they are Fulani. I've seen your edits on other articles doing the same thing! Also, fixed the link to Futa Toro.
• Reverted Fula & Wolof POV motivated by anti-Serer sentiments and hate. Will be going through this article in the next few days. Starting now. Dubious claims motivated by hated of the Serer and tribalism & not backed by RS will be removed. This is an encyclopedia. Take your hatred and POV elsehwere.
• Removing silly tag motivated by hatred and anti-Serer sentimens (the only reason for adding the tag there was because of ref to a Serer King, not because of Lat Dior, so sad). Read the article about the battle & you will know what the battle was about. Please do not bring tribalism and religious hatred on Wiki. Also, it is the Kingdom of Jolof, not the empire which ceased to exist in the 16th century. Addeed refs

If Tamsier can edit actively for six months while complying with the topic ban and avoiding past problems, that might demonstrate that the topic ban is no longer needed. Schazjmd (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Schazjmd, the links you've posted was me addressing some concerning editing, adding references, and correcting issues, one of which pertaining to an ethnic minority group, who are a minority anyway and how dangerous it could be to lump them into a wider dominant group just because they speak the same language. The editor and I had actually had fruitful discussions on the relevant topic page and reached concensus. Another issue which you missed was me reverting an IP who changed the population size of the group from 1 million to 5 million without sources: Restored revision 1216800884 by AnomieBOT (talk): Reverting IP POV when discussion is still going. Also, they have increased the population from 1 m to 5 million without sources. Take it to the talk page. With regards to your six months proposal, as I have stated earlier, I am here to help in a collaborative manner. I have also not been on Wiki for 5 years as stated, and took responsibility for my actions and apologised for that. I have never had a topic ban before so this is all knew to me as stated above. I didn't even appeal it a year after the ban. Yes, it is true that I want the ban and 1RR lifted, but I also want to be treated fairly here, and not having to be doubly punished for a sanction imposed several years ago. I hope you would agree that sanctions are not punitive or designed to humiliate editors especially when they have taken responsibility for their actions and agree not to do it again, which I have and still do.Tamsier (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Hi Doug Weller, I didn't see you later comment. Sorry. When the statements or accounts are supported by multiple sources/scholars, I simply add the inline citations so the reader can examine the sources themselves. If I am not mistaken, and do correct me if I'm wrong, I believe what you are asking is if for example source A says so and so.., whether I add in the article in quotation marks source A says so and so... rather than just paraphrasing and providing the inline citation. If that is what you are asking, yes, sometimes I do quote the text and attribute it to the author and provide the inline citation, and sometimes I paraphrase it and provide the inline citation. If quoting is your preferred option, I totally accept and respect that. However, as an active editor, and I have lot of balancing act to do. I have to be weary of copyright violations; and making sure an article is not full of multiple quotations thereby making the article more like a copy and paste rather than an encycolpedia. By paraphasing and adding the relevant reference as an inline citation to the claim, I believe that would help the reader to examine the source the claim referred to. You have been on Wiki for many years, and are more experience, and I do appreciate that different people have different way of doing things, and I have no problem adopting your technique (which I've done on many articles anyway) if that is the community's preferred way of doing it. Which ever method is best to help the general reader but also balancing copyright violation and