Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

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

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

  • It is rarely appropriate for inexperienced users to open new threads here – for the "Incidents" noticeboard, click here.
  • Do not report breaches of privacy, inappropriate posting of personal information, outing, etc. on this highly visible page – instead click here.
  • For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
  • Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.

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

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

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

Open tasksEdit

XFD backlog
V Oct Nov Dec Jan Total
CfD 5 6 158 60 229
TfD 0 0 0 1 1
MfD 0 0 0 1 1
FfD 0 0 27 2 29
AfD 0 0 0 4 4

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protectionEdit

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (20 out of 3579 total) (Purge)
Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
Bagan Kingdom 2022-01-17 17:49 2023-01-04 21:44 move Reducing move protection to ECP per consensus at talk page MelanieN
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samsung Galaxy M01 2022-01-17 16:42 2022-02-17 16:42 edit,move Persistent vandalism: also, no need for this to be edited anyway, Star Mississippi
Draft:Susovan 2022-01-17 13:49 2023-01-17 13:49 create Billinghurst
Draft:LeakTheAnalyst 2022-01-17 13:23 indefinite create Recreated as an attack page Nosebagbear
Draft:Sayed Noorullah Jalili 2022-01-17 08:52 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated 331dot
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killing of Barel Hadaria Shmueli 2022-01-17 04:54 2022-01-20 04:54 edit,move Arbitration enforcement: per WP:A/I/PIA Steven Walling
The Anime Man 2022-01-17 04:50 2022-02-07 04:50 edit,move Persistent vandalism Steven Walling
Draft:Susovan (actor) 2022-01-16 21:06 2023-01-16 21:06 create Repeatedly recreated Billinghurst
Susovan 2022-01-16 20:59 2023-01-16 20:59 create Repeatedly recreated Billinghurst
R188 (New York City Subway car) 2022-01-15 18:25 2023-01-15 18:25 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP MelanieN
Module:Currency/Presentation 2022-01-15 17:59 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2501 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
Module:Currency 2022-01-15 17:59 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2505 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
Template:Party name with color 2022-01-15 17:59 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 3685 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
Brant Rosen 2022-01-15 11:33 indefinite edit,move New editors are prohibited from editing this Arab–Israeli conflict related page Doug Weller
Betty White 2022-01-14 20:51 indefinite move Persistent vandalism Discospinster
Draft:Nicolás Atanes Santos 2022-01-14 17:28 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Girth Summit
Draft talk:Pradeep Rajput 2022-01-14 05:14 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz
Ahir 2022-01-14 02:20 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: WP:GS/Caste Reinstate expired ECP RegentsPark
Draft:Anjal Prakash 2022-01-13 23:29 2023-01-13 23:29 create Repeatedly recreated Mkdw
Prince Andrew, Duke of York 2022-01-13 19:08 2022-04-13 19:08 edit Arbitration enforcement: WP:BLPDS ToBeFree

Requesting cross-wiki investigation against Darul Huda Islamic AcademyEdit

The legal name of the madrasa is “Darul Huda Islamic Academy” but the name they proclaim publicly is “Darul Huda Islamic University” and its acronym, “DHIU”, which is intended to mislead people. They misuse Wikipedia editions, Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata by creating and maintaining articles in various languages to protect their own interests. I don't know if the institution could be called a university or not and the articles was eligible to be kept on Wikipedia or not. I do not recommend deleting the following articles but I request a cross-wiki investigation including meatpuppetry. Admins can discuss and make the necessary decisions themselves.


  • The name was given as “Darul Huda Islamic Academy” when it was registered under the Society Act in 1989 and filed as an NGO in 2019.
  • Darul Huda has been promoting itself the term "university" and DHIU since 2009, which is incorrect.
  • Their homepage was changed from to in 2009 and to in 2016. They launched a Facebook page called “Darul Huda Islamic University (DHIU)” in 2011.
  • Four bank account details, including two branches of State Bank of India, Canara and HDFC, are listed in the footer of Darul Huda's website. There the name of the account holder is given as "Darul Huda Islamic Academy".
  • Leading universities in India refer to the institution as “Darul Huda Islamic Academy” (2019) and “Darul Huda Islamia Academy” (2017).


