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.

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.

Noticeboard archives

Open tasksEdit

XFD backlog
  Nov Dec Jan Feb TOTAL
CfD 7 8 49 97 161
TfD 0 0 0 15 15
MfD 0 0 0 1 1
FfD 0 0 2 3 5
AfD 0 0 0 39 39
Other administrative tasks

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protectionEdit

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (10 out of 1944 total) (Purge)
Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
Ryan Newman (racing driver) 2020-02-18 01:11 2020-02-18 13:11 edit,move Persistent vandalism: Vandalism due to uncertain status after wreck at end of Daytona 500 BigrTex
Gadabuursi 2020-02-17 21:54 2022-02-17 21:54 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of unsourced material. Yamaguchi先生
Haifa 2020-02-17 01:30 indefinite edit,move New editors are prohibited from editing this Arab–Israeli conflict related page El C
Chris Santos (actor) 2020-02-16 20:03 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Mkdw
Template:Anonwelcome 2020-02-16 15:51 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing El C
User:Hurricane Noah 2020-02-14 22:39 indefinite edit user request within own user space Hurricanehink
INTV (Baru) 2020-02-14 22:25 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BDD
Jaggi Vasudev 2020-02-14 21:52 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: Up, extend protection: suspected paid editing or editing by Isha Foundation members El C
Buhoodle District 2020-02-14 20:32 2022-02-14 20:32 edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of unsourced material. Yamaguchi先生
Draft:Taio Pain 2020-02-14 16:53 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated ST47

Twinkle and speediesEdit

Looking at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth, it seems to me that perhaps we should ask the Twinkle devs to change the default for TW/CSD to "tag only" unless there's an existing CSD template. We should probably not summarily delete by default - there's no reason not to invite a second admin to review before an article is nuked, especially since we could simply uncheck the delete box for egregious cases such as attack pages. Guy (help!) 01:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

We just had a discussion about this topic at WT:CSD, for which there was no consensus for such a thing (if not consensus against the idea). --Izno (talk) 02:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Izno, consensus there is that an admin is allowed to delete without tagging. That doesn't answer the question: is it a good idea, and certainly not the question: should it be the default. Best practice should be that no article is nuked without two sets of eyes, unless it's blindingly obvious, abuse cleanup or whatever. Guy (help!) 11:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Changing the Twinkle default on this is an excellent idea. While tagging should not be required (as I also said at WT:CSD), our standard tool should encourage it. —Kusma (t·c) 22:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Sometimes an admin does need to delete immediately, but for most of what almost all admins do, two people should deal with a deletion. So this change is a very good idea.-- DGG ( talk ) 01:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I often tag untagged CSD candidates rather than deleting myself. (depends) This is not a bad idea.-- Deepfriedokra 01:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Agree. It's not like an extra click to insta-delete is that much of a hardship. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I am a firm believer in the 4 eyes principle in most cases, but as both DDG and Guy have noted, there can be exceptions, notably attack pages which should be removed as quickly as possible. I actually adopt a standard a little stronger than "blindingly obvious". I do a lot of copyright work, and I think I could argue that a brand-new article which is a 100% match to the "about us" section of a corporation's page constitutes blindingly obvious, but I still tag that, rather than delete that. (If somebody else has already tagged it, I will delete.) I think it's worth that to have another admin take a look. However, attack pages ought to be removed as soon as possible, and I vaguely recall I deleted something that was millions of bytes on the assumption that it would clog up the works to have it sitting around very long. The problem with removing the delete button may make it difficult to deal with those exceptions. I'll offer an alternative — if the article doesn't already have a CSD template, clicking on delete pops up a message saying something like "it is generally considered a best practice to allow two admins to take a look at an article before deleting. Does this constitute an acceptable exception?". I trust admins to make that assessment, and the purpose of the pop-up is to make sure someone working quickly doesn't accidentally delete something when they intended to tag it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
No one (that I've seen) is suggesting we remove the ability for a sysop to delete in Twinkle. Only that the default behavior would be for tag when a sysop goes into Twinkle (except if there is an existing tag). Which I would definitely support. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep49, exactly Guy (help!) 19:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Take this with a grain of salt, but speaking not as the dev but as a user, I'd be against it. If sysops are abusing/misusing CSD policy, that should be dealt with swiftly, but in general part of being a sysop is being trusted not to do that. ~ Amory (utc) 11:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Just want to chime in here and say this is quite doable, but I'd prefer to see a little more consensus or discussion here before I write it up and make the change. There's a Twinkle preference option to default to tagging, but only 40-50 sysops have turned it on, so this would affect a lot of people. ~ Amory (utc) 11:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, I think the default should be tagging. I'm not sure when the default is delete, if the page creator is notified about the deletion. One problematic admin behavior is deleting pages without notifications to the page creator which happens more than it should and often results in complaints or confusion. But this might be happening outside of Twinkle, when pages are deleted through the Page pull down menu. Liz Read! Talk! 06:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm happy either way provided the option remains. It's useful to choose to default to deletion rather than tagging when working through G13 candidates. --kingboyk (talk) 06:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I think having the default set to tag (if there is no tag already) is a very good one. Yes there are exceptions (attack pages being one), but they are just that: exceptions. They're less common than cases where there is no urgency to remove the content ("speedy" means that discussion may be bypassed, not that it must be deleted quickly) and encouraging review is a Good Thing. Thryduulf (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Not an admin, so I can't see what the admin version of the Twinkle prefs looks like, but how about using something like the set of checkboxes we have for "welcome page creator," "notify page creator," etc., but have it set whether you (by default) tag or summarily delete? That way, we could default to summary deletions for pages which need to go away quickly (attack pages), but also default to tagging for less-problematic pages (A7s). creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 16:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
This is what it is now – the default for sysops is delete, but users can opt to default to tag instead. About 40-50 have done so. ~ Amory (utc) 19:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I often delete things outright, but I also often just tag them, with the idea that a second pair of eyes can't hurt. I have noted that there are some people who insist that nothing should ever be speedied without being tagged first. I don't think I'd go that far. There is a "Default to speedy tagging instead of outright deletion" option in Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences, and I've got it checked. Hmm, I just noticed there's also a "Keep a log in userspace of all CSD nominations" option, which I previously had unchecked and just checked it. Transparency is a good thing. On the other hand, I often don't bother with Twinkle, I just do Page/Delete, which bypasses both of these. Given that I just turned on logging, however, I'm thinking I should stick to the Twinkle method from here on. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
I unilaterally delete G3s, G10s and G12s if I am absolutely convinced they meet the criteria, although usually I'm addressing somebody else tagging them. For everything else, I tag for a second opinion. Or, basically what DGG said. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
I concur with the general consensus above that 4 eyes are better than 2 and the absence of default-delete functionality is a useful speed bump for those of us that do not do a lot of deletions of articles. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Although I agree that for some things it is better that 2 pairs of eyes go through it, even without twinkle or other scripts, we can just bluntly delete pages manually (without twinkle). I do believe that we do/should not need to make this as a rule (we are not a bureaucracy) and a deletion is not necessarily a final end to stuff - we have DRV, or a second admin eyeballing the content and discussing will also do. We have rather strict rules for what is allowed to be deleted under our speedy deletion criteria - if you believe that you are edging on these criteria, you tag, if you are further away from the criteria you AfD it. The rest is a speedy for which a second pair of eyes should not be needed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Technical specification of proposed changeEdit

Per consensus above, the proposed change will do the following:

  • The TWPREF option "Default to speedy tagging instead of outright deletion" will be turned on by default. Presently its off by default.
  • For pages with a speedy tag on them, TW will default to deleting, regardless of the TWPREF option.
  • For pages without a speedy tag on them, TW will default to either tagging or deletion depending on the TWPREF option.
    • In both cases, you can choose to perform the non-default action using a checkbox or by switching a radio button.
  • To avoid any confusion/errors, the "Submit query" button will be renamed "Tag page" or "Delete page" depending on what action you're about to perform.

Is this fine with everyone? SD0001 (talk) 12:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

  • It's fine by me, although I'm not a Twinkle user. Given the consensus above for a change and the lack of any comment here in several days, I'd say that this is most likely fine with everyone. Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Looks good to me. Let's make it happen. Buffs (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Unblock request from User:Ear-phoneEdit

Ear-phone (talk · contribs)'s standard offer appeal is accepted. I read opposing comments based on supposed logged-out edits, which cannot be confirmed and which a checkuser has reported should be removed from consideration of this appeal. Comments following Bbb23's clarification have been unanimously in support. Furthermore appeals normally run for 24 hours while this one has been sitting idle nearly three weeks.
I will suggest to Ear-phone that they should conduct themselves as though they are restricted to a single account, and forbidden from editing while logged out. However, no conditions were suggested by the community in this discussion so this is my personal recommendation, and will not be logged as a restriction.
--Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi all,

We have received this unblock request from user Ear-phone via UTRS. I'm going to copy and paste the unblock request from UTRS below so those without access can see it.

"Why do you believe you should be unblocked?

I was blocked for being a socket puppet, more than a year ago. I was asked to apply for an unblock after six months. I did this and I was unsuccessful. I tried again after one year and I was again unsuccessful because I could not re-word substantially (English is not my first language). As I have said before, I reflected on my actions and understood it was wrong to be a socket puppet. I pledged and pledge to use only one account to edit and contribute positively.

If you are unblocked, what articles do you intend to edit?

Articles related to my interests, mainly science-related including biographies of scientists.

Why do you think there is a block currently affecting you? If you believe it's in error, tell us how.

In my view, the block was warranted but unfairly long. I have openly admitted to using socks in the past. I have mentioned that I will not use them again and will contribute constructively as I have now read the guidelines. The block has the effect of denying me voluntary participation in a worthwhile global movement.

Is there anything else you would like us to consider when reviewing your block?

Justice and fairness. English not being a primary language - therefore a limited ability to convey and re-word sentences."

I emailed Bbb23 regarding this as they're the blocking administrator. A CU check was ran and Bbb23 found some obvious logged out edits by the user and some less obvious ones. Bbb23 has said as far as they're concerned that would preclude an unblock. However, if we overlook the logged out edits they would permit an unblock after a community discussion. Bbb23 found another possible sock of User:Lucas-O'D but was reluctant to confirm the account as there's only 2 edits, the medical stuff Ear-phone is more interested in is African related and they don't think it's the same style.

Would the community be willing to accept an unblock?