piling quotations after quotations on an article which in my view comes off as copy and paste. Perhaps 1 or 2 quoations in an article is fine, but multiple quoations rather than paraphasing, in my judgement as an active editor, could end up doing more harm. However, I do believe that providing quotations in some cases rather than just paraphasing is crucial. As I edit, I try to make that judgement call. Sometimes, of course, I may make the wrong. However, by adding the inline citation to the claim being supported, at least that would give the reader the opportunity to examine the source themselves. I hope I've answered your questions, and if you think I've missed anything or misunderstood your question in the way I answered it, please clarify. Thanks.Tamsier (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• I said I wouldn't opine on Tamsier's appeal, but I will say something, in view of the shocking edit summaries that Schazjmd quotes above, and which are only a few days old: "motivated by anti-Serer sentiments and hate"... "motivated by hat[r]ed of the Serer and tribalism"... "Take your hatred and POV elsewhere"... "Removing silly tag motivated by hatred and anti-Serer sentimens"... "Please do not bring tribalism and religious hatred on Wiki". What a lot of hatred and what a lot of assumptions of bad faith. It's much too similar to the attacks and the bad faith assumptions that Tamsier was indefinitely blocked for in 2015 (the block that was eventually converted to the topic ban we are discussing here). I'm sorry to see it. Is this really the user who says above "My mentality is totally different from when I started over a decade ago"? Tamsier, those edit summaries were written by you on 2 April, 12 April and 15 April. This April. So is it your contention that you are now a reformed character with a totally different mentality, even though you were still an aggressive bad-faith-assuming battleground editor a week ago, as seen in those edit summaries? I don't really care if that was you "addressing some concerning editing, adding references, and correcting issues", which is your defense above. I care that you seemingly can't address issues without ascribing bad motives and attacking others as being motivated by "hatred", a word you keep using. That's terrible in my opinion. It's completely unacceptable on Wikipedia. I don't see anybody speaking to or about you in that way. I'm also not impressed by your reply to Doug Weller: Do I believe or have I ever held the view that they have been in Africa forever? Absolutely no, because they couldn't have by sheer logic. Your literal reading of what Doug said looks evasive — merely a way of changing the subject. Surely you knew what he meant? Bishonen | tålk 20:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC).
• What Bishonen says. I remember that it was precisely this zeal that led to various admonitions and finally the topic ban--it seemed clear to me that when it came to Serer matter, the editor simply could not be objective and detached. That's a real shame, of course, since we need editors in those topic areas--but what we do not need is editors who, the moment they are invested in a topic area, disparage the motivations of editors who make edits they don't agree with.
  So the big problem I see is signaled by this edit, and its edit summary, and I'll quote part of it: " I can't with the Wolof Pov pushing. This is just too much! Editors should really take a deep look of Wolof Pov pushing on the Wiki project. The problem is bigger than I thought". Now the article is fairly recent, but the subject wasn't Serer (in our article) until Tamsier. Fine. Maybe he is. Maybe the sources are good. And it's certainly true that there's not direct, sourced statement that said he's Wolof. The problem though is the thought that this article would have been created/edited to make a man a Wolof and deliberately leave out that he's Serer. User:BastianMAT, who created the article, is a Wolof POV pusher? So, no, I don't think lifting the topic ban is a good idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs) 22:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC).

