Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

  (Redirected from Wikipedia:AN)
Welcome to the administrators' noticeboard

This page is for posting information and issues of interest to administrators.

  • It is rarely appropriate for inexperienced users to open new threads here – for the "Incidents" noticeboard, click here.
  • Do not report breaches of privacy, inappropriate posting of personal information, outing, etc. on this highly visible page – instead click here.
  • 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 the editor's talk page.

The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over six days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.


Open tasksEdit

XFD backlog
V Oct Nov Dec Jan Total
CfD 0 0 18 58 76
TfD 0 0 0 14 14
MfD 0 0 0 2 2
FfD 0 0 27 17 44
AfD 0 0 0 19 19

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protectionEdit

Report
Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (24 out of 2465 total) (Purge)
Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
Evelyn Mora 2021-01-25 21:07 2021-02-08 21:07 edit Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts - edit-warring and what appears to be sockpuppetry or coordinated editing between dueling SPAs. Take it to the talk page, please. GeneralNotability
Rihanna 2021-01-25 20:36 indefinite edit LTA, via RfPP Samsara
Oliver Bearman 2021-01-25 19:56 2021-02-25 19:56 create Repeatedly recreated MelanieN
Kirill Smal 2021-01-25 19:56 2021-02-25 19:56 create Repeatedly recreated MelanieN
Dark Emu (book) 2021-01-25 15:04 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: Straight to WP:ECP: invoking WP:ARBBLP this time (in the interest of an orderly recording of actions in the log) El C
Bruce Pascoe 2021-01-25 15:04 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: Straight to WP:ECP: invoking WP:ARBBLP this time (in the interest of an orderly recording of actions in the log) El C
Super Bowl LX 2021-01-25 11:59 indefinite create Recently deleted BLP: request at WP:RFPP Ymblanter
COVID-19 drug repurposing research 2021-01-25 09:58 2022-01-25 09:58 edit Persistent disruptive editing: see WP:GS/COVID19 Johnuniq
Treatment and management of COVID-19 2021-01-25 09:57 2022-01-25 09:57 edit Persistent disruptive editing: see WP:GS/COVID19 Johnuniq
2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest 2021-01-25 00:43 2021-02-08 00:43 move Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content MelanieN
Decentralized finance 2021-01-25 00:33 2021-02-08 00:33 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts MelanieN
NewsPlayer+ 2021-01-24 21:21 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated CaptainEek
Debashis Chatterjee 2021-01-24 18:21 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz
User:ImprovedWikiImprovment 2021-01-24 17:41 indefinite edit,move User request within own user space Anachronist
User:ImprovedWikiImprovment/Committed identity 2021-01-24 17:41 indefinite edit,move User request within own user space Anachronist
Gaurav Taneja 2021-01-24 17:10 2022-01-24 17:10 create Repeatedly recreated Deepfriedokra
Naveed Qazi 2021-01-24 13:31 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Cabayi
CoronaVac 2021-01-24 04:01 2021-04-24 04:01 edit,move WP:GS/COVID19 ToBeFree
2020 United States presidential election 2021-01-23 06:41 indefinite move Persistent vandalism immediate resumption of vandalism EvergreenFir
Komala Party of Iranian Kurdistan 2021-01-23 01:19 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: This page is covered by general sanctions via WP:GS/IRANPOL EdJohnston
Stefano Cilio 2021-01-22 23:36 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ponyo
Talk:Kimmeter Park Green 2021-01-22 23:14 2021-02-05 23:14 edit,move Number 57
Kimmeter Park Green 2021-01-22 23:13 2021-02-05 23:13 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing Number 57
Narendra Modi 2021-01-22 08:25 indefinite move Page-move vandalism Johnuniq

Requesting RfC be re-closedEdit

An RfC recently asked how to summarize a section at People's Mujahedin of Iran. Stefka Bulgaria (SB) and I (VR) offered competing versions. @Chetsford: closed as consensus for SB's version, but graciously encouraged me to seek review here; I'm asking the RfC be re-opened re-closed.

  • Secondly, the SB proposal mass removes longstanding content. Major divergences from the status quo require a strong consensus (as pointed out by El_C). Although the RfC was closed as "seven editors support the summary proposal while three are opposed", I count 10 supports for SB and 7 for VR. The closer felt the opposition to SB's version was ambiguous; I disagree and have provided the exact comments (see below "Vote counts"). Given this, the policy considerations below and closer finding both sides' arguments "equally compelling", the result leans to "no consensus". Re-opening the RfC might change that. Also, there is recent indication that RfCs on that page are voted on without being read, so result should be based on policy not votes.
  • Lastly, there were serious policy issues with SB proposal that no one responded to. This version's weasel wording ("various sources...while other sources...") implies a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Academic sources overwhelming say that MEK is a cult (list of sources provided here and here). Even SB acknowledged that no source actually dismisses the cult claims. Yet SB's version balances the opinion of peer-reviewed books and journal articles against those in newspaper op-eds. The argument that high-quality RS can't be counterbalanced with low quality ones was made repeatedly ([4][5]) but never got a response.
    • It was pointed out (but never responded to) that SB's version inaccurately implies that MEK barring children from a military camp was the only or main reason for the cult designation, but the sources instead give different, multiple reasons for the cult designation. This is worded as a strawman and misrepresents what one of the sources SB cited says (see below "What the BBC source says").
    • By contrast, most objections against VR proposal aren't policy-based. This policy-based objection was promptly corrected ([6][7]). I repeatedly asked for clarification of objections ([8][9]) but no one responded except Bahar1397 (and our discussion was cutoff by the closure).

Vote counts

Stefka Bulgaria's proposal was supported by MA Javadi, Idealigic, Adoring nanny, Nika2020, Bahar1397, Alex-h, Ypatch, Barca and HistoryofIran (only said "Yes per Stefka.")


Vice regent's proposal was supported by Mhhossein, Pahlevun, Sa.vakilian, Ali Ahwazi, Jushyosaha604 and Ameen Akbar. The closer felt opposition to SB's proposal was ambiguous, but I disagree and providing the statements below.

  • Mhhossein said "No, for multiple reasons..."
  • Ali Ahwazi said "No... The proposed text doesn't represent the reliable-sources based on WP:DUE."
  • Pahlevun said "...I strongly reject the proposal on the grounds that it contradicts with WP:RS"
  • @Jushyosaha604:, said " The OP who started the RFC removed too much information" (only pinging because the closer felt their position was ambiguous)
  • Sa.vakilian said "No...this RFC is not acceptable per DUE"
What the BBC source says

SB's version says The MEK has barred children in Camp Ashraf in an attempt to have its members devote themselves to their cause of resistance against the Iranian regime, a rule that has given the MEK reputation of being "cultish". This wording makes it seem that children are simply barred from MEK headquarters, a strawman argument, even though one of the sources cited makes it clear that this is decades' long child displacement. It says,

Not only was the MEK heavily armed and designated as terrorist by the US government, it also had some very striking internal social policies. For example, it required its members in Iraq to divorce. Why? Because love was distracting them from their struggle against the mullahs in Iran. And the trouble is that people love their children too. So the MEK leadership asked its members to send their children away to foster families in Europe. Europe would be safer, the group explained. Some parents have not seen their children for 20 years and more. And just to add to the mix, former members consistently describe participating in regular public confessions of their sexual fantasies. You might think that would set alarm bells ringing - and for some US officers it did. One colonel I spoke to, who had daily contact with the MEK leadership for six months in 2004, said that the organisation was a cult, and that some of the members who wanted to get out had to run away.

The source also mentions that "no children rule" as being only one of many reasons (mandatory divorce, members not allowed to leave) for MEK's cultishness.

VR talk 15:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Changing to request to re-close.VR talk 19:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
The RfC was opened on 2 October 2020, and there had been absence of new participation towards the time Chetsford closed it. As Chetsford explained to VR, the RfC process "is a finite discursive arena designed to achieve a specific purpose and not an infinite chat room for open-ended dialog." Also involved editor Mhhossein requested for the RfC to be closed by an experienced admin, and that's what happened here. After the close, VR was advised to continue discussion on either the article Talk page or personal Talk pages, but both Mhhossein and VR have a tendency to instead complain each time a RfC in this article doesn't close in their favor, making it exhausting for everyone involved. The RfC was opened for two months, and was closed by an experienced admin who gave a thorough and policy-based rational for their close. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


  • That RFC ran for way too long. VR constantly commented on votes that didn't support his proposal, so when he says "there was active discussion", that's basically him disagreeing with opposite votes. Secondly, the consensus was not to mass remove longstanding content, but to condense a lot of POV. Chestford's vote count was accurate and his closing remarks carefully followed guidelines. Stefka's proposal was more neutral, that's why it won consensus. Lastly, there weren't any "serious policy issues with Stefka's proposal that no one responded to." VR and Mhhossein have been arguing WP:FALSEBALANCE to keep in the article multiple quotes repeating "Democratic Iranian opposition political party = cult" while Mhhossein is removing multiple sources about a misinformation campaign that the Iran’s theocratic regim is running to characterize this political party a cult. Alex-h (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Clearly the correct close.—S Marshall T/C 00:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
    • The closer said he has counted the votes. There are 9 supports and 7 opposes which use policies in their comments. Moreover, this page is under CONSENSUS REQUIRED restriction, and the admin who himself has proposed Wikipedia:Consensus required and has the most experience regarding page said earlier this restriction should be taken into account, given the fact that "key longstanding text" is condensed by ~60%. Such a mass change requires a strong consensus. Not to mention that VR has raised quite fair concerns which are not responded to. --Mhhossein talk 18:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Actually, this is what the closing admin said in their closing comment:
"By head counting, seven editors support the summary proposal while three are opposed. Looking more closely at the arguments there was an unambiguous consensus that the text in question needs to be shortened, which is consistent with past discussions. Insofar as to whether or not the proposed alternative text should be the text used to shorten the article, "yes" !votes argued the current text was WP:UNDUE and the proposal accurately and duely represented all content in a more succinct and readable form. The "no" !votes stated that the sources used to support the current weighting of perspectives were not entirely drawn from WP:RS and that the proposed alternative text was, therefore, not DUE. The "no" !votes also stated that, while "cult" was a contentious label, there was an abundance of RS that used this term to refer to the Mujahedin. In rebuttal, "yes" !voters said that the word "cult" remained in the article but was reduced in redundancy by the proposal which was not inconsistent with the closing decision in a previous RfC on this topic, or the policy aspect of the objection raised by the "no" !votes. Arguments advanced by both "yes" and "no" editors were equally compelling and virtually every comment cited a relevant policy and made a logical argument as to why policy supported their position. In these cases, our SOP (as described in WP:NHC) requires the closer "to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it". There is a consensus to adopt both the shortening proposal, and the specific text advanced in that proposal by Stefka Bulgaria. An alternate proposal by VK did not achieve a consensus, however, a number of persons who registered a "yes" opinion in that proposal did not express any opinion at all in the original proposal. Given that, it would be okay to open a new and more focused discussion as to whether or not the just-adopted shortened form should be modified in the way suggested by VK, however, keeping this entire RfC open for that reason alone isn't justified and would be unnecessarily confusing."
And here is the conversation that followed on the closer's talk page after this close. All concerns were addressed (in the RfC process and after by the closing admin). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Don't bludgeon the process, please. Thanks.--Mhhossein talk 05:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Mhhossein, I added the closing admins' evaluation (which was needed after your comment). Please do not edit my comments. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
You could simply put the diff and everyone could see what you are talking about. That's clearly bludgeoning to unnecessarily put the whole text wall here and would like to ask you avoid doing that in future.--Mhhossein talk 14:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Not sure what the specific disagreement is about as I haven't followed the discussion too closely, but I'd be happy to clarify and add more details to my comments in case the RFC was reopened. Apologies for the ambiguity. Jushyosaha604 (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Neutral as Closer (but no fundamental objection to reopening): I closed the RfC in question and addressed some of the concerns the OP (and others) raised above at my Talk page here. However, as I said there, I think this was an exceptionally close decision. The OP is an outstanding editor who makes strong points in favor of reopening that are based on a GF interpretation of policy. While I don't agree with them and didn't, therefore, believe I could unilaterally reopen the RfC I would have no objection if the community decided to reopen it. Chetsford (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Re-open Re-close. Jeez, what a mess. This reminds me of what happened when the last RfC on the cult designation was closed/amended back in September (by L235). Same thing now in November (December)? Nothing learned? Yes, there remains a strong consensus to trim. But my sense is that there's only a strong consensus to trim within reason. In the last RfC, the proposal was to trim 800 words down to 40 words. This RfC proposes to trim it down to 80 words. Now, I realize it's double the word count, but whether one is cutting down the material to 1/20th of its former size or to 1/10th of it — either one of these still amounts to an enormous reduction. So, in either case, I would submit that there would need to be a strong consensus to trim that much sourced content. Whereas, if one were to propose trimming much less, a rough consensus ought to do. Anyway, having a cult designation super-trim RfC every 3 months is too much. Had I still been active as an admin in the article (with thanks to Vanamonde93 for picking up the torch), I probably would have barred this latest RfC from even proceeding (as such). It just isn't a sensible way to engage the problem at hand. It seems like a one-sided approach and a timesink. So, Stefka Bulgaria, maybe it's time someone else had go at it...? Because, coupled with your rather perplexing SPI (to word it gently) involving Mhhossein earlier in the week, it doesn't look like it's heading anywhere good. At any rate, maybe a pre-RfC consultation period wouldn't be the worse idea. Instead of submitting one super-trim RfC after another, why not work together toward a proposal that both sides could find palatable. Or am I just howling at the moon? El_C 09:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I strongly support work[-ing] together toward a proposal that is both concise but also contains all the major points. We can use the two proposals in the RfC already (SB's and VR's) as starting points.VR talk 11:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I strongly oppose re-opening the rfc since it received concensus and was closed properly. If some editors want to shape the final outcome, then they should start a new rfc and see if that receives consensus, so I support working together in a new rfc. Idealigic (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Your use of the word "consensus" is too vague, Idealigic. Because what I am saying above (and have said in the prior RfC), is that one would need a strong consensus to reduce sourced material to 1/20th (prior RfC) to 1/10th (current RfC) of its former size. Rough consensus just isn't good enough for changes of that magnitude. El_C 17:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

The head count was 10 editors in favor of the proposal and 4 against it (and even some of votes that were against the OP’s proposal agreed the text needed shortening so it could be more neutral, so there was an unambiguous consensus that the text needs to be shortened, something also consistent with past discussions).In cases where arguments on both sides are equally compelling citing relevant policies our SOP (as described in WP:NHC) requires the closer "to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it".