I'm going to give them TPA again to allow them to respond to any questions here if someone would like to add that to their watchlist so any answers can be copied and pasted.-- 5 albert square (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose unblocking I'm glad to see that they want to turn over a new leaf and edit constructively, but part of being a constructive editor is in respecting the policies and practices of the editing community, including the sockpuppetry policy and blocking policy, which prohibit IP editing while blocked. If this user can stay away from Wikipedia without socking or IP editing for 6 months, I think that they would be a perfect candidate for the standard offer. (Non-administrator comment) OhKayeSierra (talk) 05:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose unblocking I am usually well disposed towards unblock requests for editors blocked long ago who promise not to do again what led to their being blocked. Over the years I have far more often found myself to be in a minority (not infrequently a minority of one) in supporting an unblock in this kind of situation, while others oppose, than the other way round. However, this time there are several things which give me pause. In connection with previous unblock requests, the editor lied about what sockpuppet accounts they had used. (That was clear from reading the editing history, and also confirmed by a CheckUser.) The editor is now denying any further block-evasion, but Bbb23 has "found some obvious logged out edits by the user". Why should we unblock an editor who is known to have been lying about their block-evasion for over a year, and is known to be still lying? At the very least I would want the editor to come clean now about their dishonesty in the past and recently before considering an unblock. Unless they can produce a pretty convincing explanation I am inclined to agree with OhKayeSierra, who suggests a standard offer if the editor can keep off block-evasion for 6 months. I also agree with Bbb23, who has said that as far as they're concerned the IP block-evasion would preclude an unblock. (I can see no reason why a community discussion might "overlook the logged out edits".) As for Lucas-O'D, I'm not sure. Bbb23 rightly points out that there are differences, but there are similarities too. With only two edits there is not much to go on to judge either way, so probably we should not attach much weight to that account, in view of the doubt. JBW (talk) 10:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • (Incidentally, the comments above about an unblock request being unsuccessful "because I could not re-word substantially (English is not my first language)" and "English not being a primary language - therefore a limited ability to convey and re-word sentences" are missing the point. The rquested change of the unblock request was about substantially rewriting it because it did not address the reasons for the block, not, as Ear-phone apparently thinks, about rewording sentences so as to improve the English. JBW (talk) 10:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC))
  • If these logged out edits were made in the last 90 days (from the tracked IP logs) then I'd be an oppose. If they were determined by the current IP against IP-edits made more than six months ago, then I might be a weak support. Are CUs only run off the last 90 days, or can account/IP checking be done on a longer timescale? Nosebagbear (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
CheckUser data is kept for only 3 months. I suppose it would be possible for a CheckUser to check an account's current IP address for edits from longer ago, but even if a CheckUser did so, it would provide no technical evidence of its being the same editor beyond being the same IP address, and I wouldn't have expected Bbb23's reference to "obvious logged out edits by the user" to be based on no more than just the IP address. However, Bbb23 may like to clarify that issue in response to Nosebagbear's query. JBW (talk) 11:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I suspect you're right, @JBW:, not least because the CU tool is apparently particularly clunky, even by wiki standards, and I've not heard a mention of its ability to compare current IP data in the logs and IP data that's only associated with non-account edits (but has left the stored logs as too old). Nosebagbear (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
If you say obvious logged out edits. I give my consent for the IP addresses to be released in public so that the community can see for themselves and verify. I categorically did not edit Wikipedia. I did not lie and I addressed that previously. Ear-phone (talk) 11:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
@Ear-phone: - I, and pretty much the entire community, are happy to accept a CU's statement on these matters - I can't see any benefit in you releasing private information onto the site, it was just a request for clarification. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
CheckUser policy permits me to disclose IPs "With the permission of the affected user". I have never done so and find myself strongly rebelling against doing it now. I believe the community should exclude the obvious logged out edits. The only thing that gives me pause is Ear-phone's categorical denial, but it's possible Ear-phone has forgotten or thinks I'm referring to something else. As for the non-obvious edits, the IP edited a non-medical, science article. Finally, another thing that makes this tough from a technical perspective is Ear-phone's very common user agent.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Ear-phone has qualified their denial of editing logged out on their Talk page: "I did not edit Wikipedia when logged out or logged in (besides my talk page)." I tend to be very skeptical about what socks say, but in this instance, without endorsing an unblock, I urge the community to treat Ear-phone's unblock request based only on their reasons and history, and assume that they have not socked in the 90 days before my check.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
My understanding since the orientation is that we're not allowed to disclose an account's IP address, even with permission from the accountholder, because the local policy differs from the global policy and overrides it in this aspect. I was told that by someone (don't recall who) but I don't see that wording in the policy as of right now. Personally I also would not reveal it from the user's private data even by their request, but also it's very obvious to anyone who looks at Ear-phone's talk page history (I did not run a check). I wouldn't consider those edits to be a violation of the policy. I don't have an opinion on what else you might have seen, though. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support unblocking - I feel that we should take the user's word for it. CheckUser has been proven to be inaccurate before, and this could easily be one of those instances. Foxnpichu (talk) 15:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
It's not. The results require interpretation, but they're not wrong. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support unblocking the editor said that they are not going to use sockpuppets again and has appealed twice but got denied. I think the time this editor has spinned blocked is enough "punishment" for the sockpuppetery they did. Indefinite block is really too much.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Is there any decision on this yet?-- 5 albert square (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Bbb23 has given their permission for us to make a decision-- 5 albert square (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
So... are we going to wait a while before closing or what? Foxnpichu (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support unblock I am not an admin, so I appreciate I do not get a vote per se, but I'd like to add a note of support here. On the matter of block evasion, I have worked closely with the user on several wikipedia-related projects during the period of their block and they have been extremely conscientious about not editing during that time, and have clearly stated so when the topic has arisen (e.g. when other users have asked him to make an edit without realising his block status). From my observation of their off-wiki activity, they have been remarkably strict in sticking to the terms of the block, whilst remaining supportive of the movement off-wiki with an intention to eventually return to official good standing in the on-wiki community. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 11:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
@Evolution and evolvability: this is the noticeboard for issues requiring administrator attention, but it's not off-limits to non-administrators. Unblock appeals like this one are put to a discussion among the community, not just admins, so your opinion here is most welcome. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
I am copying the below from Ear-phone's talk page-- 5 albert square (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
I accidentally made logged out edits on my talk page on 8th December 2019 I am noticing now that it looks like I am continuing to edit Wikipedia in violation of my block, given the 2nd February 2020 edit. Besides the 8th December 2019 edits, the rest are not from me. There must be some mistake somewhere. Ear-phone (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support unblock per standard offers Buffs (talk) 18:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Appeal of Arbitration Enforcement SanctionEdit

There is a consensus to accept the santion appeal request. The sanction placed on Rusf10 relating to administrative reports is overturned. --qedk (t c) 19:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On January 6, 2020 user:Johnuniq placed me under a [1] that prevents me from filing "frivolous" reports at administrative notice boards. The full text of that sanction is If Rusf10 initiates an administrative report against another user in the topic area and that report is dismissed with a result of "no action" or "no violation", or otherwise deemed frivolous, a 1-month topic ban from the topic area may be imposed at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. This applies to reports filed at WP:AN, WP:AN/I, WP:AN/EW, and WP:AE. and resulted from the the discussion [2] after I filed a report against user:BullRangifer for attacking my competence.

I am filing this appeal for several reasons: 1. Several administrators claimed that the reports I made against BullRangifer were "vexatious" and "frivolous", but this cannot be further from the truth. In fact, don't take my word for it, in all instances that I filed an AE request against BullRangifer (including this one), the administrators found his behavior to be inappropriate and issued him warnings.

  • July 20, 2018 BullRangifer is warned that if they persist in making personal attacks and treating Wikipedia as a battleground, they may be topic-banned from the American politics topic area or made subject to other sanctions
  • March 13, 2019 The comment was clearly inappropriate, especially given the previous warning. BullRangifer has struck the comment and apologised and so I am closing this with no action, but this is thin ice being skated.
  • April 24, 2019 Awilley has applied some specific sanctions to both editors involved. Additionally, everyone involved (and specifically Rusf10 and BullRangifer) is reminded that wikipedia is not a battleground, nor a forum for discussing politics, but a place where we summarise the world's knowledge as we find it in reliable sources.
  • January 6, 2020 BullRangifer is warned that he must not speculate about the competence of other users in discussions regarding a topic under discretionary sanctions.

How is it that every single time I bring a complaint about BullRangier, he is issued a warning, but I am told the complaint was frivolous? How is it possible for a frivolous complaint to result in a warning? After four warnings, you would think some type of actual sanction would be imposed on BullRangifer, but this is not the case. Instead, the admins at AE have sanctioned me and given him multiple meaningless warnings that have done nothing to correct his behavior.

2. The sanction I was given is both unprecedented and purely punitive. To my knowledge, the arbitration committee itself has never imposed such a sanction on any other editor designed to silence him on noticeboards. The sanction imposed on me does absolutely nothing except open me to further personal attacks in AP2 because I cannot bring any complaints for fear they will be deemed "frivolous" regardless of whether they really are or not.

3. The sanction is overly vague. It states I will be topic banned if the "report is dismissed with a result of "no action" or "no violation", or otherwise deemed frivolous". With this language, even if a sanction is imposed on the editor I reported, the admins can still deem the report to be frivolous and put me under a topic ban. I have no way of knowing what is considered a "frivolous" report and am in effect banned from filing any reports for fear of administrative retribution.

In conclusion, I believe the admins have imposed a double standard here excusing BullRangifer's behavior despite recognizing it was inappropriate and sanctioning me for reporting it. It is inexplicable to aknowledge that the sbustance of my complaint has merit and at the same time tell me that it is "frivolous" and "vexatious". --Rusf10 (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Statement by JohnuniqEdit

Following is an extract from my comments at WP:AE permalink:

  • My view is that some sanction against Rusf10 is warranted given these events on 21 December 2019:
Rusf10's other AfD nominations before and after the above were on 10 December 2019 and 26 December 2019. That is too blatant to ignore for a topic under discretionary sanctions.

The point of the above is that BullRangifer's inappropriate response (now struck here) was calling out Rusf10's pointy AfD nomination—that is why administrators issued a warning to BullRangifer rather than a stronger sanction. No one knows what is in the mind of another editor so words like "vexatious" or "frivolous" mean that actions appear to have those qualities. A basic principle is that if someone's (BullRangifer) behaviour is so bad, another editor will notice and report the problem. Rusf10 should only report problems if sure that there are no extenuating circumstances such as the above. Johnuniq (talk) 06:04, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

  • (na) I agree with most of that and I'd agree with all of it if BullRangifer's comments had been made somewhere other than on Rusf10's talk page. If it was on an article talk page, or ANI, or Jimbo's talk then yes, absolutely, other editors could and should take note of the personal attacks. But on the user's talk page I don't think it's safe to assume anyone other than the target and the writer of the personal attacks will see them in a timely manner. It would set the precedent that someone under a topic ban has to sit still and take insults levelled at them on their own talk page without being allowed to say or do a thing about it. Reyk YO! 06:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (AE sanction appeal)Edit