Hi @Drmies: I believe you made the above edit but couldn't reply direct as it was unsigned and the name is not coming up on my computer. It was not the creator of the article who added that. How do I word pov on the same topic area, on multiple pages - a problem which is bigger than both you and I? Most of which (as per what I've seen so far) has nothing at all to do with the Serer either (first time I'm writing it here since I'm told it is okay), but bigger than I I initially thought, and some of whom are IPs drivebys, meat or socks, etc. The article did not even have a source for that. I was the one who sourced it. If we are adding cats for something, surely the topic must be discussed and sourced. It's like adding Category:Yoruba people to the King Charles article when nothing in his biography mentions he is Yoruba and certainly not sourced. When you run into too many of these - most of which I've seen but have not even touched, what can one say/do? Some of course would be innocent mistakes, but as an active editor who work on these types of articles, I am more likely to come across them than someone who occasionally edits these types of articles. I didn't even mention the editor by name, just the problem and highlighted the fact that it is a major issue - having seen so many - most of which I haven't even touched. The article's creator you mentioned was not even the person who added that. When is the correct time for me to call a spade a spade especially when I see the same issues on multiple articles? All I'm asking for Drmies and @Doug Weller: is to be given a chance rather than throwing the book at me.Tamsier (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC).

@Tamsier: No one is throwing the book at you, you have to do what anyone appealing a topic ban would do, prove that your behaviour has changed. You obviously haven't done that. But you did get the book thrown at you when you were sanctioned five years ago, and yet you say you forgot? I find that surprising to say the least given how important a topic this is for you and the drama that surrounded your editing that led to the sanctions. I'd also like a direct answer to my question. When do you think the Serer tribe emerged? I'm sure you have an opinion on that. Doug Weller talk 07:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, so one little category edit is enough to suggest that there is a huge POV problem, a major issue, bigger than the editor initially thought. So I'm going with no: if Tamsier is going to rant in edit summaries rather than start a decent discussion, with diffs and arguments (they could have done that given that they forgot about their topic ban), then this collaborative project is not for them. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

• An edit summary like this to me demonstrates a battleground attitude not compatible with editing a thorny topic. Even if we look past the TBAN violation as accidental, I would oppose lifting the restriction at this time. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Appeal to remove topic ban on politics and 0RR restriction

• Bcmh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The user was topic banned from articles about poltics and placed under a WP:0RR in 2023

Dear @331dot, @ToBeFree and other noticeboard users,

I am appealing for a removal of the topic ban and restriction arising from a ban first enacted by @ToBeFree on 18:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC) and removed by @331dot on 23:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC) with my agreement on a topic ban and 0RR restriction.

I now wish to return to making productive (and not disruptive) contributions and do better in terms of collaborative posture and behaviour on wikipedia.

I also understand that there are various procedures and venues to mediate disputes or differences without resorting to edit warring.

I fully intend to seek such guidance from the Teahouse or from other applicable information pages if needed.

Thank you for reading and considering this request. Bcmh (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Bcmh, your block was lifted on 28 Sept 2023 since when you have made just TWO edits in mainspace. On what basis are we supposed to be assessing your appeal? Cabayi (talk) 17:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

@Cabayi my impression, which is totally open to correction, was that my former behaviour warranted a period of being restrained in totality, regardless of other topics that are available for editing, especially so because there were many articles that I wanted to edit but thought that they could be approaching the bounds of what the ban was about - politics - and I honestly thought that it was better to just be restrained, would I now be correct in understanding that an appeal to remove a ban should include a longer list of edits? Again, I do not deny that I have only made two edits but it was borne out of a good faith but possibly mistaken intention as outlined above which is open to correction by yourself and others Bcmh (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I don’t see how we can determine if you’ve changed. A topic ban is given as a sanction in expectation you will edit elsewhere, if we knew you wouldn’t we could have just blocked you completely. Doug Weller talk 17:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

We need to see edits from you so we can determine if you have changed and that the behavior that led to the topic ban will not repeat. Two edits isn't enough to determine that. I'm sorry you have been operating under a misunderstanding, but the point of a topic ban is to redirect your efforts elsewhere. 331dot (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

sigh, could I ask how many edits are needed if more than two? is it 20 or 200? and does the six months restart again from today? or is it a more subjective assessment than number of edits and time? just trying to ask for some help and clarity here, thx Bcmh (talk) 02:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

could I also seek some clarification on whether it is permissible for me to edit an article that I created and have made many productive contributions to, and have many more to make: Reserves of the Government of Singapore; as well as other related articles that I did not create but are related to the one that I did, such as: Central Provident FundHousing and Development Board, GIC, Temasek Holdings, Monetary Authority of Singapore, Post Office Savings Bank, Singapore Land Authority - these are topics of Economics, Pension Funds, Public Housing and life in Singapore that I am familiar with, had made productive (and not disruptive) contributions prior to my ban and were not subject to my former behaviour which only took place in these two articles President of Singapore and Next Singaporean General Election which I do not seek permission to edit at this time.

I understand that a topic ban on politics is to be widely construed, but politics is so wide-ranging that it could be possibly linked to anything under the sun that has any involvement or interaction with elected politicians, furthermore, adding to these articles was not at all where my former behaviour manifested, so I'm hoping to be granted permission to edit these articles (except the election and president articles) since I need to show more edits and that I have changed. Thank you for your consideration. Bcmh (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The topic ban does not affect your ability to edit articles that you created, unless they are about areas you are topic banned from.