The text was requested to be summarized because there a section in the article with the violating title “designation as a cult” (it violates WP:V and WP:OR) with exuberant number of quotes calling the democratic political opposition to Iran’s theocracy a "cult". The OP provided many sources about the Iranian regime running a disinformation campaign to label this political group a “cult” and other discrediting things:

  • "A well-funded, highly organized misinformation campaign attempts to demonize the only viable alternative to Tehran’s rulers, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), whose four decades of opposition to one of the world’s most evil regimes apparently equates with being some sort of terrorist cult."

    [1]
  • "disinformation campaign to discredit the opposition, namely the MEK. The objective has been to show that no democratic alternative is available and that dealing with this regime or looking for change within it is the only option for the West. The campaign involves the use of social media, dissemination of fake news, provision of grants for biased and slanderous reports, and even hiring reporters directly or through middlemen. In testimony before the Canadian Parliament on July 5, 2010, John Thompson, who headed the Mackenzie Institute, a security think-tank in Canada, said a man tied to Iran’s mission in Canada offered him $80,000. “They wanted me to publish a piece on the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK). Iran is trying to get other countries to label it as a terrorist cult."

    [2]
  • "To my knowledge, the regime has not spent a dime on demonizing the elderly remnants of the monarchy, but it does pay journalists abroad to publish fake stories against the MEK. The head of a major Canadian think tank revealed that the Iranian regime embassy offered him up to $80,000 to refer to the MEK as a "cult" in his publications."

    [3]
  • "A 2011 report by the General Intelligence and Security Service stated that the government in Iran continued to coordinate a campaign financed by the Iranian intelligence services to undermine and portray the MEK in a highly negative manner. This campaign also involved the media, politicians, and public servants."

    [4]
  • "Teheran’s efforts to undermine the opposition People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (Mujahedin-e Khalq, MEK) in the Netherlands continued unabated in 2011. In a campaign co-ordinated and financed by the Iranian intelligence services, the media and a number of politicians and other public servants were approached with a view to portraying the MEK in a highly negative light."

[5]

  • "The intensification of the MOIS research efforts already described for 2015 against the opposition "People's Modjahedin Iran Organization" (MEK) or theirs political arm, the “National Council of Resistance of Iran” (NCRI), was also found in 2016. The Iranian intelligence service continued to adhere to the strategy that the MEK targeted through Discredit propaganda."

    [6]
  • "“The Iranian regime has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to demonize the PMOI and portrayed it as a group without popular support,” Rafizadeh, an Arab News columnist, added."

    [7]
  • "The campaign to suppress and demonize the opposition, most notably the MEK, has been launched since the Islamic regime usurped power in Iran. In fact, the Iranian intelligence and security apparatus has been actively pursuing various activities against the MEK such as monitoring, assassinating and, more importantly during recent years, demonizing the opposition group in media. For instance, in 2015 and 16, the regime produced at least 30 films, TV series and documentaries to spread false allegations and lies against the opposition in Iran’s society. This is apart from hundreds of websites and exhibitions across Iran to pursue the same goal."

    [8]


These are just some of the reasons mentioned in that discussion why this needed shortening, cleaning that section and preserving the main points. If new information needs to be added, then a proposition can be made explaining why it is needed and how they are in accordance to a summary style editing. That would be a fresh approach of building the article instead of the other way around (which has already proven not to work). Idealigic (talk) 12:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Why do you guys think bludgeoning the discussion with such a text wall can be helpful? As I told you, you did exactly the same thing at the talk page of MEK but it just made the whole talk page into a real mess. As a friendly note, this is not really helpful. --Mhhossein talk 14:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Idealigic's count of "10 vs 4" is wrong. There were two proposals: 10 chose SB's, 7 chose VR's (see collapsed section Vote counts for diffs and details) - this is not consensus.VR talk 15:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
The main problem with a situation like this is that while everyone is in agreement it needed to be changed, there wasnt a particularly strong consensus for one version over another. Usually the argument is 'do we change it to this or not'. The standard wiki response in a non-consensus situation is revert to the status quo, that was clearly not an option here, as no one wanted that. Given the weight of arguments were roughly equal, it then does come to a numbers game. The alternatives are: extending the RFC to gain more input, by advertising a bit more widely, or just reclosing it as no-consensus and taking it back to the default state. The issue with leaving it open is there are not (from reading it) many more decent arguments that could be made on either side. Re-opening a discussion for the purpose of just hoping more people up the numbers on one side or another is just an invitation to canvassing. Just to be clear I Endorse the close as valid given the discussion there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Only in death, you raise an important point about how re-opening the RfC discussion itself is a questionable proposition, though I think you also overlook some of the points I raised about the background behind the cult designation RfCs (plural). Especially, how WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS may be at odds with super-trimming content down to like 1/10th to 1/20th of its former size in an article as fraught as this. Again, I, for one, feel that the two sides giving a go to a collaboration in a pre-RfC brainstorming session could prove to be a worthwhile pursuit. We keep having the same side (and the same editor, in fact) in effect dominating the RfC platform when it comes to this matter. But, as for a mere re-open, it would, indeed, be folly. Procedurally, what I would favour (and I suppose what I originally had in mind) is an immediate re-closing, as opposed to relisting. And if it is re-closed affirming the result of the first closure, then that is what it is. Anyway, I have amended my original comment accordingly. El_C 17:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Only in death and El_C for input. Reason for re-opening was to get responses to two policy issues with SB version:
Neither concern was responded to during the RfC. I'm fine with a re-close as long as closer evaluates the merits of these two arguments.VR talk 17:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
A "consensus to reduce but no consensus on exact wording" can be a good thing. This finding on the previous RfC actually spawned proposals and counter-proposals. That is exactly what is needed: less !voting and more WP:NEGOTIATION.VR talk 18:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • This discussion had been going on for months and a RFC was the only solution left for getting things somewhat fixed in the article, so in spite that there is not an overwhelming majority of votes for one version over another (although I also count 10-4 in favor of Stefka's proposal, and 6-7 in favor of VR's propoal), I agree with editor Onlyindeath that the close is valid considering the alternatives. Alex-h (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
See Vote counts, 10 chose SB's version, 7 chose VR's version.VR talk 22:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • There is nothing wrong with the first close. Ypatch (talk) 06:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
References

References

  1. ^ "West should beware Iranian regime's opposition smear campaign". Arab News.
  2. ^ "Iran's Heightened Fears of MEK Dissidents Are a Sign of Changing Times". Int Policy Digest.
  3. ^ "Confronting Iran". National Interest.
  4. ^ General Intelligence and Security Service (2011), Annual Report 20011
  5. ^ General Intelligence and Security Service (2009), Annual Report 20011
  6. ^ "Verfassungsschutzbericht des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen über das Jahr 2016" (PDF).
  7. ^ "Iranian opposition abroad finds new voice amid protests".
  8. ^ "Mullahs Demonize Opposition In Response To Crises: Will Iran Survive?".
  • Source restriction is what's needed at People's Mujahedin of Iran (and similar super-contentious articles). The sources being used on all sides (popular press) are not good enough for this topic. If we try to source a topic like MEK to popular press like BBC and arabnews.com, what we'll find is that the sources are all over the map and say all kinds of radically different things, depending entirely on who is publishing, who the journalist is, and who the journalist's sources are. We'll never get to any neutral truth about a complex topic like MEK relying on journalists. There are hundreds of academic sources about MEK. Those should be the only ones considered. The picture becomes much clearer when we rely on political scientists and other types of scholars, instead of journalists and activists, as sources. I think Chet did a fine job closing this complex RFC; sure, a no consensus close would also have been in discretion; sure, it could have run longer; Chet kind of split-the-baby with a close that addressed part of the issue and with no prejudice to further discussion of a remaining part of the issue; but without a source restriction, the MEK content disputes will never, ever be resolved. So I think step 1 is impose a source restriction, and then have whatever RFCs. But everyone's arguments would need to be re-evaluated once the source restriction is in place, and I think that will lead us to seeing that what's in dispute isn't quite as disputed by the sources as we thought it was (scholars agree about much more than journalists do). Levivich harass/hound 18:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Levivich I fully agree with restricting to scholarly sources - this is exactly what I said above and was repeatedly said during the RfC[11][12] by those who opposed SB version.VR talk 20:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
@Vice regent: I remember months ago El_C said scholarly sources had to be the core part of our discussions (@El C: Do you remember this? I can't find the diff). I want to say that ignoring the journalistic sources may be wrong, instead I suggest to give much more weight to the scholarly works. Btw, I would say inappropriate weighing of the arguments, is the most dominant issue here. Probably I will explain it in details later. --Mhhossein talk 13:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Mhhossein, sorry, nothing comes to mind. I mean, beyond the MEK, I generally favour citations which are grounded in the scholarship rather than in the mainstream media. As a maxim, the greater social-scientific detail a source provides, the better. But you work with whatever sources you got, I suppose... El_C 22:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
You're welcome El_C. As a user involved in most, if not all, of the core discussions of the MEK page, although I believe sometimes journalistic works may frame a sociopolitical picture of the subject, I completely agree with favoring scholarly works over the ones from the mainstream media. Let's see what Vice regent and Levivich think? --Mhhossein talk 13:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
You're welcomewhat? I think you meant to say "thank you" and I was meant to say "you're welcome." Stop the Steal! Anyway, unless it's news, which is the domain of the media rather than that of academia. But after the fact, it's always a plus to have a reputable scholar emphasize and reaffirm (or qualify or whatever) this or that news piece alongside any other evidence. El_C 16:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
In my view, once serious scholarship becomes available, it should replace news media as a source in our articles. By "serious scholarship" I mean written by bona-fide scholars, published by real, peer-reviewed academic journals or in books (often edited by bona-fide scholars) published by university publishers (like Oxford University Press). Second-tier is non-peer-reviewed but still serious scholarly articles, in academic periodicals like Foreign Affairs, but in that case one must be careful to look at who the author is: an article by a politician in a periodical like Foreign Affairs is probably not going to make a good source; an article by a university professor published in the same magazine would be fine (but still not peer-reviewed, and may need attribution). Third-tier is top-rated news media, like BBC or The Economist or The New York Times. These should only be used when there is nothing available in the first or second tier. That will happen, of course, for any current or recent events. So as events unfold and are written into our articles, they should start with top-rated news media as sources, but then those sources should be gradually replaced as better ones (from scholarly publications) become available.
With a topic like "Is MEK a terrorist cult?", well, we don't need to go to news media. MEK has been around for decades now; a lot of scholarship has been written about it. It's possible to look at the scholarly works (books by university publishers, academic journals) and see if they describe MEK as a terrorist cult. For that question, we shouldn't even bother looking at news media, because news media will pay a lot of attention to, say, what the gov't of Iran or the US said about it recently, without filtering that "recentist" information through the sober lens of scholarship. So I wouldn't consider news media for that question, except I guess if someone is making the argument that "terrorist cult" is a recently-significant viewpoint, too new for scholarship but nevertheless significant enough to include in our article, in which case our article should cover that by making it clear it's recent, and likely by attributing it.
So basically I think I agree with Mhhossein about weight. While I said "source restriction", I certainly think that there is a place for news media to have a limited role (e.g., for recent events), but that scholarly sources should, as Mhhossein said, be favored or weighed stronger than news media sources. Ultimately as time goes on and scholarly sources are written, they should be replacing news media sources as sources in our articles. Levivich harass/hound 17:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
In a sense, it's an approach that aims at drawing a parallel between the natural and social sciences. The mainstream media is fine for news, but beyond the contemporaneous, it is more encyclopedic to refer to the scholarship. Of course, the influence of political ideology tends to be far more pronounced in the social sciences than it is in the natural ones — but the principle is more or less the same. And, indeed, in the case of the MEK, there is no shortage of scholarly input on... pretty much anything. El_C 17:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
El_C: Hahaha, "I'm sorry (you're welcome)". I meant to say sth in response to your "sorry" (which I now see was not an appropriate reaction towards you). Thank you anyway. I think you raised this important issue of using the scholarly sources long ago and the outcome of ignoring that is showing itself just now. Also, thanks for your time Levivich. The explanation was quite comprehensive and reasonable. I agree with your points. --Mhhossein talk 12:40, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Looking at that YouTube comment section (in general, a nexus of wisdom and grace), I echo what Clever and Original Username. (full stop in the original!) said 5 years ago: the idea of Gene belcher saying fuckscape still makes me really uncomfortable. Amen to that. El_C 15:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Based on the discussion above, would there be broad agreement between El_C, Levivich, Mhhossein and myself that the RfC should be re-closed (not re-opened), where the closer takes re-evaluates the arguments based on Levivich's proposed "source weighting" (giving scholarly sources more weight than news media sources)?VR talk 19:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
There are several editors here agreeing that there was nothing wrong with the first close. If the issue is instead "source restriction"/"source weighting" of third-tier media, then that is something that needs to be applied to the whole article and not to one particular section (like Alex pointed out below, which has been completely ignored for some reason). I will start a talk page discussion on the MEK page to see if we can first agree on applying "source restriction" to the article as a whole. If that passes, then that would answer a lot of questions about what should or shouldn't be in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:12, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
I've started a discussion on the MEK talk page to see if we can first come to an agreement of applying source restriction on the MEK page as a whole. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Why do you think we should STOP everything until YOUR discussion is coming to a desired end? If you have something to say, simply add it here.--Mhhossein talk 11:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, I have added it here, as well as on the MEK's talk page. Levivich suggested that one way to make RFCs more straight-forward at the MEK page could be to first implement a source restriction there, AND THEN have whatever RFCs. So if a source restriction is to be implemented to the MEK article, then we first need to evaluate if this should/will come into effect, and if it does, then we need to determine how this will affect the vast number of media sources used in this article (and not only the ones pertaining to this RFC). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Please stop changing Levivich's words. I don't think he meant we should wait and experimentally see if this approach works. My understanding of his words is that the RFCs would have different outcomes with source restriction in place. This stonewalling will not stop this RFC from reaching a conclusion. @Levivich: Would you please elaborate on this?--Mhhossein talk 17:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
@Stefka Bulgaria and Mhhossein: TBH when I wrote my comment, I had in mind a source restriction for the entire article at least, if not the entire topic area (WP:GS/IRANPOL), because I think that will help future content disputes as well as the present one (as Alex-h points out, a source restriction would affect much more content in the article than just what's at issue in this RFC; it could significantly change what we say about the topic in wikivoice). I'll say generally that by "source restriction", I don't mean source removal so much as source replacement, i.e., replace a BBC cite with an academic journal cite when one is available; I don't mean someone should delete everything cited to the BBC. In some cases, something cited to news media can't be replaced with academic sourcing, and in those cases, perhaps removal is the correct choice, but it's really a case-by-case analysis.
With regard to this RFC, I don't think a future source restriction could be applied retroactively. That said, we do have global consensus about WP:RS, WP:V, WP:BLP (where applicable), etc. So whether a closer of this RFC should weigh !votes based on the quality of sources... I think generally yes, it's OK for a closer to discount a !vote based on, for example, a deprecated source. Can a closer weigh !votes based on academic sources heavier than !votes based on non-academic sources? (Which is, I think, what the current disagreement is about?) I have no what the answer to this question is. To be honest I don't think I've ever encountered it before.
If a source restriction is put in place, for the article or the topic area, it will result in changes to articles as it is enforced. And those changes might make this RFC moot anyway, or it might give justification to re-visiting the RFC. I really don't know, it sort of depends on whether there's a source restriction, what kind of restriction exactly, and what the sources that "pass" the restriction say about the topic.
I get Mhhossein's point about not holding up this RFC close while the community discusses a potential source restriction. Maybe the best thing is for a closer to close the RFC now but recognize that the issue may be revisited in the future if, for example, the content changes because of a source restriction being enforced.
But it's probably best to get more outside opinions, esp. from admins, as this is AN and a contentious RFC. Merry Christmas if you celebrate it, or Merry Clausmas if you celebrate a secular Christmas like I do :-) (Non-administrator comment) Levivich harass/hound 17:48, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
It was a clear and comprehensive explanation Levivich. The fact that issues should be investigated case by case is an important thing in your words, I guess. Also, let me repeat your "Can a closer weigh !votes based on academic sources heavier than !votes based on non-academic sources?" (I also believe this should be taken really more seriously now). --Mhhossein talk 19:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