  • Overturn – It's a logical contradiction. If Rusf's AE report appeared frivolous or vexatious, then why did it result in a warning against the reported user (and in near-unanimous agreement that the reported conduct was inappropriate)? On the other hand, if Rusf's AE report did not appear frivolous or vexatious, then why did it result in a restriction against Rusf? As was pointed out in the AE thread by some, it just can't be both. A valid report cannot be a frivolous or vexatious report–they are mutually-exclusive concepts. Levivich 04:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • This is so vague as to be unenforceable. Many AE actions are closed as no action, just because admins don't do anything and the time expires or the diffs become stale. Forget about the ones about vexatious or frivolous. Regardless, while again, AE and ARBCOM area isn't a court, AE operates under ARBCOM guidelines and need to be a bit higher than general guidelines and sanctions, and we can't have restrictions that are extremely vague. I also echo Levivich's remarks as to how the original AE action be considered frivolous. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Rusf10 is gaming the system by nominating an opponent's page for deletion, then stonewalling when people complain about it, then reporting the opponent when they react unwisely. That has happened twice that I know about. See my comment above for the most recent case. In July 2018, BullRangifer criticized Rusf10 which led to a revenge MfD 73 minutes later: permalink. BullRangifer would be sanctioned for their comments if they were not preceded by such blatant point violations. Discretionary sanctions are vague by definition—there is no precise specification for what an editor can get away with. Johnuniq (talk) 09:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
      • @Johnuniq:I am not gaming the system, the system is broken. In what system does a person get repeated warnings (at least 4 by my count) and not get sanctioned??? A more accurate summary of events is that I nominated a page for deletion that was created by another editor (Not BullRangifer) and then BullRangifer comes to my user talk page to attack me over it completely unprovoked. Sanctions are not supposed to be vague. If the goal is to get the person under sanction to comply, then that person should have a clear understanding of what they can and cannot do. Vague sanctions are a trap designed to "game the system" so a person can be punished without a clear understanding of what they did wrong.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
      • The authority for administrators to impose sanctions at their discretion is broad in order to allow for flexibility in managing a difficult area. However it is to everyone's benefit that any actual sanctions imposed under this authority are as precise as practical, to facilitate enforcement. isaacl (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Honestly it looks like BullRangifer has a habit of making personalised remarks, Rusf10 has a habit of battleground editing, and the two of them have some sort of long-running feud. Rusf10 has filed four AE requests against BullRangifer in the space of about 18 months. These seem to be closed with a resolution that BullRangifer's comments were inappropriate but that Rusf10 hasn't behaved perfectly either. In several BullRangifer struck the comments in question and/or apologised, which made the result considerably less severe. It isn't true that none of these requests have resulted in any sanctions against BullRangifer, the April 2019 request resulted in a sanction against making personalised remarks. The particular request here did relate to some extremely blatant harassment by Rusf10 that definitely justifies a sanction in itself. I'm not sure the remedy which was imposed here is the best one but there does seem to be a problem that justifies a sanction. Maybe an interaction ban would be a good idea. Hut 8.5 12:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
    • That's what I don't "get" about this. Rusf has filed four reports against BR. All four resulted in either a warning/sanction against BR, or BR striking the comment. So, which of the four were frivolous or vexatious? None of them were. If they resulted in warnings/sanctions/striking, then they were obviously valid reports. So why is Rusf restricted from filing "frivolous" or "vexatious" reports, since he apparently has never done that before? Also, the gap between filings #3 and #4 was 10 months, so it's not really a repeated/ongoing thing; that's a big gap. It seems to be that Rusf, like SashiRolls not too long ago, is being sanctioned for doing something that they did not actually do (or did not do recently). I would encourage both those editors to appeal their sanction to arbcom; both cases seem to me to be total failures of basic procedural fairness. Levivich 19:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
      • @Levivich:I'd rather not drag this out into an arbcom case if possible. That's why I am appealing here. I have lost all faith in the group of admins that frequent AE, but I do believe that the greater community can do the right thing and rescind the sanction here at AN. I think there is a larger issue of whether AE even accomplishes its intended purpose (particularly in AP2) or if its just used as a tool for biased admins to rig the system. Though it has not been updated recently, there is documentation of this bias at AE here My purpose here is specifically to appeal my sanction, but the larger issue probably should come before arbcom at some point.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
        Rusf10, unfortunately, the way the rules are written, nobody can take the larger issue before arbcom except for a sanctioned editor. So would one of you kindly martyr yourselves for the good of the rest of us, please? :-) I would do it myself, but while I have some good ideas for how to get properly sanctioned, I'm not quite sure how to get myself improperly sanctioned so that I can appeal it. Thanks, btw, for that link–very interesting research. Levivich 20:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
        I certainly support your request for fairness (4/4), Rusf10. I'm not allowed to comment at AE "requests", so I just watched the latest case quietly while it was going on. Given some recent "visitations" to my TP I've been made to understand I'd better keep my mouth shut if I want to survive until cherry-picking season. There's two prosecutors in that file (which I hadn't looked through recently) with absolutely remarkable 100% conviction rates. One of them is blocked. Good luck.-- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 22:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I am obviously opposed to granting this appeal, but I admire the chutzpah of having reported an editor for calling out one's own blatant WP:HOUNDING behavior. Rusf10 could stand to have one less weapon at their disposal should they decide the engage in WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct again. The zeal to get Bullrangifer sanctioned for the smallest of transgressions is not healthy. - MrX 🖋 20:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse sanction - I don't regularly participate at AE nor did I participate in the discussion which enacted this sanction, but it seems clearly appropriate and had consensus among numerous reviewing administrators. For those who haven't pored through the comments, there was a sense among the participants not that Rusf's complaints have been without merit, but that they have persistently been a disproportionate response to minor slights, and in the most recent case at least they have also been disruptively forumshopped. The complaints are "vexatious" because they have consistently been reports of misbehaviour not meriting any sanction more serious than an apology or warning, and several have been accompanied by obviously retaliatory actions on Rusf's part. It also is resumption of behaviour for which they were previously sanctioned, if I'm reading the comments correctly. The effected sanction is not "overly vague", it is sufficiently broad to give admins the authority to address the problematic behaviour if it recurs. Frankly I would read that discussion as supporting a DS topic ban from AP2, but Johnuniq did not apparently see it that way. The fact that Rusf is here tossing casual insults at "biased admins" suggests they're still not getting the message, and perhaps even stronger sanctions are warranted. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
    • @Ivanvector:There was absolutely no forumshopping on my part. Yes, I brought the complaint to ANI first, but it was promptly closed by an admin who told me I had to bring it to AE. I wasn't even sure if AE was the correct place for this anyway since the issue was on my talkpage, not an article talkpage, which I mentioned when filing at AE, but with the ANI discussion closed so quickly I had no other option. And "biased" is not a insult, but a criticism of certain admins (I will not name them) who frequently show up a AE and defend the behavior of editors who share certain political beliefs with them. Admins should strive to put aside their personal beliefs and look at disputes objectively. Look at the AE discussion, another editor alleged that I was WP:Hounding them without proof and several admins just went along with it. Hounding requires a person to following another editor around to multiple pages. Yet, only one diff ( a single deletion discussion) was ever provided as evidence. I am still waiting for the diffs that provide evidence of hounding since my multiple requests for them have been ignored.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
      • You posted a broken link (you took the Wikipedia link and added "http" to it, which doesn't work; it should be [3]) but here is the text of El C's close: "I guess my advise was not heeded, so I'll make it official. I do not deem the comment in question to constitute a personal attack. AE is a better venue because we don't want AP2 to spillover at ANI. It's too chaotic. If admins at AE have failed to address the issue in question, then that could also be because the requests themselves were not potent enough. Rusf10 is free to relist this as an AE request, but I don't know if it is going to amount to much. Meanwhile we seem to have another dispute going on in this thread that seems to just be a waste of everyone's time and energy. Putting a stop to that. (posted by El_C 23:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC), emphasis added) So, you were told by an uninvolved closing administrator that your complaint was not actionable, that if admins don't act on your requests it's because your complaint merits no action, and that your persistent requests bring drama that is a waste of everyone else's time. In response you made the same request in a different forum anyway, and when you didn't like the result there you decided to try a third venue, this one, albeit with the complaint masked behind a complaint about process. And in your response to me you have again alleged with no basis that administrators have sanctioned you solely because of your political views, not as you have been repeatedly told because of your behaviour. As for hounding, seeing the timeline of you nominating one of your opponent's articles for deletion minutes after getting into a new dispute with them is all the evidence I need to see.
      Frankly the existence of this thread on this page, not to mention your responses in it, suggest that the sanction you're challenging should indeed be overturned, but to a topic ban from the area of dispute, and/or an interaction ban with BullRangifer. I don't see how anything less will limit the disruption. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
      • @Ivanvector:I apologize for the broken link, but what an absurd response. Since when is an appeal ForumShopping????????? Read the appeal process which gives me the option of request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"). I have every right to bring my appeal to this forum. And as for WP:HOUNDING, it defines hounding as Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. (emphasis mine), a single nomination of an article for deletion cannot be hounding by definition.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
        • Personally I would think a strategy in defending an obviously retaliatory AfD nomination in response to a content dispute with someone you're known to be enemies with would not involve wikilawyering the definition of harassment, but here we are. It is not promising that you think there can be any justification for that behaviour, nor that you believe there is a minimum number of incidents that must occur before admins can act on obviously inappropriate conduct. And I see that since my reply above you've again alleged that someone's comment on your vexatious behaviour is due to political ideology, not because you're continuing to be a vexatious litigant. Is it your position that anyone who identifies an issue with your behaviour must be a political opponent? In your mind does it follow that you can do no wrong? Or is there any way that you will hear that your abuse of the noticeboards to win advantages in content disputes is textbook tendentious editing? These complaints and this sanction are about your behaviour, and have nothing to do with your or anyone else's political positions. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
          Ivan, how is you repeatedly accusing Rusf of being a vexatious litigant or making vexatious filings, any different from Rusf accusing admins of being biased? You two are just trading aspersions here, which I suggest is not productive. Levivich 18:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn Given how that last AE went and how vague the sanction is I am not sure there is much other choice. If a sanction is so vague that a reasonable person may not understand it then that is unenforceable. As for the biased admin bit, I can see where they are coming from. When an admin like JzG is pushing for a topic ban of an ideological opponent that is just wrong. PackMecEng (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
It's weird how far the Overton window has moved. I am a centrist. My beef with Rusf10 is not about ideology, it's about vexatious complaints - trying to use Wikipedia processes to gain an advantage in content disputes. The TBAN I was arguing for was, as should be obvious from context, from making reports about BullRangifer. There's ample evidence that this has been a problem, IMO. Guy (help!) 09:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
I am a centrist. are you sure you're not a leftist moderate? --JBL (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Joel B. Lewis, oh I might be, I suppose. Guy (help!) 18:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
You are well known for your red vs blue rants, that does not need explaining.[4] Second when you say Rusf10 TBANned for 1 month from AP2.[5] it seems fairly clear you are trying to TBan them from AP2. Apologies if I missed some context where what you wrote meant TBan from making reports on BullRangifer. PackMecEng (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
@PackMecEng:After reading this, I now see what Guy's problem is and why he is incapable of being neutral. He believes that whatever his views ae must be centrist and everyone else to the right or left of him has some type of fringe view. Problem with this is that there are very few to the left of him and a large number of people to the right. At least in US politics, his starting point is that the "Democratic Party is a centre-right party", meaning that the Republicans must be far-right. He believes the Republican party is run by "white nationalists" and "people who want to go back to the 1950s, when it was fine to be racist". Someone with these views needs to stay the hell away from AP2, especially in any administrative role.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Yeah it is kind of crazy that they were acting as an administrator on a topic that Arbcom warned him not to do.[6] PackMecEng (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
In fairness, take Guy's !vote out of the equation, and there are still a number of admin in favor of the sanction. This wasn't a unilateral admin action by Guy, or by the closer Johnuniq; it was the consensus of a number of admin at AE (though some dissented). To make the case that any one of the supporting admin acted out of political bias requires far more evidence than has been put forward so far; to make the case that all the admin involved were acting out of political bias would take several arbcom cases' worth of evidence. I'm not convinced political bias was an issue. I am convinced that there is a culture at AE that simply does not value procedural fairness (other values are held higher, such as reaching "the right outcome", and efficiency), and that needs adjustment. Levivich 04:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Overall I agree. The bias is a side issue here that can be addressed elsewhere. PackMecEng (talk) 04:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn per PackMecEng and Hut 8.5. I was confused by the close as well, there seemed to be consensus that the reported user's conduct was inappropriate, and I think that the case was closed prematurely. Jdcomix (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn Either the complaint was frivolous or it was justified. If a cross-section of admins at AE find the complain was justified and warn the person against whom it was filed, you cant then turn around to the person who filed it and accuse them of making frivolous complaints. Its outright stupidity. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn per the OP, and more importantly, per the fact that I don't believe we should ever prohibit any editor from filing an administrative complaint in good faith, for fear that it will not be actioned. A result of "no action" or "no violation" is always subjective, and has absolutely no correlation with whether a report was legitimate and made in good faith, and such a result should absolutely never be used to assume bad faith on the part of the reporting user. Worst case scenario, in these situations, the status quo is maintained. There is no disruption to the project. So I don't see why we should use that to justify sanctions. Yes, if an admin complaint is obviously disruptive, unjustifiable, or trolling, that's one thing, but that inherently has nothing to do with an admin report that doesn't get actioned. We're pretty lenient, so equating "no action" to "frivolous report" is actually pretty insane. I'm extremely concerned with any attempt at "chilling" the threshold that users will file admin reports. We should always err on the side of seriously considering any complaint, even if we find it to be inactionable. ~Swarm~ {sting} 05:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Hmm per Hut8.5. I am usually with Swarm, and it is true we shouldn't prohibit any editor etc., but it's the good faith that was questioned here. If four AE reports result in a few warnings, one might say the reports were more or less justified--but one might as well say that going to AE for things that don't result in more than a few warnings is like aiming a cannon (four times) at a mosquito. That is the vexatious part. Editors who run to AE this frequently and with so little result, that's disruptive. I don't know what a good measure is here, though, but I do not support overturning this. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
    Drmies, exactly. The options at this point should be: (a) grow a thicker skin or (b) leave each other alone. Guy (help!) 18:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) @Drmies: Guy's suggestion above is to ban Rusf only from making noticeboard complaints about BullRangifer; I only kind of disagree. It's true that the most recent few of Rusf's complaints have been against BullRangifer and have resulted in no more serious action than a warning, and that the reviewers at AE are exasperated by that behaviour. But from Johnuniq's comments at the start of this section it's apparent that Rusf's disruptive behaviour is not only targeted at BullRangifer, but seemingly against any editor who opposes them within the AP2 sphere. It seems to me the prescription is a simple topic ban, not an exotic restriction like any that have been proposed thus far. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:04, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I don't see why people are treating the incivility as if it is exceptionally petty, and the reports unreasonable, as you suggest. I really don't understand it. The reported diffs consistently show that BR engages in direct, unsubtle personal attacks, in a contentious DS area, again and again, and has been doing so for well over a year, at least. I really don't understand why AE admins are sketchily staring at the ground as if we're unsure what to do at every turn. The complaints 100% have merit every time, and we just keep warning and warning, and now we're at the point that it keeps happening in spite of the warnings, and the complaints keep coming in, and we're really going to draw a line in the sand for the complainant, while offering yet another useless warning to the offender? Dealing with protracted moderate incivility, this is probably the biggest use that AE has, yet for some reason we're acting like our hands are tied here and that Rusf needs to quit "poking the bear", when objectively, he's not doing anything wrong and getting punished for it. ~Swarm~ {sting} 04:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Since I was pinged and emailed regarding this, note that I've been aware of this discussion, though I have yet to read it closely. I should also note that I am also not familiar with the history of and between the participants, so I have yet to form an opinion, one way or another. El_C 19:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Disclaimer, I participated in the AE discussion that ended with the above sanction, and I was largely responsible for its wording. I understand the argument that a report that results in a warning cannot be considered frivolous, but I think it's a bit more nuanced than that. If it happens once or twice, fine. But if you are making the same report time-after-time and the result is consistently "Meh, this doesn't rise to a level that needs admin intervention, but please be more civil" then it starts becoming disruptive. And when you report the same user for the same thing 4 times in a row ([7] [8] [9] [10]) for progressively less-uncivil comments (compare the single offending diffs that were reported on 12 March 2019 vs. 22 December 2019) it's getting into WP:Hounding territory. I would disagree with Swarm's assertion that no-action reports are not disruptive to the project. They can be very disruptive, and the 13,000-word 10-day long AE thread that led to this sanction is an example of that. In any case, the WP:Boomerang is a well-established part of Wiki-culture, and putting it into the form of a warning shouldn't be that controversial. If you look closely at the wording of the sanction it doesn't prevent the user from filing reports, nor does it make the sanction automatic when a filed report is deemed frivolous. It says the boomerang sanction may be applied at the discretion of an uninvolved admin, which is basically just an explicit statement of how things already work for everybody. ~Awilley (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Which of their previous filings would you apply that sanction too? Suppose any of those you listed were a new filing would any of those qualify as crossing the line for this sanction and why? PackMecEng (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
    Awilley, you applied a No Personal Attacks sanction on one of the editors after AE #3. Are you saying that the conduct you sanctioned for didn't rise to the level that needed admin intervention? If the comments were progressively less-uncivil, then why did you apply a sanction after the third AE report? Also, if they were progressively less-uncivil, that means in your view, the comment that gave rise to AE #4, which I will paraphrase as "Do you have Aspergers?", was the least un-civil comment of the four AE reports? The prior three were worse? Levivich 03:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
@Levivich: Why did I take action after AE#3? Because I saw an unhealthy pattern emerging and I wanted to disrupt it. If I hadn't taken action on my own the report would have most likely been closed with no action. (You had Sandstein, Masem, and T. Canens, all saying "no action" with a couple mentions of a possible boomerang.) ~Awilley (talk) 05:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Awilley, and it worked, for ten months, where previous warnings did not. All I'm saying is, we can't now rewrite history and pretend like there was nothing to those earlier reports, that they were "frivolous" or "vexatious". Those were real PAs like "When Rusf10 agrees with you, you're beyond merely partisan and fringe" (AE #1) and "Their lack of competence is quite evident because they show they are more interested in pushing fringe theories found in unreliable sources than in following policy" (AE #3). I'm not saying throw the book at BR or anything, and I agree with the viewpoint that the comments involved in AE #4 were a good-faith mistake and not a malicious personal attack, and BR struck the comments in #2 and seems to have taken on board feedback from #4, so that's all well and good. But it's really not accurate to say that Rusf's reports didn't have merit. (It's also not accurate to say that this happened frequently; 4 reports, or 4 uncivil remarks, in 18 months, is not many, especially among users who are very active editors in the same DS topic area. I note that the time between report #1 and report #2 was 9 months, and the time between reports #3 and #4 was 10 months. That's not frequent, and if the reports are "frequent", then that means the underlying PAs were "frequent", too.) Levivich 05:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • This is a bizarre response. Every single one of Rusf's complaints were found to be legitimate (and formally logged as such). It's insane to simultaneously railroad him for "frivolous reports". Incivility is a policy violation under the purview of discretionary sanctions, "don't be so sensitive" is not. Reporting legitimate violations is not harassment, and saying it is both makes excuses for policy violations and denigrates actual harassment victims. Perhaps if BR actually respected the repeated warnings he was given, we wouldn't have so many complaints. Perhaps if AE admins actually took the purpose of DS seriously, we wouldn't have so many excuses. I give zero damns if someone thinks Rusf is needs to "grow thicker skin", our job as an admin is to enforce policy. If you find legitimate good faith complaints to be a nuisance, you should step away, not punish good faith users for literally doing what they're supposed to be doing. ~Swarm~ {sting} 04:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Over at the portals disaster you are arguing that an admin who repeatedly breached CIVIL should not have been desysopped. I agree because the background to reports should be investigated and taken into account. Arbcom disagreed and operated on a principle of "who cares about the background, bad words = sanction". The background at the AE report is outlined in my statement above. Admins agreed that BullRangifer needs to shut up regardless of provocation, but the provocation in this case was sufficient to give the result that occurred. Do you have any comments about that? Johnuniq (talk) 06:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • @Johnuniq: What provocation are you talking about??? There is no possible way I provoked bullrangifer. I don't know why you can't understand the facts. Bullrangifer came to my talk page to attack me over a dispute about an afd that didn't involve him at all. There was absolutely no provocation on my part. Stop trying to turn Bullrangifer into a victim.Rusf10 (talk) 06:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • My point was that part of taking civility enforcement seriously is not blindly enforcing CIVIL, but realistically examining the context of incidents of incivility, and differentiating between humans being humans in contentious circumstances and people with actual behavioral problems. This does not mean incivility gets a free pass, but incivility in heated content disputes where it may have been provoked and is voluntarily resolved should be taken into account in mitigation. BHG should not have been desysopped for incivility confined to a singular subject area which she pledged to resolve voluntarily. I'm not sure what the comparison is here. BR is a user who was not unfairly sanctioned by way of Arbcom, but instead repeatedly warned to no avail. BR does not appear to be taking the warnings seriously, nor do I see Rusf's actions as in bad faith and/or unreasonably provacative. ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn - A filing that results in the accused receiving a warning cannot be deemed frivolous, else a warning would not have been administered. OID put it well: It's outright stupidity (apostrophe added by me). Mr rnddude (talk) 07:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn The AE filings can't both be frivolous and result in warnings to the accused party. It's a shame that (to be intellectually honest) differences in ideology led to this sanction being placed at all. - DoubleCross (talk) 07:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn. Many things on wiki are falsely characterized as mutually exclusive when they are not. This is one of the few instances where things should be mutually exclusive but painted to be not as such. I am having a really difficult time trying to understand how a "frivolous" report leads to the respondent being warned (unless you're suggesting that the warnings were inappropriate in the first place? But I don't see anyone entertaining this idea). OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Move requestEdit