As for how many edits, the number is "enough that we can determine that you have changed". It certainly isn't two but I can't give a specific number, nor is it about a specific number. Probably at least dozens, if not a hundred. The ban was appealable after six months; there is no time limit on when you can next appeal, but it will likely take you a few months to build up the edits to show that you have changed. 331dot (talk) 07:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

As the topic ban is from "articles about politics", I would certainly stay away from editing an article called Reserves of the Government of Singapore. If you want to appeal a topic ban in the future, it's best to steer well clear of anything which might reasonably be considered as being covered by it; looking like you are pushing boundaries or toeing the line of acceptable behaviour generally isn't considered favourably by people assessing an appeal. If you are interested in Singaporean topics, surely there are articles in, say, Category:Culture of Singapore or Category:People from Singapore which you are able to improve and which stay well away from your TBAN. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Reporting User Saqib for Harrasing other Users

Dear Administrators,

I would like to report @Saqib as he is being very unprofessional and misusing platform. He has been very unreasonable towards other Pakistani contributors in Wikipedia, he has been requesting invalid article deletion without warning or contribution in article. His actions are against Wikipedia Harassments WP:HA and Personal Attack WP:NPA polices. He has been Wikipedia:Casting aspersions which can be view at my talk pages and when I ask him to be friendly he started harassing by invalid deletion request and invalid tags adding. You may see his actions from his contributions that mostly his contributions are against other editors and he personal attack me by blaming myself for conflict of interest and as I was not able to answer in time frame an article deletion was done. You may check he is more focus on creating new articles without content most of his articles are just one or two liners I offer to work together and grow Wikipedia together he bluntly dismissed and again bulled with deletion requests. Its my humble request to ban this user as he is destroying the beauty and true meaning of Wikipedia.

We are all here to contribute Wikipedia give our precious time to make this place a better place and do the research to improve each other and he also allege me for creating paid and conflict of interest articles. As editors we should take responsibility of each article we create as its our responsibility to continuously improving thus I keep improving my articles I give each day to improve my articles and if I get time I edit or improve or create new article.

As per Wikipedia WP:DRR policy. I hope you will assist me I do not know him personally being from same country he suppose to be supportive and improve articles together, if you review his profile he has doing personal attacks to everyone in his contribution history its mostly these maters. WP:NPA

Thanks Faizan Munawar Varya ^chat _{contributions} 01:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you show diffs Maestrofin (talk) 01:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

• See previous report at ANI: [3].--Bbb23 (talk) 01:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  Another boomerang Maestrofin (talk) 03:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Faizan Munawar Varya, for anyone to assess your complaint, you have to present evidence, in the form of diffs/edits, demonstrating that what you argue is true. I can safely say that no action will be taken without them. You have to back up your claims with evidence or this process could backfire on you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I fail to comprehend how nominating AfDs or applying maintenance tags to pages equates to personal attacks or even harassment. I generally refrain from labeling editors as paid editors or accusing them of COI unless I've strong suspicions. And Faizan's evident frustration only reinforces my suspicions. Take, for instance, this particular BLP he created using unreliable sources, laden with promotional WP:OR. I appropriately tagged it and made necessary removals of WP:OR, only for him to engage in edit warring. And he's done so again today under the guise of having addressed the issues, which clearly isn't the case if one reviews the edit history.

@Bbb23: suggested me reporting Faizan to ANI last month, a step I avoided to take to de-escalate the matter, yet ironically, it was Faizan who ultimately filed the report against me. I believe a measure of boomerang was warranted last time, and so it does now to deter such behavior in the future. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 08:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The only issue seems to be that you are too neutral, and don't conform to Faizanalivarya's POV or the opposite. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

For the record - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Faizanalivarya. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 09:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

• This looks like canvassing. Ymblanter (talk) 09:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

While this isn't a major concern, what worries me more is that Faizan holds WP:RPC rights , considering their editing pattern and behavior. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 10:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Have you seen any evidence that he has used WP:RPC rights? I have them too, but have rarely, if ever, used them, and had forgotten that I had this ability until I checked just now. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Ghosting & constantly reverting

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I noticed hoax references and copy-pastes on the Chuvash page. I made changes to rectify them, but user @Artem Petrov CHV reverted them without providing any explanation. Subsequently, I created a section on the talk page, outlining all the reasons for the removal while tagging him and requesting his opinion. He didn't respond. (until literally this day)

I then created another section on his profile, inquiring why he continues to revert and suggesting that we collaborate to customize the page together. Once again, he didn't respond. Despite this, he continues to revert the changes. I kindly request any moderator proficient in linguistics to assist us in reaching a consensus. Auzandil (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Revdel request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