There is a lot of third-tier (and fourth-tier) journalism in the MEK article. This for example:

  • "The Intercept published that Bob Menendez, John McCain, Judy Chu, Dana Rohrabacher and Robert Torricelli received campaign contributions from MEK supporters.[2]
  • "According to Hersh, MEK members were trained in intercepting communications, cryptography, weaponry and small unit tactics at the Nevada site up until President Barack Obama took office in 2009."[3]
  • "According to the Intercept, one of Alavi's articles published by Forbes was used by the White House to justify Donald Trump Administration's sanctions against Iran."[4]
  • "Karim Sadjadpour believes the MEK is a "fringe group with mysterious benefactors that garners scant support in its home country", and that the population of its supporters in Iran "hovers between negligible and nill"."[5]

The list goes on and on... Alex-h (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Besides El_C and Levivich, 2 other uninvolved users commented here. @S Marshall: and @Only in death: what do you think of the above proposal to re-close (not re-open) the RfC where the closer takes re-evaluates the arguments by giving scholarly sources more weight than news media sources? This was already stated twice during the RfC ([13][14]) by those opposed to SB version but never responded to during the RfC. WP:NEWSORG says Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics.VR talk 12:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
See this discussion: the news sources are not contradicting the scholarly sources, they are just adding a different POV (that isn't in the article). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Moreover, cherry-picking when source restriction should be implemented is the equivalent of cherry-picking our preferred sources. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
VR, you are overlooking the main argument here. Are we executing source restriction to the entire MEK article? We cannot execute source restriction to one sentence and not the rest of the article. Alex-h (talk) 14:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
  • In response to Vice regent's ping: No, I don't think there are good grounds to re-close. I should disclose that on 8 February 2019, I closed an RfC about the lede of this article myself, and while I was evaluating that debate, I formed the view that this article is edited by people with a strong and active interest in the topic area who are very motivated to affect what it says. I think that in that environment, a closer needs to exercise a lot of judgment; and I think that because he needs to, he's therefore, necessarily, authorised to. He's within discretion and it ill behoves us to undermine him.—S Marshall T/C 18:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
S Marshall I appreciate your view, thanks for giving it. Do you have any comment on my (and others') view that the RfC proposal violates WP:V by misquoting a source, and violates WP:DUE and WP:NEWSORG by giving news sources similar weight as scholarly sources?VR talk 04:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Vice regent in response to your poins:
1) The RfC proposal does not violate WP:V:

"Over the years, Tehran’s terror campaign at home and abroad has been augmented by a massive, well-orchestrated, well-financed demonization and disinformation campaign to discredit the opposition, namely the MEK. The objective has been to show that no democratic alternative is available and that dealing with this regime or looking for change within it is the only option for the West. The campaign involves the use of social media, dissemination of fake news, provision of grants for biased and slanderous reports, and even hiring reporters directly or through middlemen. In testimony before the Canadian Parliament on July 5, 2010, John Thompson, who headed the Mackenzie Institute, a security think-tank in Canada, said a man tied to Iran’s mission in Canada offered him $80,000. “They wanted me to publish a piece on the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK). Iran is trying to get other countries to label it as a terrorist cult.”

International Policy Digest

"To my knowledge, the regime has not spent a dime on demonizing the elderly remnants of the monarchy, but it does pay journalists abroad to publish fake stories against the MEK. The head of a major Canadian think tank revealed that the Iranian regime embassy offered him up to $80,000 to refer to the MEK as a "cult" in his publications... And yet, over the past several years, Iran’s state-run media has produced a total of nineteen movies, series, and documentaries—some of them consisting of up to twenty-eight segments of thirty to forty-five minutes each—that demonize the MEK. In 2018 alone, eighteen major books were published by the regime against the MEK. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei excoriated the MEK by name at least four times. Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani has directly blamed the MEK for organizing public protests."

National Interest

"Of late, the blather has gone from a wave to a barrage. A well-funded, highly organized misinformation campaign attempts to demonize the only viable alternative to Tehran’s rulers, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), whose four decades of opposition to one of the world’s most evil regimes apparently equates with being some sort of terrorist cult."

Arab News
All three sources support "while other sources say the Iranian regime is running a disinformation campaign to label the MEK a "cult", so WP:V has not been violated. If you think the text could be quoted better, then just provide a suggestion on the article's talk page and we'll get others to weigh in.
2) This does also does not violate neither WP:DUE nor WP:NEWSORG. One POV has 54 characters, and the other has 18 characters, so more weigh has been given to the POV with more sources. Also see the other sources provided here by Idealigic (there are plenty of sources supporting that there is a disinformation campaign by the Iranian regime against the MEK), so this content is clearly WP:DUE. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
As opposed to what you said, this version is truely violating NPOV (explained mutliple times). Anyway, this long wall of text does not discredit the important points raised by experienced users here. --Mhhossein talk 19:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Hersh, Seymour M. "Our Men in Iran?".
  2. ^ Ali Gharib, Eli Clifton (26 February 2015), "Long March of the Yellow Jackets: How a One-Time Terrorist Group Prevailed on Capitol Hill", The Intercept, retrieved 30 March 2018
  3. ^ Kelly, Michael (10 April 2012). "US special forces trained foreign terrorists in Nevada to fight Iran". Business Insider.
  4. ^ Hussain, Murtaza (9 June 2019). "An Iranian Activist Wrote Dozens of Articles for Right-Wing Outlets. But Is He a Real Person?". The Intercept. Retrieved 13 June 2019.
  5. ^ Ainsley, Julia; W. Lehren, Andrew; Schapiro, Rich. "Giuliani's work for Iranian group with bloody past could lead to more legal woes". NBC News. Retrieved 28 October 2019.
the close was clearly done correctly. Mhhossein, if you are really interested in making the article (topic) better and not just changing the outcome of this individual RFC, then propose something on the article's talk page that can be implemented to the whole subject instead to just the line you want to remove from the article. Barca (talk) 14:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Nope, the admin having the most experience with this page says it's not! Even the closer admin said he is OK with re-opening. --Mhhossein talk 19:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, Chet stood by his close, and S Marshall and Only in death also endorsed the close. Levivich proposed some kind of "Source restriction" to be implemented in the article or subject area as a whole, and I have since been trying to generate input on the article's talk page about this. About the RfC, it's been over a month since it was closed, and there was a general agreement by most (if not all) editors that the text needed to be reduced. Also I pointed out how the outcome didn't violate neither WP:V, nor WP:DUE, nor WP:NEWSORG, nor WP:NPOV (one POV has 54 characters, and the other has 18 characters, so both POVs have been represented). The RFC had been open for over a month, with little to none new input in the days before its closure. Moving on, if there is some kind of source restriction to be implemented in IRANPOL, then ideally an admin who deems this necessary will assist in setting this up so that we can apply it to the whole subject as well as future discussions and not exclusively to certain texts that some editors want changed. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 05:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
The closing admin starts his comment by "Neutral as Closer (but no fundamental objection to reopening)". By the way, "(one POV has 54 characters, and the other has 18 characters, so both POVs have been represented". LOL! Is it what you understand from NPOV? --Mhhossein talk 06:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Reviewing my topic banEdit

There is general support for lifting this ban. Primefac (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post it. But over a year ago I was put on community restriction and was topic banned from adding my own photographs to any article which already contains an image. The only way I could was to propose it on the respective talk page and get consensus from it. I been doing that since then. I'm going to be honest at some point I might of violated my sanction at some point. A few weeks ago I did revert one edit by a IP user which replaced a photo already used on the article as the infobox.