Wondering if someone can close this move request. Talk:2019–20_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak#Requested_move_2_February_2020

The article is getting about half a million pageviews a day. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@Doc James: I was going to close this but all requested moves are supposed to run for a minimum of one week (similar to AfDs). Given the absence of a clear consensus as well as RM-closing policy, let it be open for a week, I (or someone else) can close it when it elapses. --qedk (t c) 12:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I would still close this now as a "no consensus" – the thread is huge, shows no sign of getting to a consensus, and is only distracting from the work going on. Britishfinance (talk) 13:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
4 days is enough for consensus to emerge (WP:CCC e.g. Ergo Sum's RfA), although I doubt it will. --qedk (t c) 13:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
We actually have an interesting situation here. It's possible in a few days another title may be preferred by most currently supporting the change [11] [12]. Looking at the discussion, it sounds likely the concerns of some of those currently opposing may be addressed too. (But not all.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
It is hard to argue that WP:SNOW should apply to this discussion. A SNOW to No consensus would be strange. In any case, the continuing discussion is useful and may lead to better names. Though the claim that MOS favors the official name should carry some weight, the present official name seems to be viewed as temporary. EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

While we are on the subject, two related articles Wuhan Institute of Virology, and their lead virologist Shi Zhengli, have been the subject of internet conspiracies (and even propagated by Washington Examiner – which should be deprecated on WP), and have been discredited (e.g. The Guardian, Washington Post), and contain BLPviolations that led Twitter to ban Zero Hedge over trying to repeat it (e.g. CBS). This will need more eyes (and potentially page protection) as IPs/new editors are trying to push them. Britishfinance (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I think we are going to need admin help on these two pages now as we have a new editor, DavidGeorge1977, restoring conspiracy theories with these BLPviolations (and has been reverted several times by various editors). Can an admin sort here (or do I need to repost ANI/3RR? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
3RR not withstanding, editor has stopped for the moment and moved discussion/plea to my talk page. I have directed them to the talk pages of the relevant articles (looks like in one case they have posted there) and to provide sources for other editors to review as consensus is currently fringe/conspiracy; not valid controversy Slywriter (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable to close the move request and simple request a new one. But no worries either way. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I have blocked the editor from editing the two pages in question for 1 week for the edit warring. Talk pages or elsewhere on the encyclopedia are naturally permitted. --Izno (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Izno, am discussing it now on the TP and they are listening. There are some wild stories on the internet on these two subjects. Britishfinance (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

A move request on a similar topic is taking place at Talk:Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) and is due to be closed (after a full 7 days) at around 19:00 UTC. That page as well has about 2 million views in the last 3 weeks, so it would be helpful if that could be processed quickly by an uninvolved closer once it's expired. Best, Dekimasuよ! 05:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Following up, I'd like to request help with a close at Talk:Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)#Requested move 31 January 2020. I am involved, so I can't do it myself. Dekimasuよ! 02:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • @Doc James and Dekimasu: Closed both, let me know if there's more clarification warranted on the closes. -qedk (t c) 08:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Just like to say again, much thanks for the experienced folks that have been coming to the talk page and handling the new RMs that have been popping up every couple days. I am starting to wonder if there’s a WP:AC/DS that can be used on the talk page to control things. There’s a lot of out-of-control WP:IDHT/axe grinding going on (currently there’s one proposal suggesting that unregistered editors be barred from participating in future RMs, and at least four or five other “let’s brainstorm new article titles” threads that take the position that a new title is needed and seek to exclude voices that disagree, and otherwise casting aspersions at people who are getting worn down by this endless pushing of a page move). (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
    (crossposting to Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak) The primary issue is not that unregistered contributors are participating but the fact that this is an ongoing issue, the current proposal to have a one-month moratorium was greatly needed, I see all the closes after mine were speedily closed (there was one restarted on the same day!). The correct process to argue with any move you disagree with is to file a Wikipedia:Move review after you discuss it with the closer. You are supposed to debate whether the close was fair or not in reference to the consensus and then decide if such a request is required. Opening RMs again and again with the same or different title is pointless if you want to establish consensus, when there wasn't any in the first place. --qedk (t c) 10:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
    Honestly some administrative action needs to be taken here. I’m getting accused of trying to avoid scrutiny by editing while logged out (while being marked as a SPA by the same person), getting accused of “bludgeoning” the process by the same people doing the bludgeoning, and all the while the same clique of editors keep opening RMs and affiliated discussions in a transparent attempt to change the outcome of the previous RMs. It has become a very unfriendly, aspersions-filled mess of a discussion. And while some of that is typical for current events, the undercurrent of “anyone who doesn’t support this particular outcome is a sinophobic racist” makes participation very difficult. Can someone please help? (talk) 13:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Anyone up for a team admin close?Edit

Was closed and is now at Deletion Review. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

...of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (4th nomination). After reading this 151kb debate for over a hour (it also includes suggestions that the AFD be team closed, as it's contentious) I am thinking we need an admin team to determine the outcome, as the topic is controversial and well-attended. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, thanks to some problems sleeping I have now spent my own hour plus reading and would be willing to do a joint close. I agree a team approach is called for in this case and wonder if there's a third person willing to invest the time necessary to join a close team. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
It looks like Spartaz already closed... Primefac (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus, Barkeep49, Spartaz, and Primefac: delete. So please, keep this in mind. That said, it's on hold until there is either a DRV or it is clear this close has been accepted. ミラP 01:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Username backlogEdit

There is quite a backlog at the Username page, would greatly benefit from attention from admin. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I did most of the bot reported ones. I left some that I wasn't really confident what to do with. Wug·a·po·des 18:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Unclear delimiters of Philip Cross topic banEdit

I am using this forum instead of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement because I am frankly uncertain whether or not Philip Cross has breached his indefinite topic ban from post-1978 British politics, broadly construed. Accordingly, I seek clarification from administrators.