[4] O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Never mind - done

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Backlog at Category:Requests for unblock

Howdy. There's a bit of a backlog (understatement) at Category:Requests for unblock, could an administrator please try to clear some of it out? Regards, 12.32.37.18 (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• Well, I did one, and it took ten minutes--that's why we have a backlog... Drmies (talk) 17:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  Had to briefly process why they would took so long. One supposes the RfU backlog will persist past the extinction of humanity, as Wikipedia's servers (to quote EEng), "...deep in their underground bunders, whirr and hum and blink..." In all seriousness though, it isn't too big of a deal, just thought a few admins might wanna chip away at it a bit. 12.32.37.18 (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  This is not an urgent backlog. Most of the accounts in the category are blocked with good reason and are unlikely to be unblocked anytime soon. It takes time and effort to decline frivolous requests and that's hardly a good use of volunteer time. -Fastily 22:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  There'll always be a queue; there need not always be someone calling for it to be emptied. NebY (talk) 09:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  I've seen it much worse than it is now. 12.32, do you have a particular interest in seeing unblock requests reviewed? 331dot (talk) 09:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  Not really, to be honest. I'm a school IP, but feel free to run a CU (there'll probably be no accounts unless some were made and promptly blocked before my time here). Just saw a massive backlog and went "huh, maybe the sysops would wanna know about this". 12.32.37.18 (talk) 13:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Conflict of interest editing by Dennis Brown

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

During the recent conflict of interest management arbitration case and related discussions, Dennis Brown (talk · contribs) has repeatedly made reference to the fact the he owns stock in AT&T but has edited articles such as History of AT&T.[5][6][7] As I understand it, Dennis' intention here is to demonstrate that behaviour like this is therefore not "paid editing" or otherwise a conflict of interest that requires disclosure. What I and others have taken from it is that Dennis has been editing with an undisclosed financial conflict of interest, but has gotten away with it because it's a minor infraction and nobody wants the hassle of reporting a long-time administrator who's otherwise in good standing.

I don't think this is a really big deal, but I also don't think a newbie editor saying the same thing would meet the same blind eyes and turned faces. Dennis has stated that his financial interest in AT&T is not trivial (you do not know how much I earn from these stocks but I will say that it exceeds what an average paid editor would earn for going in and changing a few articles) and that by his own admission anything [he] wrote could have affected the stock price or dividends of any of these stocks.[8] He has also said that this is just one example of his making edits relating to companies in which he owns stock.[9] This raises issues because he has not made the formal disclosure required of paid editors and requested of all editors with a conflict of interest, nor has he (too my knowledge) followed the guidelines in making changes via edit requests instead of directly. He is also an administrator, and I believe the community has historically had a very low tolerance for admins engaging in any form of conflict of interest editing.

Since he himself seems intent on pushing this issue, going so far as to goad me into blocking him over it, I think it's only fair to hear whether the wider community considers this a (financial) conflict of interest, what disclosures Dennis is required to make, or if any other action is appropriate. – Joe (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

This seems like a stretch of WP:COI. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:COI states that an editor has a financial conflict of interest whenever they write about a topic with which they have a close financial relationship. This includes being an owner, employee, contractor, investor or other stakeholder. I would say that owning a stake that pays dividends that exceeds what an average paid editor would earn is not at all a stretch of that definition though, as recent discussions have highlighted, editors seem to have a wide range of understandings of that same text. – Joe (talk) 13:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Feels like this should be at WP:COIN, not here. Primefac (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

It concerns conduct by an administrator, hence the administrators' noticeboard. – Joe (talk) 13:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I can find no record of Denis Brown editing AT&T [10] and only one record of an edit to History of AT&T [11]. While I am open to saying that if you own stock in a company you may have a COI, I'm not seeing any examples of a problem here. Am I missing something? - Bilby (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Looking further, the best I have found is some minor edits to AT&T Corporation [12]. Joe, unless I really am missing something, I think you are being played. - Bilby (talk) 14:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't look, honestly, just took Dennis' word on it. I'm really puzzled as to why he would keep bringing it up if his edits were unambiguously uncontroversial, given that this is an explicit exception to COI. – Joe (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Suppose I have invested in a total stock market fund. Do I have a conflict of interest with Economy of the United States? Why or why not? What about the fund's constituent companies, which are numerous?