Personally I'm getting worn out from having to gather everyone on the talk page every time I want to add a image taken by me, the reason they did the sanction in the first place because I did used to self-insert my photos in articles and often wasn't a improvement in the first place but I think I grown from that and noticed my flaws with some of my own photos and understand why editors might've been unhappy with my edits. I did try and ask for my sanction to be lifted however the admin who done it; GoldenRing has been inactive for over a year now. --Vauxford (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Link to ban discussion. ~Swarm~ {sting} 22:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose lifting topic ban. I am the administrator who wrote the topic ban, which easily gained consensus. Vauxford, you state "Personally I'm getting worn out" with having to comply with the restriction, but I notice that you are not using the edit request process. That may help speed things up. The disruption you created was major, and I am not convinced that problems wouldn't quickly return if the editing restriction was lifted. Also, you used some highly inappropriate language in the discussion that led to the topic ban. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
    Please think again. The topic ban prevents the typical usage of edit request template. Typically an edit request template should only be used when a) consensus has already been established or b) the proposed change is so uncontroversial that further discussion is not required (fixing typos and such). Currently Vauxford may start a discussion for proposing changes, but even if consensus emerges and nobody implements the proposal, Vauxford may not make an additional (edit) request to implement the consensus. Politrukki (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support lifting TBAN I don't see any recent disruption. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Power~enwiki, isn't violating their topic ban less than three weeks ago, as admitted above, a form of disruption? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) Difficult to evaluate this request without knowing Vauxford's track record for image proposals on talk pages. If all the image proposals gained consensus without disruption, then it might be time to lift the restriction. If none of the image proposals gained consensus, then it might not be time to lift the restriction yet. If it's in between, then that would require some thought. But right now there is no data in this appeal from which to base a conclusion. Levivich harass/hound 02:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
    Support lifting TBAN — after reviewing the IP revert link above, the image proposal links below, and Vauxford's last 50 talkspace contribs (which go back to March 2020). It seems almost all of these image proposals gained consensus and discussion was brief and collegial. Seems to me that Vauxford knows what they're doing and is able to navigate articles without disruption. I don't think this TBAN is necessary to prevent disruption any longer. In fact, I think it's needlessly wasting the time of other editors. I don't want to call any editors out by name, but in reviewing some of these discussions, I saw multiple other editors over the past year express frustration with the fact that Vauxford has to post on a talk page to make uncontroversial improvements to an article. So I think lifting the TBAN would benefit other editors in this topic area. Levivich harass/hound 03:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
    I agree that their talk page contributions have been collegial, and the communication has significantly improved. Unfortunately, a careful reading of your link shows that Vauxford has violated the topic ban several times:
    1. Talk:Škoda Octavia#Infobox
    2. Talk:Škoda Rapid (2012)#Infobox
    3. Talk:Mercedes-Benz GLB-Class#Article/image proposal
    4. Talk:Leamington Spa#Infobox photo
    5. Talk:BMW 5 Series (G30)#Infobox image
    6. Talk:Audi e-tron (2018)#Images proposal
    Making an opening statements is fine, but the topic ban does not allow making supplementary article talk page comments, unless answering to direct questions. Moreover, topic ban text says, "another editor can add that image to the article". Hence this main space edit would be a violation.
    I'm willing to believe Vauxford has not fully understood the extent of their topic ban and these violations may have been inadvertent. To my knowledge, nobody did bring possible topic ban violations to Vauxford's attention. Politrukki (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
    That's true, I hadn't even picked up on that. To me that says more about why those specific restrictions in the topic ban (and similar "bespoke sanctions") were a bad idea. I think Vauxford's comments, on the whole, were productive and helped move those discussions towards consensus, even if they were violations of the TBAN restrictions. I was looking for incivility, edit warring, people complaining... but saw none of that; instead, I saw mostly people agreeing, and even where there was disagreement, the disagreement was stated but didn't turn into bludgeoning or edit warring. That nobody apparently complained about the TBAN violations, as you point out, suggests to me that there wasn't any disruption or real problem, and I would therefore characterize the TBAN violations as "technical violations". I take a big-picture view: Vauxford has been able to productively contribute in this area for a year and a half without causing trouble, and that's all I can ask of anyone, so I still support lifting the ban, even though you're right about there having been technical (in my view) TBAN violations. Levivich harass/hound 20:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
    I think it would be an absolute travesty if participants here ignored the fact that the disruption these sanctions were claimed necessary to prevent—otherwise they would be punitive—did not occur. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 08:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Diffs of the image proposals I made. Jaguar R1, Audi e-tron, Audi A3, Mercedes-Benz GLB-Class, Porsche 911, Porsche 992 Hyundai i10, Skoda Rapid (2012), Skoda Octvia and BMW 5 Series (G30) --Vauxford (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support lifting TBAN - Vauxford has since stopped self-inserting his images and has also stopped reverting those who replace his images - Only a few IPs have reverted him all for unknown/pointless reasons, Whilst there are some concerns with the rationale (as pointed out by Cullen) IMHO they're not enough to warrant an indef topic ban, Going forward I'm sure Vauxford will be more cautious with inserting his images in future. Thanks, 86.169.55.232 (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not sure how keen I am to become involved with this, but two things do stand out about the discussion which I cannot resist mentioning:
* The opinions provided seem to come from people with little or no experience of Vauxford's wiki-constributions when he doesn't have a TBAN in place. If you don't contribute to entries on cars you don't come across Vauxford. So I took the liberty of alerting people to this discussion on the "Automobiles" project talk page.
* Although User:~Swarm~ has provided a link to earlier discussion on this stuff, it's not clear that any of those commenting have taken time to check it out. (Or any of Vauxford's other lengthy exchanges on admin noticeboards and elsewhere.) Might be worthwhile. Though it is - at least by most folks's standards - very long and in places rather angry
Regards Charles01 (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I checked it out. The close said "A significant minority of editors also feel that Charles01 has been behaving badly and might possibly warrant some sort of sanction. I don't see a consensus for anything at this moment, but would advise Charles01 to take note of the depth of feeling among some editors here and avoid future conflict." Good advice, to which I would add: don't insult your colleagues by suggesting they !voted without having done the reading. Levivich harass/hound 21:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support lifting the tban. I believe that Vauxford has had some time to figure why his behaviour was considered disruptive; in case he did not figure this, the tban can be reimposed. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 01:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support lifting TBAN I was involved in the original TBAN discussion along with observing and participating in some of Vauxford's photo discussions before and after the TBAN. I think his behaviour over the duration of the TBAN has been productive and has not fallen into the same problems that lead to the TBAN. Toasted Meter (talk) 05:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Vauxford: if the ban is lifted, what would you do in case your addition is challenged (addition is reverted or photo is replaced) by anyone, including IP editors? Politrukki (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    Politrukki Depends, the safe bet I think is take it to the talk page discussing the editor's reason why they replaced the photo. --Vauxford (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you for the response. That's kinda vague, as you admit below, but nice to know. Politrukki (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose lifting ban - "Getting worn out" from being required to get consensus is not a valid reason for having a topic ban lifted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • That's not the only given reason. Another one is "I think I grown from that and noticed my flaws with some of my own photos and understand why editors might've been unhappy with my edits" ---Sluzzelin talk 21:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, and they also said that what they would do if their addition was challenged "Depends". No, it doesn't depend, especially with their history. I do not trust their judgment, then or now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Beyond My Ken Fair point, what I meant by "depends", of course I would take it to the talk page but what if it something blatant for example, it was the wrong model or simply vandalism? I'm sorry if that sounded vague. --Vauxford (talk) 04:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support lifting tban per Levivich. Vikram Vincent 08:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. I opposed this TBAN originally because I felt Charles01 was a large part of the original disruption (diffs provided there). Vauxford has had time to reflect and criticize their previous works, and I am glad to see that has been taken on in good faith there. –MJLTalk 18:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - I supported restricting Vauxford from the beginning as his insistence on his photos was rather disruptive. I also took umbrage at his habit of adding every single photo of his across countless other languages in an effort to get his pictures used on as many Wikis as possible. I have seen real change since then, however - to the point that Charles01, who was one of those most aggravated with Vauxford is not opposing his full return, but may actually be aiding Vauxford by posting on the Automobile Project talk page.
I actually suggested to Vauxford some time ago that he should try to get the tban lifted, but he seems to have felt it worthwhile to wait a little longer (not something the troublesome Vauxford would have done). My one reservation is derived from his opening statement here: Vauxford states that he "noticed my flaws with some of my own photos" - the problem was never the quality of the photos, it was how he went about to place them above others' photos at all cost, with long grinding arguments and repeat reversals. But perhaps I didn't catch the intended tone and meaning correctly. Anyhow, I reckon that it is safe to let Vauxford back because he is now a known entity and would never be able to cause as much aggravation as before. Lastly, Vauxford is a mere 21 years old according to his userpage. Clearly one year can make for significant changes for someone who is still learning how to shave so young.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support: What a convoluted restriction in the first place; it should frankly be a shining example of how NOT to design a restriction. Compliance is of course going to be a problem with something convoluted like that. I also interpret Vauxford's admitted violation as being marginal—an editor changed images in an infobox, and Vauxford undid it. It just happened that the revert was to an image he uploaded. Should Vauxford have recognized it was one of his own images? Maybe. Depends on how many images he's uploaded and whether there are any other obvious markings.
    I also question the underlying panic over someone contributing his own images to articles, even if it's a lot of images and a lot of articles. It's not like these are bad images, nor is it like there are obtrusive self-promotional watermarks, or like Vauxford is doing the gimmick of trying to make money from Commons by putting a big old tag on his images that says "Warning! This image is not public domain! If you need a license other than CC-BY-SA, please e-mail me!" If there's a fundamental problem with the images, I'm not seeing it. Gatekeeping/WP:OWN behavior isn't good, but that's not exactly the same issue. If Vauxford is going on a revert spree to restore his own images to articles, that sounds like edit warring and should be treated as such.
    In any case, Vauxford's contrition strikes me as honest, and based on what others have said in this thread I think the editing restriction should be vacated in its entirety. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 03:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

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

User: Naiman2020Edit

ESCALATED
Now at ANI where the user has been warned. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Naiman2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This user is continually berating me and making harmful accusations about me as well as attacking my assumed religion through anti-semitism on the One Night In Miami page. I believe this editor is also editing anonymously pretending to be two seperate editors. (Samurai Kung fu Cowboy) (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Yea as was previously discussed on the talk page for One Night in Miami I am not user Naiman 2020. --2601:140:8B80:5F50:9C2:6FA5:79D8:BD29 (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Preparing for the U.S. inaugurationEdit

ALL'S WELL THAT ENDS WELL
And that's that. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just a note to say, I hope some admin or admins (not me) are preparing to handle the articles Donald Trump, Melania Trump, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris on Inauguration Day, January 20. What always happens that day is that people start changing the articles from present tense to past, and from current title to new title, hours before the transition actually happens at noon eastern time. And then there is edit warring, reverting the changes, doing them again, all in good faith. So it has usually been necessary to 1) full-protect the article that day and 2) have some admin ready to slap in a pre-prepared updated version the moment the new president says "so help me God". I know this may seem trivial, but changing the article at the right moment and not before seems to be a huge deal here. Has there been discussion about this? Have the roles (4 of them) been volunteered for/assigned? We should coordinate beforehand, so that one and only one person at each article does the change. There's probably a better place than this board to work it out. I'm not asking to know the details. I just wanted to make sure someone is on it. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't know, MelanieN... I'm a bit wary of preemptive full protection. While I get the imperative behind being pragmatic about it, still, except for Melania's (and, as of now, also Jill Biden's) semi, all the other ones are already WP:ECP'd. Would that not be enough do you think to temper matters? Quick addendum: ah, I see that Mike Pence is semi'd, as well. El_C 01:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Of course you are right about pre-emptive protection. But it may turn out to be needed, not pre-emptively but because of chaos at the article. I'm just recalling the presidential pages four years ago, which were a madhouse. People changing, people reverting, edit conflicting - and then when the moment arrived someone (I don't know who) was ready on the instant to slap in a completely revised article. I thought that must be the system, that somebody was ready - because it would take many minutes to make all the changes after the moment arrives. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I have no problem locking down articles as tight as the checkpoints in Washington DC, if necessary. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I would advise against drawing parallels with rhetoric of that nature. No one will get killed or injured here on Wikipedia, regardless of anything. My point is that tons of editors will be watching those pages and ECP is a fairly stable proposition. Taking action, in part, as a sort of political statement is ill-advised, I challenge. Perhaps there will be some instability, but that should be weighed against keeping those pages open to established (EC) editors, even and perhaps especially during critical times... El_C 02:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Talk:President_of_the_United_States#Adding_time_expression_to_page This talk page discussion and the code suggested could be useful. Slywriter (talk) 02:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Interesting idea. As I understand it, that was intended to change the names on the "president of the United States" page. The cases I am talking about are where well meaning, Extended Confirmed editors start changing "president elect" to "president", and "president" to "former president", before the magic moment when the transition occurs - and other well meaning EC editors revert them. We can wait and see what happens, but we may find full protection to become necessary. I'm just saying we should be ready for the possibility. And that, whether or not it gets full protected, somebody should be ready with a fully-updated version of the article to paste in at the proper moment. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
P.S. For that purpose, I am tempted to go to the talk page of each of the four relevant articles and ask for a volunteer to prepare a page that has all the relevant updates made, and to paste it in at exactly 12 noon eastern time. Anyone here have a problem with that, or think I shouldn't do it? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I do not think this is a good idea. Because the articles still keep getting modified, before and after 12 noon ECT, the two copies need to be synchronized in real time, and I do not think this is realistically possible.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Then how do you deal with the need to make at least several minutes worth of important changes to the article at a given moment in time? Let a hundred people all try to do it at once and get in each other's way so that nothing happens? -- MelanieN (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
This happens every time we have some important changes in real life. I agree that if incorrect edits start at midnight, we will have to full-protect the articles. Then we do not need to have any other version, just make a replacement at noon. If there is no need to protect, well, there will be chaos for five minutes, no problem. Look at any article on say Nobel Prize winner in literature to see how this chaos gets resolved.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