On 10 February 2020, I inquired at his User Talk page as to his block status, noting that he has had 1½ years in which to appeal. I specifically directed his attention to minor edits that day, in which he merely italicized a couple of names, to the BLP of English journalist and writer James Bloodworth.

Two days later, Philip Cross replied, "There is negligible direct reference to post-1978 British politics in the article you cite."

In response, I listed the article's following references to post-1978 British politics.

  • Bloodworth is a former member of Britain's Trotskyist group Alliance for Workers' Liberty, who edited the left-wing UK political news and comment site Left Foot Forward from 2013 until 2016.
  • He blogged from 2013 to 2015 at The Spectator, which Wikipedia identifies as a UK political magazine.
  • He is the author of The Myth of Meritocracy: Why Working-Class Kids Still Get Working-Class Jobs (2016), whose Amazon product description states: "Hitherto, Labour and Conservative politicians alike have sought to deal with the problem by promoting the idea of 'equality of opportunity'. In politics, social mobility is the only game in town, and old socialist arguments emphasising economic equality are about as fashionable today as mullets and shell suits."
  • He is the author of Hired: Six Months Undercover in Low-Wage Britain (2019), whose Amazon product description quotes Nick Timothy, former chief of staff to then UK prime minister Theresa May: "Whatever you think of the political assertions in this book—and I disagree with many of them—this is an important investigation into the reality of low-wage Britain. Whether you are on the Right, Left or Centre, anybody who believes in solidarity and social justice should read this book."
  • He has praised Roger Scruton's Thinkers of the New Left (2015), a book that proved controversial (Wikipedia tells us) because of Scruton's attacks on the British Left.

In conclusion, I commented that for an article about a living British journalist that is still classified as a stub, this is an impressive amount of detail related to post-1978 British politics. Philip Cross rejected my argument.

If an uninvolved administrator could help me understand this situation, I'd be very grateful. Thank you. NedFausa (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

This is the kind of work that bots would do if they could be taught how to identify the titles of creative works. Unless an editor's been disruptively making minor edits (e.g. stalking someone else) or is causing problems with minor edits (e.g. adding italics where they don't belong), there's no good reason to sanction someone for minor edits: the rule demonstrably would be preventing him from maintaining and improving Wikipedia, so it should be ignored. Nyttend (talk) 02:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Nyttend If I understand you, then, it's OK for someone to violate his indefinite ban from a topic, broadly construed, so long as he restricts himself to minor edits. That strikes me as a very strange policy. NedFausa (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Since you don't appear to be very grateful for the uninvolved administrator, let me be firmer: this is an unambiguous improvement, and nothing matters more than improving the project, so stop tattling on him. Nyttend (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Nyttend I said I'd be very grateful if an uninvolved administrator could help me understand this situation. You have not done so. Having read the topic ban that ARBCOM carefully hashed out, I see no room for the exception you have carved out. NedFausa (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Nyttend, what's this unnecessary comment about being grateful for? You have clearly explained nothing to NedFausa.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

This is an interesting one. Seems like broad should include even little things, but I also like the word tattling. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

More work than I would want to put in, but you probably should have let them do a few more edits and see if you could catch them doing something major. Probably would have worked if you hadn't tipped them off. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Peregrine Fisher Tipping him off was my whole point in posting this first to his User Talk page. I sincerely don't want to take it to ARBCOM, where the topic ban originated. I just want Philip Cross to keep within his lane. NedFausa (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
There's something galling about an ostensibly new editor telling a 15-year veteran to keep within their lane. Please choose your words more carefully in the future. Lepricavark (talk) 03:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

That's the whole issue with how you interpret "broadly construed" really means. Common sense (which stems from ignore all rules, or IAR) suggests that something as inconsequential as italicizing the newspaper shouldn't necessitate hauling an editor to Arbitration Enforcement. This example is a textbook case where IAR applies. I highly doubt a banned editor using sockpuppet accounts will get banned for something as trivial as this. This thread should just be closed as a time sink and nothing positive is going to come out of it. I agree with Nyttend. Spend the time on actually improving an article, don't spend the time on a dramaboard to discuss why someone should be reprimanded for improving. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. I should have known. Thank you for finally helping to make sense of this. NedFausa (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Speaking as one of the arbs who wrote the TBan remedy for Cross, the point of the TBan was to restrict Cross from being tempted to edit on politics topics (especially BLPs) where he was personally involved off-wiki with the subjects, because that had become problematic. I definitely would not consider minor markup edits to the article of a journalist, even if he does sometimes write about politics, to be a violation of the spirit of the restriction. ♠PMC(talk) 20:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
PMC: thank you for explaining. I was misled by the "broadly construed" nomenclature included in your topic ban of Philip Cross, and by the policy statement that dictates what a topic ban covers—unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise—while establishing no exception for minor edits (markup or otherwise). To avoid future misunderstandings, I encourage you to add that carve-out to WP's policy. NedFausa (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
There's no need for a carve-out, because as Nyttend and OhanaUnited have pointed out above, we are not bound to the precise letter of any "law"; we can use our judgement sensibly when deciding what to do. The ultimate point of any TBan is to mitigate disruptive behavior, not to punish editors by smacking them down for everything that could possibly be construed as a violation of the TBan just because. These edits were not disruptive, nor were they directly connected to British politics post-1978. If Cross had been fiddling about with content on the journalist's views of present-day politics, that might be a different story worth discussing at AE. ♠PMC(talk) 21:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
We already have a carve-out, it's called the fifth pillar. Levivich 21:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
To be blunt, any decision by ArbCom that concerns the phrase "broadly construed" should be rephrased immediately to "reasonably construed" otherwise opponents of a person are going to stalk and jump on any edit that can even remotely be connected to someone; this isn't the first instance of this. Buffs (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Buffs, nope. WP:BROADLY is designed to prevent gaming the system. Guy (help!) 01:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
The problem is that "nibbling on the edges" is poorly defined (at best). It's so nebulous that it could be anything. We're talking about British politics post-1978. How about a politician's actions in 1977, even though he served through 1998? How about someone who retired in 1977, but continued to speak out in political matters. How about a politician who resigned in 1977 but a law was named after him. How about an American politician who was friends with a British politician in 1977 and 1980? How about the laws passed in the US during that timeframe that were influenced by British common law dating back to the Magna Carta but still in effect today? I'm not saying that he was correct, but "reasonably construed" is FAR closer to the intended meaning than "broadly construed" which can be MASSIVELY gamed by opponents for benign edits. I'm saying it's bad verbiage that could be improved. I'll abide by whether the community believes this edit is over the line. Buffs (talk) 04:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • This is a straightforward violation per WP:BROADLY. A topic ban is "broadly construed" by default, and straightforwardly prohibits making any edit, or editing any page, relating to the subject. The fact that the edits in question are purely uncontentious copyedits is not an exemption, though it is something that can be taken into account in terms of discretionarily sanctioning a violation. The user did violate their topic ban, yes, though given the nature of the edits, they probably warrant a warning as opposed to a block. If minor copyedits in violation of the topic ban continue, though, the topic ban should be enforced. BROADLY is policy, period, and the user should know better. ~Swarm~ {sting} 01:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Agree with the admin comment above. Philips has clearly violated the topic ban per WP:BROADLY.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Note re resourceEdit

I have posted the message below at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#new_resource_created. I would not normally post the same message again at this page. however, due to the sensitivity of this item, I am posting it here.

I am posting this here simply to:a) keep you apprised of this. b) let you know in case in the future, any such situation may arise, c) willingly invite any feedback you may wish to share. if anyone wishes to comment, that's fine;' if not, no problem. I appreciate your help. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I have personally set up the following new page , populated it, structured it, and formatted it for the use of the Wikipedia community at large. This is meant as a place to list any drafts left by deceased Wikipedians, to enable and to encourage others to continue work on these cherished and valued writings, and drafts as they may wish.
All of us are resolved to highly value, to cherish and to admire the heartfelt work and efforts by those who are no longer with us, and wish up to set up this resource to commemorate their efforts. by doing so, this is one good way to make sure as a community that their work shall be cherished, and that the work of our encyclopedia shall go forward, and that our work will continue to grow, and to flourish, on behalf of future generations who will benefit from the work done here. I appreciate the help, thoughts and insights of everyone involved here. thanks!

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alex Shih closedEdit

An arbitration case regarding User:Alex Shih has now closed. The Arbitration Committee resolved by motion last year to suspend the case, which could be unsuspended if Alex Shih requested it within one year. Because Alex Shih has not requested the case be unsuspended, the case has been automatically closed. The motion which has now closed the case is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alex Shih#Motion to Suspend.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 19:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alex Shih closed

Devil WomanEdit

I tagged Devil Woman for G6 housekeeping speedy deletion two days ago and it's somehow gone unnoticed. Can an admin take care of this please? Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 22:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer,   Done Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

RfPP is backloggedEdit

I cleared out what I could but unfortunately I have to get up early tomorrow and can't remain online much longer. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Ad Orientem. The backlog is back today. Seems a feature of RPP now. Has an admin that was focused on RPP left/taken a break? Is it time for the RPP to be unbundled as a PERM? We are facing the inevitable consequences of the ever-rising ratio of articles-to-active admins (the numerator always rising, but the denominator going opposite). Britishfinance (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I support unbundling RPP – if it were unbundled I would apply for it and help out at RFPP, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Levivich 17:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Interesting idea, but I suspect that practical implementation would require changes to the MediaWiki software. Right now there's only one permission flag, 'protect' (if I'm reading the permissions table right), and I don't think that we would want to give all protection powers to everyone. If we did have an unbundled group, I'd say it should only have access to apply semi-protection and maybe pending changes protection...we don't want people with these perms protecting pages at a higher level than they can edit (which rules out full, move, upload, and creation protections, probably also template). I'd also feel better off if non-admins weren't able to apply ECP - the wording is a bit ambiguous to me, but it looks like it's primarily a sanctions enforcement tool, which is something I think is better left to the admin corps. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 18:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
@Levivich: We've had some fairly detailed discussions about micro-unbundling RFPP [one], where the main thrust failed, but a variation suggested by NeilN gained some support. There was a partial [up discussion] (the header is rather inaccurate to the much stricter considerations we discussed - I summarise it further in. I'd limit it to even fewer than was mooted there, but slightly extend the max time. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
You know it was a long time ago, but I remember a discussion about unbundling the tools. IIRC the issue was that if the only tool you have is a hammer then every problem becomes a nail, so the concern was that page protectors would protect pages from all non-autoconfirmed editors when what they should be doing is just blocking the lone vandal responsible. More recently I remember a discussion about allowing a vandal-fighter user group that would have the ability to block for up to 31 hours in addition to page protect to solve that issue. I don't think it went anywhere possibly because of technical issues. (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Looks like the backlog is under control for the moment. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Race and intelligenceEdit

Looks like editors are not impartial when it comes to this article. I think you can imagine why. So, Afd voters aren't impartial, closing admin is not impartial and just takes a moon shot delete, and now we're at DRV.[13]

A different admin has said they would like to close it as delete, but (I assume) they would like two more admins to back them up for a group close. The delete argument is "X" is a POVFORK of "history of X". That's obviously silly, unless you want the article destroyed for some other reason. If ISCENSORED existed, it would be a SNOW based on that.