Many people have small investments in numerous stocks. I would not consider stock investing a COI unless it is most of a person's net worth, or something that meets SEC reporting requirements (which IIRC is owning 10% of a company or more). MrOllie (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I—and I assume most editors and readers, if they reflect real-world demographics—don't come from the kind of background where people own shares in big companies. What I see here is Dennis saying "I own part of this company, I get a lot of money from it, and I might have made edits that affected its value", and that makes me think that he probably shouldn't be writing articles about that company. – Joe (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is closer to MrOllie's here, though I'd personally declare a conflict of interest well before a single stock was "most of a person's net worth". Joe, keep in mind that many people own shares in big companies through the nature of having a pension (even a state pension). They just don't necessarily know about it. It's also pretty easy for holdings in a particular stock to pay out more in dividends than the hypothetical average paid editor would get. --Yamla (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

• This should be interesting. I will stipulate that I own at least one share of AT&T stock somewhere in my retirement account, just to make it easy. By all means, provide all the evidence I was intentionally trying to benefit myself financially by editing any AT&T article. Since this is a necessary step to go to Arb and obviously your goal is to get my admin bit removed, this would be conduct unbecoming of an administrator on your part, and harassment, unless you present at least some evidence that demonstrates I have edited contrary to policy on COI. Instead, I think you are trying to use this as a cudgel to silence me on COI policy issues. THAT is conduct beneath what I would expect from an administrator. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

One more thing: You admitted you had thought about blocking me "I've considered it, more than once..." Exactly what would you have blocked me for? In that same discussion, I told you "Your stance on COI smacks of politicking." and this report demonstrates that I was correct. I assume you did your homework before you came here. You should not be working at WP:COIN. You really shouldn't be an admin if you are that incompetent. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't block you, obviously — that would be a massively inappropriate. I'm sorry that you see this as me trying to get your admin bit removed. I'm not. But you have been repeatedly raising this issue yourself, in multiple venues, over nearly a month now, and just directly challenged me as to why I wasn't hadn't taken admin action over it, so I assumed you were asking for it to be tested against community consensus. I'm not sure what my political motivation would be? – Joe (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Obviously, owning a stake in a company can result in a COI in relation to that company. The question here becomes whether Dennis Brown’s stake is sufficiently large to cause that COI, and in part that determination comes down to the user in question and how they see their stake.

Given that Dennis Brown has explicitly stated he sees the amount he owns as "not trivial", I think that this is sufficient to establish a conflict of interest in relation to AT&T that should be disclosed if Dennis Brown wishes to make edits in relation to AT&T. BilledMammal (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

• Seems simple enough. Dennis Brown wants to be blocked, presumably to provide him with a platform. So block him. Then everyone can get on with tings. Cheers, ——Serial Number 54129 14:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
• I agree there's a compelling case. There's no need for arbcom here - this isn't about administrative actions but actions as an editor. Not sure if a block is the right thing - my preference is a formal admonishment and warning, and a reminder that editing articles on topics you have a financial relationship with (as defined at WP:COI) is prohibited and further transgressions might lead to a block. A topic ban on publicly traded companies could be another decent way of dealing with this. WaggersTALK 14:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Well except it is not prohibited (WP:COI does not prohibit editing articles on subjects with which you have a COI). WP:COI is a behavoiral guideline and uses 'strongly discouraged', and like all guidelines which 'discourage' something, is designed to enforce best editing practice, not absolute rule. If it was a rule, COI would be a policy and it would use the wording 'must not'. In this case the guideline would be disclosure of any potential COI (which Dennis has done). The guideline is clear that being an investor (which is what you are when you buy stock in a company) would fall under the COI umbrella. But practically speaking, anyone with a diverse enough stock portfolio will have a COI on any number of companies and no one is seriously suggesting editors look through their stock lists before editing because they might own 100 shares in something. Thats even if they are aware and its not handled by a broker/fund. So before things like admonishments and warnings are bandied about, has anyone actually posted a diff of any edits that even remotely approach the reason why we have the guideline in the first place? Is Dennis skewing articles to pump up/deflate the stock price? As that is the only point where his financial interests could be at conflict with editing in a neutral manner. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Good points well made. In which case I suggest we close this as no further action before it turns uglier than it already is. WaggersTALK 14:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