I think it's ok if the articles are changed earlier or later than the actual inauguration. Wikipedia doesn't need to be up-to-the-second accurate. It's also ok if these articles are unstable for a day due to the inauguration. They're pretty unstable every day, anyway. Please don't preemptively full protect, and please nobody full protect at the first sign of trouble or be quick on the trigger. Full protection is a last resort. Editing, and editing disagreements, are a normal part of the process. Levivich harass/hound 16:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I would rather they be edited later than the inauguration instead of pre-emptively, because then we risk people creating a precedent of pre-emptive editing project wide. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
True: "later" would be policy-compliant, "earlier" would actually violate WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. Levivich harass/hound 18:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

We can at least try to maintain a semblance of being an encyclopaedia "that anyone [with ECP] can edit". ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, many IPs or drive-by editors will be changing the article at the stroke of mid-night Jan 20, instead of waiting another 12 hours. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

No they won't. The articles are all EC protected. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I presume they were being sarcastic. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Apologies to the contrary views above, but I would strongly support moving quickly to fully protect these articles through the inauguration at the first sign of trouble. Aside from the actual transition of power, we are not expecting any substantial biographical changes to these article subjects, and there is no doubt that numerous admins will be watching them and able to field requested edits on the talk pages. Left unprotected, the potential for mischief is high. BD2412 T 17:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    I agree with fully protecting them at the first sign of trouble; I just disagree with preemptive full protection.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    What about poor Mike Pence? What is he, chopped liver? On a more serious note, I oppose pre-emptive protection but support prompt full protection if disruption occurs. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    Surely he'll be ex-chopped liver on Wednesday. But yes, I agree. Leave the articles as they are, and then protect only if there's disruption. Then unprotect when the inaugurating is done and leave people to update them. There's no need to have a prepared version ready for the crack of noon - if anyone gets frustrated by edit conflicts, it's their own fault for trying to be a news reporter. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I take it, the expected contretemps is that at 0:00 UTC in the Pacific Ocean someone will go into tense changing and then there will be reversion, and so-on. Seems likely, but other than locking the articles as around 23:59.59, is there anything else proposed? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I applaud MelanieN's attempt to organize this to avoid chaos. I understand the desire for preemptive full protection but, given existing protection levels, I'd be more in favor of simply providing a heads up that full protection will be enacted as soon as it is needed. I agree with Ymblanter's observation that having a new version of a page ready to go as logistical problems as they may have been legitimate edits within the last few seconds before the changeover. I hope someone will volunteer to help and to have the necessary edits available at the time they become appropriate, however I'm so disgusted with politics recently I'm not stepping up to volunteer.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Locke'm down until Noon EST, 20 January 2021. GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

You're assuming that the swearing-in will go as planned. I dearly hope that is the case, but in light of recent events -- and not so recent trends throughout the United States -- I won't be placing any bets on it. There are dark forces at work which very, very strongly do not want it to happen. I'm reminded of the line from The Godfather Part II "If anything in this life is certain, if history has taught us anything, it's that you can kill anyone." I don't think that is going to happen, but there are many, many things that could. It's why I won't rest easy until Biden and Harris are sworn in, and even then... Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Look folks, I hate to be that person (wait, do I?), but just because Wikipedia is hosted in the United States and most of its contributors are American, does not mean we ought to stray from policy here. WP:EMERGENCY is for emergency and that's it. Wikipedia is meant to be a scholarly pursuit. Yes, obeying US law is a given on the project (including WP:BLP), but we are not obliged (as a service to the US State or to Americans or even to our overall global readership) to be perfectly in-the-present in so far as junctures (including and perhaps especially pivotal ones) in American politics are concerned.

Our mission is WP:ENC and it is WP:ANYONE, even if we stretch the latter's definition by limiting it to the highest meaningful set of WP:XC. Whatever delays or even instability, we're probably talking about a minute or two, at most. We can absorb something whacky happening for that duration. If there is an embarrassment of some sort, sure, that would be unfortunate, but it would also go on to highlight the open nature of the project, which is something to be proud, but also vigilant, of.

So, in so far as the encyclopedia is concerned, whatever will be, will be. We will deal with it in due course. Hope for the best, plan for the worst. Not really much else to do, or say. And to that: I'm sorry to say (truly), because I know it isn't intentional, but seeking anything beyond that, does come across as a bit of posturing (again, yes, I realize unwittingly so).</soap> El_C 16:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this posture (or posturing). Slap a scary "ongoing event, article unstable" atop the relevant articles if you want, and the editorial process will (or must) do the rest. Sandstein 18:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Haha! Burn!  El_C 19:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
This is a good idea in any case, I added {{ongoing event}} to the articles on Trum, Pence, Biden, and Harris. I hope this is not going to generate an edit-warring so that the articles will have to be full-protected now.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
...And they have all been removed by Jack Upland--Ymblanter (talk) 08:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Honestly, Ymblanter, Jack Upland has a valid point. What are we telling our readership when we say initial news reports may be unreliable? This is not some town in, say, Syria. This is the US Capitol, with mighty military security and ample press corps members on-site. We have no reason to infer some sort of impending of instability that would affect those BLPs. All signs are, in fact, to the contrary — yes, even though there are some known-unknowns and maybe even unknown-unknowns. My assessment is that, at present, major instability appears unlikely. So, for us to preempt by declaring it to be otherwise so, that's a mistake, I think. El_C 18:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Gah, I guess it's moot now, seeing as it just happened minutes ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/20/us/politics/biden-president.html El_C 18:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
This is the instability of an article. For example, today someone added information that Pence is not a vice president anymore, and the article had this false information for two hours. Anyway, now it is indeed moot.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Ymblanter, right, as I note above, it is indeed moot now, so I don't want to belabour the point, but my point was about what we are telling the reader when they face a tag which, again, declares that initial news reports may be unreliable, when there was a faint chance of that. Anyway, glad we got over this hurdle without major problems. El_C 19:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

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

WP:Username policy and QAnonEdit

Rough consensus here is that QAnon usernames are inherently provocative and should be avoided. Specific users with such names should be warned appropriately and then brought to WP:RFCN per the standard protocol. Comments regarding AnonQuixote (who self-reported here seeking clarification) seemed to indicate their name was acceptable, though again if there are concerns contacting them directly is appropriate. Primefac (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Would you consider a QAnon-based username to be a violation of username policy? It could be considered "disruptive or offensive". Specifically thinking about one I just saw based on the "WWG1WGA" hashtag. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider it disruptive or offensive, nor any other violation, unless the username also contained some of the more offensive parts of the conspiracy theory. That isn't to say I'd rate their long term prospects very highly. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I would regard it as a violation. SarahSV (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Definitely a violation, IMO. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Ah! Not sure which got posted first, but I blocked WWG1WWA2021 based on the username and raised the issue of the block over at WP:ANI, specifically Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_review_-_qanon_username. Sorry, the discussion is in two places. I have no problem if someone wishes to close the WP:ANI discussion in favour of this one. --Yamla (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Yamla, ha no worries! I posted my question after their first two edits (which seemed to indicate NOTHERE, but I was giving some benefit of the doubt). The contributions following, which I only just now saw, are clear NOTHERE. The AN/I thread you posted is a good way to look at this one singular case, while this thread is about any and all QAnon accounts. I see that there is some support for autoblocking any WWG1WGA-named accounts among these few to chime in, so far. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I dunno, I think that the name is a little too far from "QAnon" - when I saw it at AE, no connection even occured to me. However, if their edits are QAnon-oriented (I haven't looked), then the combination of disruptive edits and the name would be enough to be blocked, I would think. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I regard it as a violation, which why I completely purged Special:Contributions/WWG1WWA2021. But, no, I don't regard the AnonQuixote username to be a violation, even if that username does push that particular envelop. Note that they are inches from being topic banned from the 2021 Insurrection and 2nd Impeachment topic areas, so one may draw their own conclusions... El_C 07:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, as I said above this seems to clearly satisfy Usernames that are likely to offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible; e.g. by containing profanities or referencing controversies. (bolding mine) and therefore a violation of the username policy Asartea Talk | Contribs 08:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, as others have said, it falls into the "referencing controversies" criterion. But a note of caution - personally, although I'm vaguely aware of QAnon, it's something I've tried to steer clear of so I wouldn't have realised that "WWG1WGA" was a QAnon reference - on the face of it it's a random string of initials and numbers. So we need to be careful that we don't bite admins who decline such a block - and of course, the more eyes on WP:UAA the better as it's often backlogged anyway. WaggersTALK 10:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
    That said, a quick internet search of any reported username should tell us what we need to know! WaggersTALK 10:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't use this username on any other site. AnonQuixote (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Statement My intent with this username was a play on words on Don Quixote, due to my propensity for "tilting at windmills" on issues I feel are important, even if it means getting beat up by the local rustics sometimes, combined with the fact that I'm an anonymous (well, psuedonymous) user. The similarity to QAnon didn't even occur to me.
However, now that it's been brought up, I'm a little concerned that it could be interpreted in that way, leading to unfair bias against me. Is there a way to request it be changed without losing my contribution history, settings, etc.? If so, I request it be changed to the more whimsical User:NachoPanza, to reflect my status as humble helper who loves snacks. AnonQuixote (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Changing username for information on how to request a user name change. It is unfortunate that innocently chosen names can run into problems such as yours. - Donald Albury 00:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
AnonQuixote, I think your name is different enough that you don't have to change it if you don't want to. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Promotional accountEdit

Wackyweasle (talk · contribs) is, by their own admission, a promotional account. They've set up Memorial bracelet to promote their products, and are now trying to get Draft:Post-Combat Related Incident accepted. --Un assiolo (talk) 11:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this. The promotional stuff has been deleted and they've been given a 4im-spam and a COI notice by Deepfriedokra. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Personal attackEdit

VeerAbhinavGurjar personally attacked me and Rajput community [[15]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pseudo Nihilist (talkcontribs) 13:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I assume that it isn't that great, but how am I supposed to tell what it actually says? Is that Hindi? El_C 14:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Using Google Translate I got this: "Live in wikipedia while staying in position It is more read and written then come to the table and talk with the facts n figure. You are Phool" RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Google Translate, ever the poet. That does have a certain lyrical flow to it, I admit. El_C 14:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Nevertheless, is it not a requirement on En.Wikipedia that editors must communicate (Samuel L. Jackson notwithstanding) with each other in English? --WaltCip-(talk) 14:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
"Must", no, but it sure is helpful for those of us who are trying to intervene in conflicts. Primefac (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Actually, "must", yes, although we tend to turn a blind eye to the occasional lapse. ‑ Iridescent 15:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I know we're getting into pedantic nitpicking, but that says "should" not "must". Primefac (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I can't read Devanagari, but taking a look at GT's romanisation: Keep in your lane when editing Wikipedia. If you think you're so educated, then bring facts and figures to the table when talking. You're the progeny of those **** Mughals. For reasons that I won't list here per WP:BEANS but shouldn't be hard to figure out, I'd recommend the next sentence (with the number) be oversighted.
Translator's note: "keep in your lane" is my best attempt at translating "auqaat mein reh kar"; it's the kind of phrase my boss might tell me should I decide to question a decision of his, for example, and carries a connotation of "you lowly ____". your friendly neighbourhood Desi 16:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, missed that part (suppressed). Primefac (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Anybody who slings "stay in your lane" at another user (which seems to be happening increasingly often) is engaging in behavior not compatable with a collaborative project IMHO. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't the part translated as "You're the progeny of those **** Mughals" qualify this editor as disruptive and worthy of blocking? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Simon nepali, repeated unsourced editingEdit

Simon nepali (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Repeated unsourced and disruptive editing. Gave him a warning but he vowed to continue and also seems to be a bigot. Unsourced and/or targeted misinformation in

SimulationWig (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Simon nepali, you are this close to an immediate indefinite block for disruptive editing, including the comments on your talk page. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I think Simon nepali should be banned. The user is still continuing to vanadalize the pages mentioned above. SimulationWig (talk) 03:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Canyon dhb Soreen Page Name ChangeEdit

WRONG PAGE
This is not an issue for administrators. Please make this request at Talk:Canyon DHB p/b Soreen. Preferably with sources. Sandstein 18:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Hello,

Please can someone update the following page name: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canyon_DHB_p/b_Soreen

The new page name needs to read: 'Canyon dhb SunGod'.

I am not an admin of this page and therefore cannot update this.

Please can this be done asap, the name of the team changed as of 1st Jan 2021.