So, if there's some sort of redelete, could we get some admins that don't have partiallity towards the subject? Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Please see the humor page m:MPOV. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
True dat. But I feel like if people ask themselves 'do the words "race and intelligence" piss me off' they can quickly see if they are impartial. Then they can decide if they want to pretend to be impartial or not. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Not sure I can be impartial. I can emulate impartiality.-- Deepfriedokra 07:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

(EC) Two admins have already #Anyone up for a team admin close? expressed a willingness to participate in a team close and have confirmed at the DRV if it is overturned they remain willing. AFAICT, neither of them have express an opinion on the article. I don't know which admin you refer to, but I think it's clear as with any contentious AfD (or close), an admin with an existing clear opinion on the outcome should not close. An admin who has already read the discussion and formed an opinion I don't see any harm in them taking part. Of course as a team close, it's likely the final close will be based on discussion from them. The only problem would be if one of the other admins planning to close has read their opinion. Note that although I'm not an admin and wouldn't participate in this close even if I was, race and intelligence does piss me off. But although I haven't really read the discussion, I don't support the deletion either. So while I don't think people with a strong opinion of the subject should be a closer, I don't think we can assume being 'pissed off' means they would want deletion. Nil Einne (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Peregrine Fisher (talk · contribs) What is it that you hope to achieve by opening this here? The matter is currently in deletion review, which is the proper process. You are mistaken when you speak of "Afd voters," as has been pointed out. AfD is not a vote, it is a discussion between editors, which is why the off wiki canvassing for votes (not by you, just to be clear) was wrongheaded. One admin has closed as delete and I and others have not simply endorsed a decision we believe to be correct, but spoken up to request an overturn and team close with the team that was already partially assembled - a non standard innovation that risks setting a precedent - because we recognise the importance of demonstrating that the discussion has been carefully considered and treated fairly, and we do not know how that team will rule on the issue. AfD is not a vote, and they will look at the arguments instead. You have asked for the closing admin's opinion simply to be overturned, and that opinion is now part of the deletion review discussion. So again, what do you hope to achieve by bringing the matter here? Allow the process to work please. -- Sirfurboy   (talk) 07:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I hope to achieve total non censorship on all subjects! It's a pretty crazy objective; whatev. Also, I took a 10 year hiatus, and before I came back I would say !vote instead of vote, but that was never true. I've decided to not dissemble. And it's going to piss people off. The truth is the most annoying thing ever!Peregrine Fisher (talk) 08:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
The words race and intelligence piss me off because we have articles on both, and both effectively tell us they are each extremely ill-defined concepts. Claiming that we can make sense of an apparently certain connection between two ill-defined concepts really is just silly. It's an incredibly bad look for Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 08:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for being honest, hilo. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 08:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

(redent) You guys said a lot. I'm going to do one line replies as I see fit. Jo Jo wrote a decision of delete and also asked for help from two other admins. Help for what? To change his mind? Probaby not. I think Jo Jo wanted a couple more admins to provide cover. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 08:16, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Here's Jo Jo's delete. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 08:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

This should be in the DRV. Also, why are you asking Jo Jo about their political opinions on their talk page? Note that you have misrepresented the timeline. Jo Jo began delete and was uninvolved at the time. Whilst forming an admin team, another editor closed. DRV was opened and requested comment from Jo Jo, and already at that point, I and others had suggested Jo Jo be allowed to complete and Jo Jo had made no comment anywhere of an opinion. Not sure how you found that draft, as I had not seen it, but as Jo Jo was the original closer and this was not published prior to that, the drafting is not inappropriate. Suggest again that you take this argument to the DRV. That is the correct forum to discuss this process. -- Sirfurboy   (talk) 08:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Is this the timeline? 1) Jo Jo wrote delete rational and looked for admins to support his delete. 2) Someone else closed as delete (whoops!). 3) Jo Jo wishes he could have deleted, and people start organizing a new better delete around his old delete? Peregrine Fisher (talk) 09:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
The actual timeline is:
This is all public information. Also, asking for a team of closers does not imply that you are looking at a rubber stamp, and the other admins are under no expectation or obligation to apply my proposed close (either its text or its outcome). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
You do realise that by posting a delete rationale before a team/panel of admins is put in place means you will likely attract only admins who agree with you, after all who is going to volunteer to battling with you to change the outcome when your mind and argument is already made up. You cannot have a panel of admins posting a close where none of them agree, so like I said you have made a move that attracts admins to back you up.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
No; before Spartaz's close and the deletion review nobody had posted any rationale. And we don't know how the deletion review will end; for all we know it will be something other than "let the team reclose". And even if it is, I find it unlikely that a future panel will rubber stamp the first detailed draft close posted without any dissent. That's not how I've seen either deletion reviews or (to use a close procedural analogue) crat chats operate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I am more thinking if you are selected to be on the 3 or so person ‘admin closing panel’. Not sure if you understood where I was coming from, which might be the fault of how I worded things above. My point is that you should be disqualified from being on the panel because of your action.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Literaturegeek Yes, it wasn't clear from your statement here that you were requesting a recusal. Actually, I was planning to recuse after filing my DRV statement. Now from reading some of the follow-up comments it doesn't seem like there is agreement on this point in the deletion review, but the DRV is not closed and done yet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I believe he looked for two admins before he created the delete, just tagging it as undergoing a close. He didn't go and ask specific admins, so this seems a positive action for me - while yes, more admins would have helped create cover, it would also san-check his reasoning, and of course, the other admins might disagree (even a single admin disagreeing might pause discussion and indicate a possible NC). That comment should not be taken to indicate the close was irrational. I saw the request, but was on a phone call so didn't feel equipped to volunteer. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I just want to address a premise of this section: if people ask themselves 'do the words "race and intelligence" piss me off' they can quickly see if they are impartial - this is nonsense. We don't demand that editors/admins/closers somehow refrain from having opinions about things. That's not a requirement for neutrality. It's only when it leads to an inability to follow NPOV that it becomes a problem. We're not going to hold off on closing a discussion about a topic on ponies because everyone likes them or nazis because everyone hates them in the hope that there's some robo-admin who can muster a close that will hypothetically satisfy everyone. The issue here is not bias of the closer; it's that some people don't agree with a close. We have processes for that, and requesting a multi-closer panel do so to gain buy-in is reasonable... but let's not mix this up with "you can't be impartial because you might have an opinion about the topic". After all, not having a feeling about something is a perspective, too, and one which can itself be quite outside the mainstream. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • When you boil it all down (fyi, I did not !vote in the AfD, but did in the DRV)....
    • This was a bad close, and SUPERVOTING in large no-consensus closes so that they get trapped in DRV (where the no-consensus is re-affirmed), is not appropriate, and is only going to deter people from participating at AfD. The close should be reverted to restore integrity to the AfD process (which I think has been the UNINVOLVED view at DRV).
    • The policy angle is with keeping the article (per last multiple AfDs) – it is a notable subject (huge amount of academic research on topic), and it is not a fork (we have thousands of legitimate "X", and "history of X" articles in Wikipedia). You would really have to use a more obscure/non-standard policy reading to delete this.
    • The AfD participation angle is a no-consensus – any assessment of the !votes is at least a no consensus (it actually got far more Keeps past half-way, slightly more Keeps in total), and while there were some IPs, there were plenty of AfD/DRV heavyweights arguing both sides. Again, why the XfD close was so inappropriate.
    • The "wrinkle" here is that there was a strong perception that the article is poorly written, and this has been a chronic issue for years. There is, therefore, a rarer, but legitimate argument, that it should be WP:TNT'ed and re-written (and ultimately, even if it was deleted, it would be easy from a policy perspective to justify recreation – you could not justify SALTing it, as it would be CENSORSHIP).
.... so, why not "delete and re-write" (e.g. tighter articles like Sex differences in intelligence), and let an order be restored to the Kingdom. Britishfinance (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Another thing that looks pretty bad is that the closing admin of the AFD seems have gone on vacation one minute after the questionable close and is yet to return. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, what this discussion needs is more throwing around of bad faith and other idiocy. A cursory glance through Spartaz's editing history will immediately reveal that for at least the past year, they edit a lot for a day or two and then not at all for several days to several months. You should retract this comment. --JBL (talk) 02:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Editor whose signature is confusing and is aware of thatEdit

The user:
The signature:
...William, is the complaint department really on the roof?

I was trying to read some comments in Wikipedia and there was an editor who's signature is confusing. I said I will go to his talk page and ask him if he is aware that his signature is confusing and that a " distracting, confusing, or otherwise unsuitable signature may adversely affect other users" but I found this at the top of his talk page I'm aware that my signature is confusing, and I don't care. I like it.

  • What is the best thing to do in this situation?. There is a long discussion that involves this editor but I got confused because of his signature many times.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Apparently 2 days ago an editor also talked about this editor signature, I swear, I had no idea. This proves that I am not the only one who find his signature confusing. Ping LakesideMiners.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Hogwash and bullshit you didn't know. The section is right above your edit. And this complaint is nonsense. So where's the WP:BOOMERANG? And this edit summary[14] is highly suspicious too from an editor who supposedly never interacted with me before....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
      • @WilliamJE: Two things must ye know. A) your signature is BS. B) that edit summary is not suspicious at all considering it was in response to a request for that very information.
        C) having said that, SharabSalam may not be a net negative, but they have already proven themselves an ethno-political POV pusher. ——SN54129 11:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
        I think we have finally peaked in talking about Wikipedia governance. Also, really lol-ed after the first two sentences, so thanks for that, SN. Have a good night all, hopefully we can resolve Signaturegate by next week or so. --qedk (t c) 20:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
WilliamJE, I didn't look at the discussions in your talk page when I made the report. I sent the notification after I mentioned your username and that time I discovered that another user had also the same problem with your signature. The other thing is that I have had interaction with you in User talk:TonyBallioni. You have been saying that you don't want Xray to ping you so I thought you would not want me to ping you either because I also was part of that discussion.
Serial Number 54129, I am not sure what "net negative" means but how is that request for deletion an ethno-political POV-pushing?.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
It seems to me perfectly plausible that someone would leave a comment on another editor's talk page and not notice what the previous comment was. In some cases, editors should pay attention to avoid this, but it doesn't seem necessary here. Nil Einne (talk)
I still say bullshit and hogwash. They quote the top of my page but miss the 500-lb gorilla in the room right above their post. I have messaged someone about my thoughts here and I'm not going to say anything else till I get a reply....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
WilliamJE can you cut the crap and tell us what this so called 226.796 kilogram monkey is? LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 15:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
WilliamJE, I see you have emailed me, I have read though it. first, then who do you think is socking/ what/who are you saying is quacking? second, you should say the names two users you contacted here, let me remind you that WP:ADMINSHOP is frowned upon. Third, I am part of the the username thing, not of the other things.
My email link is meant to be used for private/urgent matters, what you sent me is not what I would consider a private/urgent matter. I want to keep this stuff onwiki please. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 15:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
(EC) The one who is full of bullshit and hogwash is you. Plenty of editors, including me, edit talk pages all the time without noticing what was posted just above them. It's simple. You click on new section, write whatever it is you want to write, and submit. You don't pay attention whatever else someone wrote since it doesn't concern you. Especially in this case, since the concern is long standing (your signature has been crap for a long time). And where you notice the editor explicitly mentions it at the top of their talk page. And reading notices someone leaves on the top of their talk page is often the polite thing to do since if there's some instruction which you can follow without much effort, you should normally do so. Nil Einne (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Here what happened. I went to read the ANI report, it was hard for me to know where your comments end and I clicked multiple times on your signature thinking that it was part of your comments. I then searched in Google for "Wikipedia signature", found a policy where it says that "distracting, confusing, or otherwise unsuitable signature may adversely affect other users", went to your talk page found the message at the top of your talk page. I then came to this place asking what to do in this situation. Bbb23 asked me who I am talking about, I mentioned your username, then went and notified you about this discussion. I didn't want to use the regular notification template because I thought it would be rude. I just wanted to tell you about the discussion in a polite way. I clicked new section at the top of the your talk page. After all this is just a signature problem, I didn't want it to become a big issue.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
SharabSalam, Net Negative means that your bad edits outweigh the good ones. (which SN is saying is NOT the case). and im just as confused as you are on the POV thing but I don't want to get into that as that would be a bit off topic of the subject of this thread imo. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 14:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Yea, I had the same problem in the same Xray thing. I clicked three times on that link "the roof?" thinking that it is part of the comments, I then gave up reading that ANI report.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
SharabSalam, He seems to be accusing either you or me(or would it be both) Special:Diff/940906710 of being sockpuppet(s). LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 14:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Yep. What should I do?. This is why I didn't mention him at first when I asked this question, I almost knew he is going to react aggressively.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
SharabSalam, I wonder if he is contacting the CU team. based on this I have messaged someone about my thoughts here and I'm not going to say anything else till I get a reply. Guess we will see. I dont really know what to do. Not much we can do right now but wait. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 15:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Well I just cooked some popcorn. Let's wait and see where this goes.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
SharabSalam, Just pray he does not file an ANI case accusing you both for harassing him on his signature. (considering his overreaction on my talk page, and then on Tony's page [15],[16] I would bet that the odds for it are quite high) .
About the topic of this thread, yes his signature with ellipsis and all, is very confusing. I had to read his comment on my talk page 3 times to make some sense out of it. DBigXray 16:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Getting back to the original point of this thread, I don't think the signature is actually problematic. There are very few instances in which the words ....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? would so naturally flow with the preceding sentences as to seem to be part of the paragraph. And even if the OP was confused, he could easily click (or merely hover over) the blue links and thus clear up the confusion. This is an unnecessary thread that was made worse by the above kerfuffle. Lepricavark (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, the signature is annoying the way it's displayed in posts. More concerning is the editor-in-question refuses to normalise it & may have deliberately made it annoying. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