It seems to be that in all other contexts we expect established editors, and especially admins, to adhere to "best editing practice" and do not worry about whether it's a guideline or a policy. WP:DISRUPT, WP:N and WP:MOS are all guidelines, for example, and we generally don't go out of our way to emphasise that being deliberately disruptive, creating articles on non-notable subjects, or writing articles in all caps is "not prohibited". And let's not forget that the only reason we are talking about this is because Dennis himself started going on about how he owns this and that and how his edits might have earned him money. – Joe (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I feel somehow the point behind Dennis' comments in the relevant discussions has flown so far above your head its in orbit. But leaving that aside, genuinely, do you want to get into this? Because I (and I am sure others) am more than willing to make the time and effort to do a deep background check on every advanced tool user and find the COI they have failed to disclose according to the wording of the guideline. Granted I could probably stop at just looking up employers, but I would start at the top of the hierarchy and work my way down. Because that's the end point of this, tool users will start getting checks into the motivations of their editing on a level thus far unseen. Because you will have demonstrated thats the way to take people down. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Very much in agreement with this. Joe, until you can point to a substantive edit Dennis Brown has made to AT&T (as opposed to hypotheticals for the sake of argument), then this looks like nothing so much as personal grievance. Frankly, all this section has done is given me qualms about your status as an admin. I would implore you in all good faith to let this drop and have everyone be on their way. As ever, though, reasonable minds may certainly differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I did try to stress from the outset that I don't think this is a really big deal and that my only goal was to hear what the wider community thinks about an issue that Dennis himself brought up himself (repeatedly). I hadn't commented on the issue until today (others have, at length) and don't have any prior 'grievance' with Dennis. If that is reason to doubt whether I should be admin then good grief yes, reasonable minds do differ.

I do understand the rhetorical point Dennis was trying to make with this example. It wasn't exactly subtle. And he has cleverly chosen that example such that it falls into the well-established exception for uncontroversial COI edits, so there was never any real risk of being called on his bluff, and he could get in a few consequence-free personal attacks on the way. So congratulations Dennis, I suppose, and stupid me for taking him at face value when he said that anything [he] wrote could have affected the stock price or dividends of any of these stocks. – Joe (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

So... we're talking about scandalous edits like this? For someone who has complied with our guideline-not-requirement to disclose COIs? This "a newbie would get banned for this" stuff isn't persuasive here. It comes up frequently, and just isn't true. First, there is no scenario where a newbie would be divulging that they own some stock in a company whose article they made minor edits to -- that's part of the perils of Editing While Admin. When newbies get banned/blocked for COI reasons, it's because they've been making non-neutral/promotional edits and a COI is discovered. In this case, does anyone have any evidence at all that Dennis made any non-trivial edits, let alone bad edits, to an article with a COI? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Like many academics in the UK, I am a member of the Universities Superannuation Scheme and have some investment in their funds. I have no idea what assets they invest in (other than Thames Water that has been in the news). Do I need to abide by COI rules for all the companies my pension scheme invests in? And would it make a difference if I owned the same portfolio directly instead of via a pension scheme? —Kusma (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

No. COI is not about disclosing what you don't know. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Given you clearly don’t consider yourself to have a "non trivial" stake in those companies, no. There difference here is that Dennis Brown thinks he has a "non trivial" stake in AT&T. BilledMammal (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Does DB actually have a good faith question? If you have a good faith question and it is true you are aware you have a non-trivial financial interest in something than, yes you have a COI. It's not really that hard. Although its just odd that some people act like they its always so hard to figure out (and then often go into odd whataboutism), and even if in some situation is actually difficult for you to figure out, just go to COIN and ask. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

MapTiler

Poorly sourced and previously deleted page is published again: MapTiler. 85.219.28.182 (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Not eligible for WP:G4 (which is what should have been attempted first) so WP:AFD is your primary recourse here. This is not an AN issue. Primefac (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)