Thanks, Chloe — Preceding unsigned comment added by CNGallagher (talkcontribs) 18:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


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

Motion: American politics 2 (1992 cutoff) enactedEdit

A motion regarding the American politics 2 case has been enacted after it reached majority support following a Request for Amendment. The motion is as follows:

Remedy 1.2 of the American politics 2 case ("Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff)") is retitled "Discretionary sanctions (1992 cutoff)" and amended by replacing the words "post-1932 politics of the United States" with "post-1992 politics of the United States". Any sanctions or other restrictions imposed under the discretionary sanctions authorization to date shall remain in force unaffected.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Motion: American politics 2 (1992 cutoff) enacted

Block this vandalEdit

Not an issue for the English Wikipedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This user r s g t b is constantly vandalising and removing large amount of sourced info from hindi wikipedia pages pls block him to stop further disruption

[[16]] [[17]] [[18]] [[19]] [[20]]

All the case of him vandalising pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pseudo Nihilist (talkcontribs) 14:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

  • We can't do anything on hi.wikipedia. You will have to ask the administrators there (and you have). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Time-sensitive close needed for Donald TrumpEdit

NO LONGER URGENT
If this was an urgent matter, it is now much less so. Sandstein 22:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


A little over a month ago, Mandruss far-sightedly opened a discussion at Talk:Donald Trump seeking to pre-write the first paragraph we should use for the page after he leaves office. I put it at ANRFC a week ago, but it still has not been closed. It's now less than an hour and a half until the inauguration, which is cutting things more than a little close. Could someone uninvolved please tie it up?

More generally, we should expect changes at a bunch of other related pages, most of which don't have as thorough planning as was attempted at Trump's page, so assistance maintaining order from anyone inclined to help out would likely be appreciated. Hopefully this transition goes smoothly. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 15:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb: there is no deadline for updating content, we are an encyclopedia, not the news. — xaosflux Talk 15:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Xaosflux, I have to disagree with portions of that essay and certainly with its applicability to this sort of situation. Yes, we are not news, but for content as visible as the lead paragraph of Donald Trump, the deadlines are immediate. Failing to properly wrap up the prewriting process would likely lead to more disruption to the page than necessary, which is a tangible harm when it's getting hundreds or thousands of views per minute. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 16:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
@Sdkb: this looks like a bunch of editorial squabbling - if something is inaccurate and no one can agree on new text - just remove the inaccurate text editorially. Without getting deep in to that big discussion - it should be very uncontroversial to change is the 45th and current president of the United States. to served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021 - while everything else is being sorted out. — xaosflux Talk 16:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Xaosflux, no, that would be controversial. There was discussion about questions such as whether to use "was" or "served as" as the default fallback. The sentiment seems to lean toward using "was" to my reading, but I was a participant, so I shouldn't be making that judgement call. That's the roll of a closer, which is why I'm asking for one. It's not as simple as just asserting an easy answer and ignoring all the efforts of participants to work out a consensus ("editorial squabbling"). You don't have to be the one to make the close, but it'd be very nice if someone did. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 16:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I left a note on the page, an editor made a change already and it made the article "better" by removing the "is" - discussion for further improvements should certainly continue on that article talk. — xaosflux Talk 17:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Update: And, as predicted, the situation there is now a complete mess. Some of us are trying to figure out what's closest to the status quo, plenty of others are unable to restrain themselves from debating the content questions (someone needs to write an essay along the lines of "figure out the process before you engage in the debate"Update: Written. 02:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)), and the live page is misaligned with the prevailing consensus/option closest to the status quo but the 1RR is preventing the necessary reverts. Could an adminexperienced editor please come in with less of a light touch and set things on a productive path? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 20:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Just saying...why is an admin needed to settle a content dispute? - The Bushranger One ping only 21:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
    The Bushranger, fair point. I used "admin" because of the name of this noticeboard, and because this is an instance in which we need mopping (i.e. moderation and assessment of consensus, as opposed to participation in the discussion itself), but any experienced editor could take on that role. I'll strike the word admin in my comment above, but the main point remains exactly the same. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 23:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
@Sdkb: notably, dragging an "admin" in is likely to just get you a full protection and referred back to the talk page - I've been trying to avoid that hoping that ECP editors can collaborate better. — xaosflux Talk 00:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: All that needed to happen was for someone to assess the discussion and formalize the "no consensus, so default to interim proposal 2 as the closest to the status quo" result, which I think would have been pretty apparent to any experienced closer. That would have settled things and was what I was asking for above, but it didn't happen, which led to the mess we ended up with. It's mostly settled now, and I don't see a need for full protection, but it didn't need to be this complicated. (To note a bit of context, Mandruss, who often helps keep that talk page under control, is currently on a wikibreak, which creates a bit of a void.) {{u|Sdkb}}talk 00:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Apparently I spoke too soon. The sunk costs are mounting (there are at least four talk forks now), and it seems like they'll just keep mounting until someone steps up and makes the close. This mess was predictable and avoidable—chiding editors to stop squabbling and collaborate better is not a substitute for actually making closes so that we have a shared and enforceable understanding of what the status quo is. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 13:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think a "time-sensitive close" for Donald Trump is needed immediately, since he seems to have taken care of that himself for the time being. We might need one in the future, though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Sdkb: Does this still need actioned and if so what still needs done? Wug·a·po·des 20:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
    Wugapodes, thanks for checking. Most of the forks have been curtailed at this point, and the discussion has coalesced in a new thread (which is not set up the best and detached from the original), so I don't see any need for immediate closes. The damage has been done, and editors are moving forward from it as best they can. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Talk page editnotice/MediaWiki page edit requestEdit

I cannot properly create my talk page editnotice with four tildes with the nowiki markup, it automatically gets converted, what should I do? 54nd60x (talk) 05:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I also have a MediaWiki page that I want to request to edit, should Is nnounce on Talk page or here? When I edited it said talk pages in MediaWiki talk Namespace are not watched by many users. 54nd60x (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The first question involves a technical issue and would be better at WP:VPT. However you could try <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. For the second question, it would be better to link to the page here. By the way, your signature appears to be 296 characters, not including the time/date. That exceeds WP:SIGLEN. Johnuniq (talk) 06:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Resolved my SIGLEN. Now for the MediaWiki edit request, please import my changes from my sandbox.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 54nd60x (talkcontribs) 07:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Redoing ping to Johnuniq. Graham87 07:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
That relates to MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-forbidden-edit. Please make an edit request at its talk page because it appears to be active and that is where people familiar with the page will expect it. You might post here if there has been no reply for a week. It would also be desirable to briefly explain the difference and why it would help (do that there, not here). Johnuniq (talk) 08:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

User:President of Dabo and User:Republic state of daboEdit

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

Can someone please take a look at these two users? I removed user talk from one of them and placed a note about what user talk pages are for, then a day later, I noticed the other user. This may be a case of socking, or at the very least two kids having fun, and using WP as their forum. I do not have the time today to delve in to this. Also may need a Checkuser here. Thanks. -- Alexf(talk) 09:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Also User:ArmyOfDabo, User:IndonesiaAltWar. There's a handful (as in, one hand's fingers worth) of possibly-productive edits amongst this group, but there are others that are outright vandalism [21] and it's blatantly obvious their all-but-sole purpose is to roleplay something they made up one day, including editing acutal pages to reflect it. I'm also 90% sure this is all one person using multiple accounts, and between all of this I'm blocking the lot of them. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  Thank you -- Alexf(talk) 23:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

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

True-scientific accuracy on the Third Planet from the SunEdit

THIRD ROCK FLASHBACKS
And as mentioned MOS:ERA applies. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please, correct on Wikipedia: BCE/CE instead of BC/AD. We have to support CosmoTerraReason, not illusion (religious or other). Finite Cosmos, finite TerraFamilyShip, finite truths, needing finite protection. Stop damaging lies! CosmoTerraSophy, still some time to learn it.Iohana4 (talk) 12:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Per MOS:ERA, either system is appropriate and we should not change the convention already present in an article. Username6892 12:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Flyer22 and WanderingWanda case dismissedEdit

The Committee has received word that Flyer22 Frozen (talk · contribs) has passed away. Accordingly, the currently open case is dismissed. We would like to express our heartfelt condolences to the family of Flyer22.

Passed 9 to 0 on 17:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Flyer22 and WanderingWanda case dismissed

User:Flyer22 Frozen userrightsEdit

No. Just no. (See also: User_talk:GZWDer#Lacking_very_basic_sense) El_C 11:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
UNNECESSARY
It's curious that an editor who hasn't edited in nearly a month suddenly reappears to make this request on this particular editor. Regardless this is unnecessary, so closing. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

See above, please remove rollbacker and reviewer.--GZWDer (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

We generally do not remove rights from users unless it is by request or they were an administrator. Primefac (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
@Primefac: See Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines#On the account: "any advanced user rights of deceased Wikipedians should be removed immediately".--GZWDer (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Right, that was what I meant in my or they were an administrator statement. Neither of those are advanced user rights. Primefac (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
That is an incomplete rendering, to the point I'm not sure why you're pushing this. The policy goes on to say "User rights to be removed primarily include template editor, edit filter manager and helper, administrator, bureaucrat, CheckUser, and oversight, as these rights have the most potential to disrupt the project." —valereee (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
The account is locked. It literally cannot login, never mind use any rights. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Single-purpose accountEdit

Hello, I came across an article about Nima Behnoud, I found a lot of bogus in that article and came across a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account with the name of User:Mode iranain, that added a lot of untrue claims. I think ALL of his edits need to be undo. --Gnosis (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Gnosis I cleaned up the article a bit and nominated it under AFD. BTW this is not the appropriate forum for this discussion. Do have a look at the article for more info. Thanks! Vikram Vincent 15:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Block review: Wilkja19Edit

Wilkja19 is a regular editor of 3 years consistent activity with 3,368 edits, who makes mostly good edits on TV articles. In mid-December, they were reported to ANI for marking edits as minor (which is a totally useless software feature and should be removed; the only time I see it mentioned is when it's used to block editors). After discussing the technical limitations the editor faces (namely, using a crappily designed iOS app which gives zero notifications about talk messages - see T263943 + others), and an issue EEng raised regarding the minor edits, there appears to have been community consensus at ANI and VPT to do nothing about this particular issue with this particular editor, including regarding the idealistic "communication" concern, until and unless they actually start making disruptive edits, which the blocking admin has admitted they do not. Due to the unfortunate nature of the iOS app, it's possible they only see "You have been blocked." with no explanation, at the moment.

Nevertheless, a month later, on request, EdJohnston (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has decided to reblock Wilkja19 for the same reason, despite the community consensus against doing so. The blocking admin has declined to reconsider, giving an essay as their reasoning and comparing this editor to an unapproved bot, which (given their editing nature and patterns) they obviously are not.