  • More ignorance. Thoroughly research my talk and user page before you ignorantly mouth off on me or incorrectly claim what my purpose was....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Your apparent rudeness is the base of the problem here. If you don't want to correct your attitude, then perhaps the community will correct it for you. GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Allegations of socking, incivility + BATTLEGROUND = a definite call on the Community's time. GoodDay speaks for me on this. ——SN54129 18:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Serial Number 54129, yah, I think the main thing here is that he knows it’s confusing, and is being rude when asked nicely to change it. I did not want it to come here. I told him that I don’t want to bring it to the drama board, and he replied and told me to “go to the complaints department” LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 18:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Shar'ab not seeing the previous message on WJE's talk page is neither hogwash and bullshit, nor bullshit and hogwash. Come to my talk page to write me a message, and you're going to (probably) click on the "+" that's at the top of the page, and be taken to a new screen to write your message. Having written and posted your message, only then will you be looking at the bottom of my talk page and be able to see what the previous thread was, after your new message has already been posted. Thus, it is 1,000% plausible that people leave each other talk page messages without reading previous threads on the page – and it's because the "+" button is at the top and not the bottom of the page. Regarding the signature, we've been here before, I can think of three "signature" threads in about the last year. The procedure was the same each time: make a proposal that the signature be changed and see if there's consensus. (If such a proposal is made, please, this time let's not block anyone before the proposal is closed.) I also agree with GD and SN and ask WJE to tone down the incivility in this thread ("ignorantly mouth off", etc.). Cheers, Levivich 18:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    Levivich, yah, I don’t him to get blocked. I just want the signature to be changed or to at least have the three dots be changed to dashes. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 18:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • William, whether or not you deliberately made your signature confusing more than one editor has found it so, so you should simply grow up and behave like a civilised human being by changing it. It's only a signature on a web site, ffs, so why don't you simply take a few seconds to fix the issue and let everyone get on with more important things, such as building an encyclopaedia. I allowed myself a little chuckle when I first saw your signature, but I'm afraid the joke's got very thin now. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The signature is distracting and confusing, but no less distracting and confusing than a whole lot of other ones. We enforce/interpret signature guidelines really inconsistently and I'd much prefer see them made more explicit than only subject those who are unpopular on ANI on a given day. Why people feel like serious discussions are a place where a single user's many instances of ❤️ personal expression ❤️ must be preserved at the expense of readability/focus/flow is beyond me, but here we are. — ❤️ Rhododendrites (talk) ❤️ \\ 19:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry about this -- last one I promise. :) See also: WP:BILLBOARD. — ❤️ Rhododendrites (talk) ❤️ \\ 19:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    This wasn't an issue of obnoxious highlighting and there was no need to bring it up here. DBigXray 20:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    DBigXray, BILLBOARD does apply to this because it draws focus away from the discussion and onto the signature(or the appearance of lack of?) LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 21:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) It's a signature issue. My point is that we have guidelines that we interpret/enforce unevenly, and that if we're going to start enforcing them, WilliamJE's signature is quite far from the most egregious. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Rhododendrites, so what you are saying is that we should start enforcing it more consistently? I’m all for that. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 21:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    Also FYI I really don’t know what the whole Xray thing is about, just happened to see what I though was a post without a signature on ANI. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 21:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    LakesideMiners, I believe by " Xray thing" they are referring to the ANI case WilliamJE started about me. DBigXray 22:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) More or less, yes. My opinion is that our signature guidelines should be more stringent, but proposals all tend to end with no consensus. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • No administrative action is required. There is no policy to force WilliamJE to change his signature, and he certainly isn't going to do it voluntarily. I suggest you folk find something else to do that is more likely to benefit the project.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I see you closed this discussion with this comment, but it doesn't follow the rest of the thread, in which there are several people that have lodged complaints about WilliamJE's signature. There is now precedent that signature issues can lead to administrative action with InedibleHulk—in which he was blocked until his signature was changed. I would support such an action in this case because I also find WilliamJE's signature confusing to the point of disruption, and would appreciate it if this thread is not closed until enough time to form a consensus on this issue is elapsed. I'll also add that there seems to be some civility/behavioral complaints with WilliamJE that have been brought up in this thread and I think it may be wise to address them here. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Tavix, I would also like to add that Bbb23 was emailed by WJE. Can we please get some inkling about what the email was about? I feel that this should be all done on wiki. not though email. As I don't see why email is useful in this case. if it is spilling over to other admins talkpages, I dont think that needs email. Regadless, I would consider that would make Bbb23 WP:INVOLVED. I asked someone off-wiki who is uninvolved in this (IRC) if they think me considering it WP:INVOLVED would be right, they said I am likely right. but thats not really that importen now IMO as the thread is reopened. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 01:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC), I still say that email was highly inappreciably give the circumstances and is why I reviled the contents of the one he sent to me. also striking this cuz I was misinformed, user was User:Oshwah btw. If he sees this, he can show his logs from my PMs with him if needed. Im heading to bed now. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 03:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Receiving an e-mail from a user does not make me involved. I have no idea - nor do I care - whom you spoke to at IRC, but they are apparently clueless. Nor am I going to reveal the contents of a user's e-mail, and such a suggestion is highly inappropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Receiving an email does not make an administrator involved. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Glad to hear I'm not involved with all those Nigerian princes. O3000 (talk) 02:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
The editor has accused me of sockpuppeting and didn't assume good faith. Also reacted aggressively to fair complaints about his signature. I don't have anything against WilliamJE. I just found his signature very confusing. LakesideMiners suggested to WilliamJE to at least change the dots to lines but he removed his comment. I am not sure what is the big deal about the signature. It's just a Wikipedia signature not a bank signature. All of this wouldn't have happened if WilliamJE changed his signature to something less confusing.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Bbb23, there are guidelines and policies about customizing signature here.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
You can tell that there is definitely a WP:CIVIL issue with this editor by just reading this thread. A quick look with trivial effort at his talk page history, you will find some trouble comments like "Get lost pathetic loser and don't come back" or "You're pathetic. I'm a vandal but you're the one who put garbage in an article then came here to complain about its removal. As I said, you're pathetic."-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Put me down for team "this editor's signature is confusing, it would be good if they should make it less confusing." --JBL (talk) 02:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • While I appreciate that, per Bbb23, there is no policy requiring William to change his signature, we have a number of guidelines which state or imply that confusing signatures should be amended. WP:SIGPROB: "If your signature is unnecessarily confusing, editors may request that you change it"; WP:SIG: "A distracting, confusing, or otherwise unsuitable signature may adversely affect other users.". It's pretty clear this signature has been confusing for a long time and a large number of editors have now politely requested it be changed for clarity. William himself states on his talk page that he is "aware that my signature is confusing, and I don't care". These endless discussions are a clear net negative to building the encyclopedia.
  • The signature is regularly confusing to editors, especially new ones. Sam Walton (talk) 11:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
    Samwalton9, I have been editing for years and I was confused. Even if you are aware of the signature, while browsing a thread, it is easy to continue reading his lines and then his signature by mistakenly assuming it to be a part of the comment. There is a learning curve in dealing with his signature, where you have to train your mind to stop reading once you reach the word William. Deepfriedokra was this one of the factors that caused your headache while browsing the ANI? IMHO it impacts "everyone" whoever comes across his signature, not especially noobs. DBigXray 15:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Regardless of the signature, there is definitely a civility issue with WilliamJE. 331dot (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • @DBigXray: No.For a long time I thought that was his username. It's one of the things I look forward to. William, could you please try to be more polite moving forward? FWIW, I did not realise how impaired I was by my cough medicine till this morning at work. Apologies to all. Gah, it might not be warn off yet.-- Deepfriedokra 17:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
    Deepfriedokra, good luck! That must be some strong cough stuff. Hope you get well soon. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 19:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Why so much discussion? This is a clear case of an inappropriate signature: it confuses editors and is contrary to the guidelines. Surely the user can be required to simplify it. YoPienso (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Ditto. It's a signature masquerading as a sentence. It is not merely confusing (to everyone) but deliberately so.
WP:Username_policy#Confusing_usernames (WP:IU) says that the criteria applicable to usernames "also apply to signatures", while WP:Username_policy#Confusing_usernames (WP:UNCONF) says: "Confusing usernames can often be a red flag for other problems" – which certainly seems to be the case here. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I noticed some people state that no policy requires a change of signature. I note that there is actually a precedent for requiring a sig change: In 2005, a user had four tildes as their signature, which many people found confusing. There was an arbitration case over it, and the Committee found that "[u]sers with improper usernames or signatures may be required to change them.", and required that user to "adopt an un-confusing signature". --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • This is still going on... jesus christ WilliamJE just change your goddamn signature. The all-around feedback is it's absolutely terrible even if you think otherwise. Just for the sake of getting this over with, just change it. Not one time have I personally found it funny, 1 point for the uniqueness and -5 for being absolutely pointless. And no, not everyone is socking and not everyone is out to get you. --qedk (t c) 06:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I oppose forcing WilliamJE to change his signature. It is somewhat confusing, but disruptive enough for the community to mandate a change. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 06:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't think "forcing" is the right word here but many editors find his signature confusing, even he says it's confusing, so it would be nice if he changed his signature. It's disruptive to deliberately confuse other editors. My username was in Arabic and I was asked to change my signature to English and I immediately did.[17] I don't know why would someone want to have a confusing signature.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I have always found the signature confusing, and even just now I had to look at it again to make sure. One shouldn't use a long line of text to close off a line of text, and in discussions without proper indentation, or where the next comment is at the same level (especially if no bullet points are used), this makes it very hard to read. I also find the rudeness and the socking allegations to be rather inexplicable. This business of usernames shouldn't be difficult. (Below, there is a section starring User:Miraclepine, who should also consider just writing out their damn username in the usual way.) Drmies (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't see your point. Ponyo's name is in her signature. Same with Ten Pound Hammer. Your signature says "ミラ", whose connection with your username is more than tenuous for those who haven't studied Japanese. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I think that, it has been established that WE's sig counts as A distracting, confusing, or otherwise unsuitable signature, which has indeed adversely affect[ed] other users.
    @Miraclepine: Your sig is also a pain on the brain. For an example refer to User:Παράδειγμα, who signs his posts as Παράδειγμα/Paradigma. WP:SIG#CustomSig says that a customised signature should make it easy to identify your username and that it is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the username it represents. It is difficult to see how yours does so. No offence! ——SN54129 17:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't see any of those pinged editors having confusing signature. You can tell where the signature is and you can tell which username made the comment.
I usually add "--" to the end of my comments like this "--~~~~", I think this way editors don't confuse my comment with my signature.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Having been pinged here, I have done some minor shortening which doesn't affect its appearance. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 19:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I have no clue why we are all mass pinged here. At worst I'm not following a single guideline, and even that is dubious - my "aka DQ" at the end at least hints at my username. If the community wants to enforce signature compliance on me, they can, but I don't see a policy at this time i'm breaking. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Miraclepine, I dont find the signature of any of those people you pinged confusing. Please desist from inappropriate whataboutery. DBigXray 21:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. Do people really having nothing better to do than moan about 'confusing' usernames? Wow, get out more. StickyWicket (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
    AssociateAffiliate, what is this "out" you speak of? For real tho, this is what AN is for, this is a issue, and you dont need to be rude like that. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 20:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Is this anymore confusing that "Guy's" signature? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
It's more confusing because it tricks editors and make them read the signature as if it was part of the comment. I agree that JzG signature is confusing but once you learn that "JzG" is "Guy" you don't have the confusion again. Also, there have been a lot of complaints about William's signature. So even if he didnt change his signature another editor will come here and complain about his signature again.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Is this anymore confusing that "Guy's" signature? Yes. There are dozens of editors whose signature includes something that isn't the actual username. This occasionally causes people to mess up pings, but that's a minor issue and an inconvenience to us more than to anyone else; it's obvious how to relate to it (call the person by the displayed name; click the displayed name to go to the userpage or talkpage). WilliamJE's signature is genuinely confusing -- it's not clear that it is a signature, and therefore not clear how to interact with it. --JBL (talk) 01:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Editing templatesEdit