I hope this block is quickly reversed, before this good editor decides to give up on Wikipedia after multiple arbitrary "You have been blocked" messages. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree. If they're not making mistakes, who cares? Let them mark all edits as minor and let them not use edit summaries. It may not be ideal, but if they're otherwise productive, why not be flexible? Like making sure there's a notice at the top of their talk page instructing users with urgent communication that they should contact an administrator to block them for a day or two, with the block log entry linking to the respective discussion. Obviously, that will only work if the need to communicate with them happens once in a blue moon. Maybe worth a try, though...? El_C 12:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
El C, drive by comment but I think @ProcrastinatingReader: mentioned they might not see the full block message? If thats the case your solution would lead to an editor who from their perspective just occasionally gets blocked for no good reason. Asartea Talk | Contribs 12:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I stand corrected. That is, indeed, a conundrum, then. El_C 12:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Interestingly the phab task says: Conclusion: Using the app is like being inside a bubble, without contacts with the exterior. It's no wonder there's so much people complaining here that using the app caused their Wikipedia account to be blocked, for reasons they don't understand.
I wonder how many editors are in the same situation but nobody has noticed yet because there was no real need for admin action on the nature of their edits (as there isn't here). Not a fan of ideological blocks, rather than realised issues. The editor doesn't edit in controversial areas or on high-profile articles anyway, nor do they edit war on (uncommon) reverted changes it seems, which puts them in a good spot for flexibility. No disruption => no block. As an aside, I don't see this case as being particularly distinct to an avg IP editor. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Since our Notifications system doesn't work with this stupid software, is there a way that we could automatically display the OBOD for people that are using it, as we do for IPs and as we used to do for everyone? Nyttend (talk) 13:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
ProcrastinatingReader, I operate under the assumption that the average IP is able to see the block log entry (wherefrom a discussion can be linked) when they attempt to edit while blocked. This case is different. There simply appears to be zero means through which to WP:COMMUNICATE with this user (whatsoever). I guess it's possible that they could edit without incident, even without ever providing edit summaries and only marking edits minor minor (a separate matter on its own), but it probably isn't feasible or realistic to expect that to work long-term. El_C 15:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
They’ve managed it for 3 years, we can extend some good faith that such continues, right? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
ProcrastinatingReader, oh, I see (again) — me not doing my due diligence seems to be the order of the day.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Well, there you go. I guess that shows me. Anyway, that reasoning works for me. El_C 18:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm a little late, and maybe I'm missing something, but why are we still doing stuff under an assumption of 'might'? Personally I support a block of this mildly disruptive editor, as long as it's a 'might'. And yes, this editor is disruptive even if only mildly and they unfortunately aren't aware of it. There is a reason why an editor who does communicate and refuses to stop marking 4200 byte removals as minor would be blocked. If no one is willing to test it, then I don't see why we should assume that they don't see the full block log. If someone had actually tested it and found they didn't see full block log then I'd probably change my mind. After all, we know IP editors using the mobile site also don't see any indication of messages, but if I understand El C correctly they do see the full block log for their block. As is stands, this editor has be blocked for such short times we have no idea if they have ever even noticed they've been blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
There is nothing disruptive (not even mildly) about marking 4200 byte removals as minor. Minor is a useless software feature which has no purpose except an "m" next to the edit in history. No experienced editor seriously uses someone's own determinations of "minor" to filter edits out of their watchlist. (+ Help:Minor edit is not a PAG). Imagine if marking as minor was all it took to get vandal edits through RC! Anyone who actually thinks about the feature, rather than just thinking "procedure => block", could never come to the conclusion that it's disruptive in the slightest.
Besides, some people will dispute even legitimately minor edits, so nothing is really "indisputable". The only time minor is really relevant is when it's used as a poor excuse to block people - that practice should stop. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
@ProcrastinatingReader: Editors are entitled to ask that their fellow editors use features reasonably. If you find the minor flag useless, that's you fucking choice. Just as it should be other's fucking choice to use the flag. It's utterly disgusting that you would try to harm other editors by refusing to allow them to use the features present by riding roughshod over community consensus over how they should be used. People like you who feel they can demand how others edit here are what make Wikipedia a terrible place. The fact that there will be dispute over the borderline doesn't change the fact there are certain edits which are clearly not minor. Note there is no requirement to use the minor flag. If editors don't want to mark their edits as minor they're fully entitled. All they're asked to do is to not mark edits as minor when they clearly don't remotely qualify, which is a reasonable ask. If editors can't follow that reasonable ask, then yes they don't fucking belong. In this case, since there's apparently no way to tell the editor, then yes, there's no choice but to let them be. Again that's reasonable. What remains utterly disgusting is you telling people who do wish to use the minor flag to fuck off because if your dislike of the flag. Nil Einne (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Of course, I didn't tell anyone to "fuck off". That is incorrect reasoning. Logically, then, it's also a user's choice what they find to be "minor". The feature is not consensus anyway (it's forced upon by the devs, and for 2020 it's archaic), nor are WP:INFOPAGES consensus: information pages, like essay pages, have a limited status, and can reflect varying levels of consensus and vetting. There is no evidence anyone seriously uses it to filter out edits in the first place. Equally, I'm not telling anyone how to edit here, rather the opposite: I'm arguing that the idiosyncrasies of some shouldn't get another editor blocked. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
(EC) Actually while writing the reply below, I recalled seeing someone ask to be blocked to test the iOS app. So I looked more carefully and found Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 186#Notification to iOS app user which confirms the iOS app doesn't seem to show any info other than the editor is blocked. While I guess you could technically argue it's still "might" since we don't know what will happen for this particular editor or if it's changed since then, but IMO it's better to say "very likely" or even "almost definitely" or just indicate this is what it was like when tested. With this important clarification, I too support leaving them unblocked for now, as long as their disruption is, no pun intended, minor i.e. they're only incorrectly marking edits as minor. Nil Einne (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Unblocked. When you block someone and the community says "unblock because this isn't wrong", you don't get to block again for an identical reason. Nyttend (talk) 13:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Nyttend, you write in the block entry that the first block was overturned at ANI, but blocking admin reimposed it. But it having been "overturned" isn't immediately clear to me, though admittedly, my reading comprehension is not at top peak right now. (Also noting that, technically, the original 24-hour block simply expired in the course of that discussion.) El_C 14:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I was wrong. I'll reblock him for 1 second to say "I was wrong" and to say that I still believe the unblock justified on grounds of "this person did nothing wrong". Nyttend (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I suppose it is either technically or politically impossible to disable the ability to edit en.wiki from the WMF's iOS app? What an utterly stupid situation. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Given the drama over 'sign in to edit', I'm pretty sure the second of those would make it a never thing. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
      I'm pretty sure that the community's views have shifted, perhaps not all the way to consensus to do it but at least some of the way, in light of the IP masking initiative. I know mine have and I've seen others write similarly. Whether that would extend to this use case I dare not speculate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
      • As I distinctly recall, the community's views weren't the issue. The community was overwhelmingly in favor of SITE. The Foundation lolnoped it with, IIRC, phrasing that was basically 'don't darken our door with this idea again or else'. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
        Except I believe ptwiki hasn't been overruled by the office. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
        If we wanted to try and block IP editors on sight, it would make sense to start with those who exclusively use the mobile site since they suffer the same properly i.e. no indication of new messages. As I understand it, we don't even know if blocking is any different between iOS editors and IP editors on the mobile site since no one has actually tested what they see when they're blocked, we're just operating under the assumption of what 'might' happen. (Actually I'm sure I recall someone asking to be blocked to test the iOS app so I'm surprised we don't know.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
        Seems I was right. It was tested before and the iOS app does only show the editor is blocked without the full log entry for their block. I assume El C is right that the mobile website is better? Actually I guess I could trivially test that. Nil Einne (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

        Okay I tested it in Tor, and can confirm the mobile site does show the block log. When you try to edit, there is a "Your IP address has been blocked from editing Wikipedia" message and below that a "See more". Clicking on the see more will show the details e.g. "The IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be a web host provider."

        I will give one final comment which is that there's a reason I harp on about IP's editing from the mobile site all the time. This is IMO a major flaw in the mobile site. But cases like this in particular suggest IMO one of the areas we treat editors with an account different from those editing from an IP. I'm fairly sure I've seen IP editors with very minor fairly inconsequential misbehaviour blocked even though they edited exclusively from the mobile site and never used their talk page and are probably completely unaware of their new messages.

        Indeed I'm fairly sure there are a bunch of admins who aren't even aware of this flaw in the mobile site, I'm not an admin but I never came across it on AN//I etc until IIRC about 1 year ago. Actually one time I raised the issue, someone just said 'don't use the mobile site', but how is that a solution to the problem of those who do? (I do occasionally, but never as an IP so the flaw is irrelevant to me.)

        Okay they do see the block log but AFAICT, until now this thread and indeed the previous one has been mostly based on assumptions of what they might see, and not the test showing they don't see the block log. IIRC, the one or two times I've seen the issued of IP editors not any sign of new messages raised, no one mentioned that IP editors of the mobile site do see the block log.

        And yeah for all this selfish talk about how clear misuse of the minor flag doesn't matter because some editors don't like the flag, I'm confident if this had been an IP editor they probably would have suffered many long blocks by now, with few caring they're in nearly the exact same situation. (I'm putting aside the block log issue given my point about how uncertain it was. But it'll accept that the only real way someone could keep marking edits as minor from an IP on the mobile site would be to intentionally tick the box or have some weird browser plugin, perhaps an accessibility one.)

        I think I'll leave this thread with that given how angry it's made me.

        Nil Einne (talk) 13:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Continuously marking all edits as minor even when they are not is disruptive editing. Its specifically called out in WP:VAND as a tactic to look out for when it comes to vandalism. The problem is when someone does it, and the edits are *not* minor, and they are *not* vandalism, is that they either will be ignored by those who arnt looking at minor edits (this may include also include bots) and so the content wont be reviewed, or they will be looked at more closely by those who are familiar with how vandals operate - making more work for others than just by editing normally. The solution is to get the editor to stop marking all their edits as minor, not ignore it and let it continue. Because once this discussion disappears into the archive, the next time someone complains about it they will risk getting blocked again. If this is a specific issue to an individual editors use of particularly technology, this is their problem that needs to be solved. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
    Continuously marking all edits as minor even when they are not is disruptive editing. Its specifically called out in WP:V as a tactic to look out for when it comes to vandalism. I presume you meant WP:VAND (as WP:V does not mention minor edits). Here is what WP:VAND has to say about minor edits, in both instances where it is mentioned. Are you referring to something else?:
    • Deliberate attempts to circumvent enforcement of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and procedures by causing bad faith edits to go unnoticed. Includes marking bad faith edits as minor to get less scrutiny, making a minor edit following a bad faith edit so it won't appear on all watchlists Neither of which applies here, as they are obviously not bad faith edits, and they're obviously not a bad faith edit followed by a minor edit to obscure it. Obviously no gaming going on here.
    • The edit summary is important in that it helps other editors understand the purpose of your edit. Though its use is not required, it is strongly recommended, even for minor edits, and is considered proper Wikipedia etiquette. Even a brief edit summary is better than none. However, not leaving edit summaries is not considered vandalism. -- self explanatory ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
The issue is that in order to determine they arnt bad faith, you actually have to look at them. Which you likely wouldnt have, if they hadnt been marked as minor. You cant tell there isnt any gaming going on without again, looking closely at them. Its the act of forcing other editors into doing more work than they otherwise would have that is the disruptive part, not the actual edit itself. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
If people ignore edits just because the editor decided to mark them as minor, it would be very easy to get away with vandalism on Wikipedia. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
So when I say it makes more work for others checking minor edits, your response is they should be checking all minor edits anyway? Glad you have a healthy respect for your fellow editors free time. Feel free to go propose a change to WP:VAND then, or attempt to get the WMF to remove the minor edit function. I look forward to your success. Marking edits continuously as minor aside, they also have zero communication with other editors, on their talk page, or article talkpages. That is not acceptable. They are required to interact with other editors. If the issue was not about minor edits, but some other problem, and they refused to respond over an extended period of time, they would end up blocked. Plenty of examples in the archives for you to look at. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Exactly. I think the point of the gaming section is that minor edits deserve equal, if not more, scrutiny, because vandals often mark as minor to obscure the real nature of their edit. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
What, exactly, is the point of having a "minor edit" designation in the first place? If the point is that I'm supposed to ignore "m" edits on my watchlist, well I'm not going to do that, because "m" edits can be as wrong, disruptive, or destructive as a "major" edit. Now if an editor with whose editing I am familiar, and whom I find trustworthy, puts "typo" or something similar in the edit summary, I'm going to probably skip looking at that edit, but not someone I don't know. The whole purpose of a watchlist is to watch the articles on it and prevent them from damage, and the "m" marking just doesn't enter into it at all. I think it's a worthless designation and should be scrapped as such. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
And even if the "m" designation is kept, the "Mark all edits as minor" preference is entirely counter-productive and should be eliminated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Unblock request at RFCNEdit

(non-admin closure) Closed at RFCN, Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A user was blocked for their username, and I'm not overly convinced it's that bad, but I don't want to wheel war, so I've posted the matter for discussion at RFCN as the name itself is the only issue. Thoughts and input would be appreciated. Primefac (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Theoretically not the venue for appealing a username block, per the header of that page – but now that the discussion exists and the block has been overturned, well... Closed as "allow". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Sholam WeissEdit

POINTED IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION
WP:BLPN is thataway→, and if that fails WP:DRN is thataway←. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not sure where else to post this. The article on Sholam Weiss, recently the subject of a presidential pardon, is a mess. It appears to be subject to extensive COI editing and the lengthy list of maintenance tags, added by another editor, speaks for itself. It requires experienced eyes. I have commenced a discussion on the Talk page about starting over from scratch. Coretheapple (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLPN is probably the place to raise this. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

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

John C. Eastman BLPEdit

I invite an administrator to examine the current activity of User:Jeastman on John C. Eastman soibangla (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  • He was warned previously about that (and looking at the edit, the information he removed is well sourced). Partial blocked from the article. He can still use the talkpage. Black Kite (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
    • @Black Kite: Is there a reason why Jeastman, who is editing John C. Eastman, and who at least based on this seems to be therefore be indicating they claim to be Eastman, isn't a {{Uw-ublock-wellknown}} case? - The Bushranger One ping only 02:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
      • I believe they have identified themselves through UTRS. Let me see if I can find it. Black Kite (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
        • Mmm. Can't find anything, not sure why I thought that. They've been editing the page for ten years with personal info, so I strongly suspect they are, but I suppose technically you are correct. They've posted an unblock request, btw. Black Kite (talk) 02:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
          • I've delined the unblock request. Says "new to this" yet was warned about COI more than five years ago. He can use the talk page to challenge inaccuracies and suggest improvements. Mjroots (talk) 07:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
          • Considering everything (and more caffinated than I was last night), at this point given 'time in service' I probably wouldn't block for that as such, but if a full block occurs for any other reason I wouldn't unblock without a UTRS ticket. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
            • OTRS, not UTRS. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
              • It's one of those TRSes! Thanks. I've dropped a note based on the -wellknown template on their page; if it needs refinement by all means please do so. Probably don't need a full template for Twinkle for this since I can't see "-wellknown, but not blocked" happening TOO often... - The Bushranger One ping only 18:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Request for revdelEdit

DONE
RevDel carried out. (non-admin closure) Sdrqaz (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, sorry if this is not the right place to ask. Could you please revdel [22] and [23] per RD2? Thanks in advance! --PercyMM (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Done. Thank you, PercyMM. Bishonen | tålk 20:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC).

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

Britannica blacklisted?Edit

I just tried to link to a Britannica search result, to illustrate usage of a particular term, and was prevented from doing so by the spam blacklist. Why? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks like the link was https://www.britannica.com/search?query=British+Empire. The error-message says "it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist." I don't see it at MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, but I do see it at meta:Spam blacklist. So thanks for finding something that should be adjusted in MediaWiki:Spamprotectiontext. DMacks (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
@DMacks: I have updated the text to Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist or Wikimedia's global blacklist (wikilink'd). We may also want to consider the addition of a link to https://searchsbl.toolforge.org/index.pl?userdeflang=en&userdefproj=w so people can run a search. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, thanks! I did not know about that other tool--it fills a need I occasionally have. DMacks (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
WAG-ing, it'd be because back in the day people tried to use Britannica as a reference a lot, and as it's an encyclopedia itself, that's a no-no. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Added 7 September 2018 by User:Billinghurst, pointing to this comment as being spambot'ed. DMacks (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
(ec) I don't know what WAG-ing means. Many articles use Britannica links for references, it appears to be only search results that are blacklisted. DuncanHill (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
See last entry at WAG#Other uses. DMacks (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with The Bushranger's point about not using Britannica as a source... Its articles are curated, reviewed and published, so not sure what would be inadmissible about that. It's a tertiary source rather than a primary or secondary, but I've never heard of that being disallowed and I do cite it myself sometimes in conjunction with other things. So that's news to me, but happy to be corrected. Re the OP question, I think linking to a page of Britannica search results rather than a particular page, is more questionable. Sounds like OR if nobody else has published coverage of that set of search results before... I haven't looked into the precise context though.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Surely we encourage citing encycopedias and discourage citing primary sources (but people cite them anyway). I guess this is the search which is a problem here, not the Britannica itself.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
(ec) The context is a discussion on a talk page about the capitalisation of "British Empire". I wanted to shew what another well-known encyclopaedia does. DuncanHill (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Might I suggest that it is just the search that is blocked,and not the articles themselves such as this Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 22:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, as I said above it appears to be only search results. I didn't want to link to each usage of "British Empire" in Britannica, but I did want to shew it being used in a variety of contexts. DuncanHill (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  Comment: Only search results are blacklisted as they are (prolific) spam targets by spambots across all our wikis where the bots have some legitimate links among the spam, presumably as a credibility attempt. If you want to give them a link, then just nowiki the link and tell them to search it, that it is not active should not matter for your use. Oh also noting that general search results in citations are problematic; compared to specific direct citation links.— billinghurst sDrewth 23:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  • I ran into this recently while updating Module:Biglist. You can see what I did to make a search link work, based on the source template, Template:Search. --Izno (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: There is your answer {{search|British Empire|long=y}}

and point them at the "eb" link. Or just copy the "eb" link and use that alone. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

      • @Amakuru: I know of one entry where a persistent sock got their fringe view added to a Britannica article. Doug Weller talk 10:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Like The Bushranger I had always thought that using another encyclopaedia was frowned upon, even though I do sometimes use them as references. But I see that Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources says "Reputable tertiary sources, such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited." CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Huh, well then I suppose I sit corrected! - The Bushranger One ping only 19:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I think it may have been something Jimbo said. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-custom-editnoticeEdit

Edit request handled. — The Earwig talk 07:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I want to submit edit request for this interface page, however ns9 doesn't appear to be watched by many users, so I thought should I bring the edit request to this page? Or should I ask on the talk page? 54nd60x (talk) 01:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Submit an edit request with the usual mechanism. There are templates/categories that do track it. --Izno (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
      Comment: @54nd60x: where you wish for the edit on any protected page it should be tagged {{editprotected}} and someone will see it. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Promotional account Mir areiba ashrafEdit

She is advertising her book [24] [25] and herself on pulwama page her userpage itself is promotional[26] please do something about it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.106.197.170 (talk) 14:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Mir areiba ashraf (talk · contribs) has not posted since September. Their userpage was deleted for self-promotion and their edits have already been reverted. Z1720 (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet IP for Evelynkwapong539Edit

The user history of this IP address https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2.25.166.100 seems very similar in tone to User:Evelynkwapong539, who has sock puppeted twice as User:Kof4490 and User:Memeacus. Just thought I'd bring this to light since they've been a constant editor over at Looney Tunes Cartoons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons&diff=prev&oldid=1002199701 <-- This edit inn particular gave me a threat, which I know is definitely not allowed here.

Noelephant (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

This behavior suggests possible block evasion by User:Evelynkwapong539. Noticing their extensive filter log, removal of references and personal attacks in edit summaries I've blocked for one month. Also semiprotected two of the affected articles. EdJohnston (talk) 03:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Please close this pseudo-RM RfC opened shortly after ongoing RM...Edit

May as well close for quicker archiving. See my statement at the bottom of this report for detail on the action taken. El_C 17:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol#RfC_to_gain_consensus_for_a_follow-on_Wikipedia:RM
involved editor: Casprings
...as it's counter to WP:RFCNOT, acts as a simultaneous (quasi-)RM so it's also counter to WP:RMCM ("Do not create a new move request..."). It contains a dubious promise of a future RM and consensus but it can't build up relevant consensus to compete with the more popular RM which will be much more determinative or effective. The user who started it seems to have a negativist view of the current RM and appears to think that it will somehow be skipped over. — Alalch Emis 02:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
IMO this whole process of choosing the best name for the article has spun out of control and someone should take decisive action one way or another. soibangla (talk) 02:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I think closing the RfC would be an amazing start. — Alalch Emis 02:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree that the process has spun out of control. It seems like nothing productive is happening with the article, just these RFCs over the naming. When one RFC is closed, another opens up. Nitpicking over exactly which word to use, whether or not to use the year ... back and forth ... back and forth. I think we need intervention to discourage a new RFC the nano-second a current RFC is closed. — Maile (talk) 02:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The RFC is the most productive thing going on the talk page. Why close it? More importantly, I don't think this an issue where I went against any policy nor do I think there is consensus to close on the talk page.Casprings (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I would note, I used the RFC to do what an RFC is meant to do. Build consensus when there are multiple different opinions among a lot of editors. The discussion needed to be shaped in a clear way so we could come up with one title for a future move request.Casprings (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
What not to use the RfC process for – ... Renaming pages (other than categories); Follow the procedures described at Moving a page or Requested movesAlalch Emis 03:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
If I understand what Casprings is saying, there would need to be a definitive agreement as to what name to move a page to, before that part could happen. And I believe Casprings is saying hey are trying to narrow it down to get to that point. — Maile (talk) 04:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Doing what you described is also what RM process is for, i mean it's in WP:RMCMAlalch Emis 04:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
There should not be two concurrent requests to move the page running at the same time. I have closed the request for being inappropriate. One can propose whatever parameters they see fit within the existing RM. Some more detail in my closing summary (diff). El_C 04:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BacklogEdit

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.--Moxy 🍁 09:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Ongoing_issues_with_PragerU_pageEdit

On 7 January, Noteduck filed a Request for Arbitration concerning a multi-part dispute about PragerU. The arbitrators and others expressed the opinion that this was a content dispute, and that content dispute resolution remedies had not been exhausted. I offered to attempt to moderated discussion at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. ArbCom then dismissed the request for arbitration, and Noteduck filed a request for dispute resolution at DRN. This is a report on that dispute resolution. After discussion, I determined that the filing party wished to add six paragraphs to the article, and that the other parties disagreed with the additions. One of the other editors has expressed a concern that the sources are unreliable. I determined that a Request for Comments was in order. I have stated that the parties should discuss reliability of the sources in the RFC, and the community can resolve the question of reliability of the sources. Concerns were expressed about editor behavior; I collapsed those concerns, because DRN is a content forum, and resolution of content issues often ameliorates behavioral issues.

A Request for Comments with six parts has now been posted at Talk:PragerU at [[27]], and should run for thirty days. I think that none of the editors are entirely happy, and that none of the editors are entirely unhappy, and that is a satisfactory result. The RFC should then be closed by an experienced uninvolved editor. Any arbitrators or administrators can watch the RFC. I think that this should satisfy the ArbCom.

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't pity whomever is tasked with closing this 28K monster RfC! Kudos, Robert McClenon, for drafting it. That is quite a feat. Though I worry that each disparate part could end up derailing the request, at the same time, with proper monitoring (not volunteering!), there's no reason why it can't be kept fairly coherent and cohesive. El_C 16:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
It should be capable of being closed as six separate RFCs. Most of the work that I did in mediating consisted of telling the participants to Be Specific at DRN so that it could be organized into chunks. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I can't promise I'll be around to monitor it, but I can volunteer to close when the time comes. I'll add it to my calendar, but feel free to ping me when the time comes as well. Thanks Robert for your work on this! Wug·a·po·des 20:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Subtle vandalism targeting relatively novel RM methodEdit

The offending post: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol&type=revision&diff=1002760949&oldid=1002760426
Involved user: Chrisahn
This is the third or fourth time this user posts negativist comments under the heading of a technical section where comments are not meant to be posted. The user is opposed to the table tally method but instead of participating in the relevant meta-discussion where his concerns could be met with counterarguments or conceded to, he repeatedly targets this area and will not accept that, like everyone else's, his voice in matters of process belongs below the table. He appears to want to sow distrust in the process, instead of making it better. :"No consensus on the table" is a red herring. There needs not be prior consensus for every technical point of process. Rationale for the table is WP:NOGOODOPTIONS, and there are precedents for it's usage. Many administrators have seen the table and put their names in. This sort of discontent and obstruction is only coming from him, but there is a tendency for other people to reply in that area. Apart for this problem the RM is working just fine.
Proposed soluton: discretionary sanction to affirm that users shall not add comments in the area between the table section heading and the table itself, and that the content of this area is not to be changed. — Alalch Emis 23:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Additon: my comment preceding his can be deleted. I only put it in to appease him and make him stop this subtle form of vandalism, but he latches onto the technicality of me posting there to post there himself. The original form of the instruction was just the first paragraph by Octoberwoodland. It might as well be that that was the best look for this area. — Alalch Emis 23:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
This is the rationale for my post in the abovementioned area. These extra instructions were an attempt to constructively react to his earlier post, same as the offending post above. — Alalch Emis 23:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I think users should never add others' names to the table. Your instructions explain how and when to add others' names. That's rather the opposite of my intention and thus not very constructive. More details in my response to that rationale. — Chrisahn (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Here's what I added at the top of that table (below Alalch's stuff): "Note that there is no consensus on what to do with this table. Some contributors think that users should not add others' names to this table, and some think the table should be deleted entirely."
Here's what others have said about that table: Berchanhimez wrote: "the table could potentially be manipulated by someone who wants to show more/less support/opposition for something, because I don't think most people are going to be checking, and many may not even add their name to begin with." VQuakr wrote: "We have a table that represents a mix of votes and user names added to sections against their wishes. It should be tossed because it is not and will not be usable for anything." Somedifferentstuff wrote: "the fact that names were added to the table by other users is hilariously depressing." Robertiki wrote: "This table should me removed, because it implies that we have a vote instead of striving to reach a consensus."
I think Alalch didn't realize that this table idea in general and adding others' names in particular was rather contested, and that such voting tables are usually not what we do. I had previously suggested that Alalch shift down a gear and remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, but I obviously failed to get through. — Chrisahn (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
It was (past tense, doesn't seem actively contested anymore except by you) contested but it was discussed. What you fail to understand that the way forward is not obstruction and sowing of distrust but continuing the discussion using logical arguments. — Alalch Emis 23:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
@Alalch Emis: you should carefully read WP:VANDNOT and the instructions in the header at WP:ANI before posting to AN or ANI again. Basically any form of dispute resolution would be preferable here, and a sanction for someone not following your instructions on where you think they should post to a talk page is obviously not going to happen. VQuakr (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I won't take that advice, thanks. I'll only take the resolution of this issue by an acting admin. Those instructions aren't my original invention but a paraphrase of the outcome of existing relevant discussion, and I only added them as attempt to appease Chrisahn. I can remove those instructions any time (not Octoberwoodland's, those are the part of the default setup taht was used before and is backed by precedent) but the problem of Chrisahn's subtle form of vandalism remains. The instructions are litrelly there to ameliorate Chrsiahn's negativist attitude, and as soon as he stops unilaterally posting there, everyone else will stop too. — Alalch Emis 00:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:VANDNOT Chrisahn's behavior is analogous to template vandalism except we are not dealing with a formal template but a precedent-based tally method, an informal template of sorts, that might as well become a formal entity. — Alalch Emis 00:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)