I'm a little nervous about editing a template myself: could someone competent in editing templates help please? See Template talk:Self-reference tool. I failed to get a response to my request at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2020 February 8#Editing templates. Thanks, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Shhhnotsoloud, done. As I mentioned on the template's talk page, using the appropriate edit request template will likely get a quicker response; not many people have templates on their watchlists. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 11:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Rollback Rollback all toolEdit

I have an issue with the rollback all tool that rollbackers can see on users contrib pages. If you were to accidently hit it what would happen? Does it have a confirmation box or does it automatically do it? God forbid I am trying to hit one of the other boxes on myself and rollback my 9 years worth of edits... Also what if a new rollbacker were to get their hands on it and misuse it or "test it" it can be very damaging. I think it should be a separate process to get approved for it. Thanks. Bobherry Talk Edits 17:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC) is what I am referring to. Bobherry Talk Edits 17:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
That is not a standard feature of MediaWiki, but rather a script that you have installed to User:Bobherry/monobook.js. (Starting from the comment "Mass rollback function".) It appears that it will prompt you for an edit summary, which you can "cancel" out of to cancel the mass rollback, and that it will only roll back the edits currently displayed on the page (the last 50 edits, by default). ST47 (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

My new alternative accountEdit

Hi. I've created an alternative account, Miraclepine Amour, to perform maintenance edits similar to Izno's IznoRepeat. Please add WP:AWB and WP:XC access to Miraclepine Amour so it can function properly, and I'd also like my WP:AWB access removed. ミラP 22:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Miraclepine: This is more of a WP:PERM matter, than something that specifically concerns administrators. --qedk (t c) 06:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
@QEDK: Thanks. I thought it would be better to unveil my new alternative account at WP:AN, and I've posted its intent its userpage. ミラP 14:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
@Miraclepine: I've carried out both the AWB switch from Miraclepine to Miraclepine Amour and added the extended confirmed userright to that account. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks. I've loaded Miraclepine Amour to AWB and please full-protect its talk page because its intent means it will never edit it. ミラP 14:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus and QEDK: Just realized, every time I try to use Miraclepine Amour on AWB it gives me a "You have new messages" error. Is there a way to disable that? ミラP 15:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
@Miraclepine: I think these might be either the user rights change message or the edit where you added a redirect to User talk:Miraclepine Amour. Might want to log into that account and manually unmark the notifications at Special:Notifications. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I cannot paste the password, which I did not bother to memorize, from the profile box it is logged into. Is it possible to configure AWB so it won't give you the new messages notices? ミラP 16:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
The point is to force you to log in your account and read those messages, because that's how people prevent massive damage from being done by people that are running AWB scripts that cause errors. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
@Headbomb: How am I gonna retrieve the password from my AWB then? ミラP 16:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean by that. Just open your browser and log in your AWB account manually as you would log in your regular account. That will clear the 'YOU HAVE NEW MESSAGES' notice in AWB. After that you can resume things as normal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
@Headbomb: That's the problem. I cannot log into my new alt-acct thru my browser because I cannot retrieve the password from my AWB's profile section. Every time I go to "edit profile", the copy function will not work. ミラP 16:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
If you lost your password, then create a new account. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
@Headbomb, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and QEDK: Thanks. Just block the current Miraclepine Amour account after removing XC and AWB from it, account creation disabled, autoblock disabled, e-mail disabled, cannot edit own talk page. I've filed a request to have it renamed and repurposed so I can usurp it when I'm remaking Miraclepine Amour. I promise I won't screw up remaking "Miraclepine Amour". ミラP 17:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
@Headbomb, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and QEDK: And I again screwed up with Miraclepinamour. Although I gave the alt-account a separate password from my primary account, somehow that password still won't work if I use that password on the alt-account. ミラP 19:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Headbomb, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and QEDK: Good news, everyone! I was able to log into Miraclepine Amour II and disable as many notification functionalities as possible. Now time to give Miraclepine Amour II AWB and XC. ミラP 19:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Done and done. Let's hope it doesn't blow up again. Password is now saved, I trust? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: That and email attached if anything happens. Full-protect that account's talk page. I've withdrawn the username rename requests due to bureaucratic complications. ミラP 20:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus, Headbomb, and QEDK: And this confirms it's up and running. ミラP 20:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:ANI sectionEdit

It would probably be best if an uninvolved admin could close Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent_disruption_by_Darkknight2149. The editor involved has been repeatedly saying they will post a rebuttal of the issues against them, but that was 36 hours ago, and it seems like one is not forthcoming. Black Kite (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Slatneck and threats based on the Kudpung caseEdit

Slatneck (talk · contribs)

The contributions of this user make it pretty clear they exist only to intimidate. Clearly a sock of someone. Indef block and revdel of userpages and most contributions is warranted. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

  Done — JJMC89(T·C)
@JJMC89: thanks. There's at least one edit summary that should be suppressed as well in their user talk page too. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Got that one too now. — JJMC89(T·C) 06:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I see little reason to revert all of the contributions of someone who is found to be a sockpuppet. Likewise, What's next, going back and reverting everything a sockpuppet did? Why not simply let the neutral/good stuff stand? Buffs (talk) 16:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
The request is "most contributions", emphasis mine, and I think you are making an implicit assumption that there are any neutral/good contributions for the case at hand. DMacks (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Yeah...I mean why revert compliments: [18] [19]...those aren't "good"/"neutral" contributions... Buffs (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Because those are disingenuous. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
That's more than a little bit of an assumption... Buffs (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Not really, no. The proof is in the pudding. But hey, if you want to accept barnstars from people who make socks to threaten people and want to intimidate them as retaliation for speaking up against bullying, go right ahead. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm only noting here that some are going around and reverting others' comments on talk pages. Even if this person is a pain in the butt/purveyor of insults/someone who's been banned and now sockpuppeting (which I have every reason to believe he is), there's nothing in our procedures that states all of his contributions should be reverted. There are some that are inappropriate and should be rev-del'd on sight. Likewise, any !votes of his should be discounted. But we don't have a policy that even encourages the undoing of previous benign, helpful, or complimentary edits just because he is banned/sockpuppeting. My issue is that this sets a precedent I don't think we should do. Buffs (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
WP:EVADE says (emphasis mine): "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a blocked editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." I would say this last bit very clearly uncourages reverting edits exactly because he is evading a ban and sockpuppeting. It's not mandatory, but it's definitely encouraged in our policy. --Yamla (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I stand partially corrected. The point was that it isn't mandatory. I took a softer stance than intended in my verbiage. I also recognize that I did not take into account WP:EVADE in its entirety. Buffs (talk) 04:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
But we don't have a policy that even encourages the undoing of previous benign, helpful, or complimentary edits just because he is banned/sockpuppeting. That's just not at all correct. Grandpallama (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
I recently had a related story in my talk page. I mass rolled back edits by sockpuppets of blocked editor. Then an editor came to my talk page and complained about this. Here is what I think, roll back all edits, doesn't matter if they are good or bad. If the editor has few edits and you can easily find all of his good edits then don't remove them. Otherwise, I am not going to waste my time looking for good edits of an editor who have made more than 500 edits. Why would we block editors if they can pass "good-faith edits". I actually think allowing their edits encourage them to create more accounts.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni:   Locked globally --Alaa :)..! 20:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Deleting part of a page's edit historyEdit

  • Again, I would be thankful of you could introduce an ability to delete some (rather than all) of a page's edits in one action. Again twice just now in the course of my history-merging, when using Special:MergeHistory, I have had to waste my time and Wikipedia's server's time deleting the whole of a long edit history and then undeleting most of it, merely to delete a few of its oldest edits (which were all old redirects). This idea sometimes seems to surface and after a while to be lost sight of. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Huh? You can absolutely delete just a few revisions at once. When you're looking at the history, just tick the boxes of the ones you want gone, then click "change visibility of selected revisions". ♠PMC(talk) 06:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Yep, I didn't know this either, but the boxes allow you to select. You are sometimes in a pickle if you want to delete a summary under one rationale but the revision under another and it is impossible to do without the boxes. --qedk (t c) 06:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Anthony isn't talking about revision deletion. He is requesting the ability to do selective deletion, similar to how we have selective undeletion. — JJMC89(T·C) 06:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I see the distinction. I forgot that revdeleted revisions are still visible to non-admins in the history, even if they're inaccessible. I wonder if the devs have just sort of decided revdel is good enough for most cases and never mind the difference. ♠PMC(talk) 06:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
FWIW Anthony opened phab:T213617 last year, although I'm certain it's been discussed before; I presume that's the "you" in the initial comment. ~ Amory (utc) 12:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • @Amorymeltzer, JJMC89, Premeditated Chaos, and QEDK: In "Again, I would be thankful of you", "you" means Wikipedia's maintenance system in general, and "of" should be "if".
    • As User:JJMC89 pointed out, there are 2 processes involved here:
      1. Deleting, as accessed by a web page name of type "", or is done if an AfD discussion yields "yes".
      2. Hiding, as accessed by the 2 long clickables at top right of an edit history display as seen by an admin, marked "Change visibility of selected revisions" and "Edit tags of selected revisions".

question re archiving section at WP:PumpEdit

Is it okay for me to archive a section at Village Pump Proposals that I opened? if not, then could an admin please do so? it is the section pertaining to a new community workspace. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

An archive bot will take care of it. GoodDay (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Requests for Permissions is backloggedEdit

Hello, WP:PERM is fairly severely backlogged. If anyone can provide assistance, it would be appreciated. ~Swarm~ {sting} 01:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)