Institutions that are not accredited by UGC should not be used as a university in India. Even UGC-accredited Deemed Universities have no right to use the term University. Then how can Darul Huda, which is not even recognized as a primary school by Government of India or Kerala or any School boards like CBSE, ICSE and KHSEB, use the revered word "university"?

That's why, instead of changing the legal name, they only give the promotional name on their websites, profiles and biographies of students and alumni published in different websites, Facebook and the self-created Wikipedia articles.

Suspected accountsEdit

Some accounts were involved in the campaign on various wiki projects. Most of these are students or alumni of the Darul Huda:

  1. Faizalniyaz @ Faisal Niyaz Hudawi [1]
  2. Fazal kopilan @ Fazal Kopilan is a former student[2] and Sub Editor of Thelitcham Monthly, [3] published by Darul Huda.[4]
  3. Suhail hidaya @ Muhammed Suhail Hidaya Hudawi [5]is a staff of the Darul Huda[6] and Associate Editor of published by Darul Huda.[7]
  4. Ashrafnlkn [8] and Ashrafulkhalq [9] are two accounts of Ashraful Khalq from Nellikunnu (nlkn). He is the major contributor of the article Nellikunnu. His both names are mentioned on his Twitter account.
  5. Kunchava KK
  6. Abjad3
  7. Mckrntr
  8. Nadwi Kooriyad
  9. Bahauddeen Muhammed
  10. YusufMohamedHudawi @ Yoosuf Hudawi
  11. Tinkvu @ Rinshad C is a student of Darul Huda[10].
  12. Nezvm is a secondary account of Tinkvu.
  13. Suhail Chemmad @ Suhail from Chemmad. This seems to be Suhail's secondary user account.

English WikipediaEdit

Faisal Niyaz Hudawi, an alumnus of Darul Huda and current CEO of the Islamonweb, an Islamic web portal managed by its graduates, started an article entitled “Darul Huda Islamic Academy” in 2006 and another alumnus and current staff member, Suhail Hidaya Hudawi, renamed it “Darul Huda Islamic University” in 2011. After that, they often try to maintain their interest by creating/canvassing different accounts. A Wikipedia admin moved back to old name, Darul Huda Islamic Academy as per my request recently.

Students and alumni of the Darul Huda, including Suhail Hidaya has created numerous articles related to it on various Wikipedia sites, including English, Malayalam, Arabic, Français, Bahasa Indonesia, Bahasa Melayu, Türkçe and Urdu, and uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons, and modified related Wikidata items.


  1. Darul Huda Islamic Academy
  2. Darul Huda Islamic University
  3. DHIU
  4. Darul Huda Islamic University (DHIU)
  5. Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi (deleted many times)
  6. User:Djm-leighpark/Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi
  7. Draft:Bahauddeen Muhammed Jamaluddeen Nadwi
  8. Dr.Bahauddeen Muhammed Jamaluddeen Nadwi
  9. Draft:Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi
  10. Bahauddeen Nadwi (deleted twice)

Updated the list now Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 13:52, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Other WikipediasEdit

Articles created by Suhail Hidaya related to it in various Wikipedia projects:


  1. ദാറുൽ ഹുദാ ഇസ്‍ലാമിക് യൂനിവേഴ്‍സിറ്റി
  2. സി.എച്ച്. ഐദറൂസ് മുസ്‌ലിയാർ
  3. തെളിച്ചം മാസിക
  4. ബഹാഉദ്ദീൻ മുഹമ്മദ് നദ്‌വി
  5. ഫെഡറേഷൻ ഓഫ് യൂനിവേഴ്സിറ്റീസ് ഓഫ് ഇസ്ലാമിക് വേൾഡ്
  6. സമസ്ത കേരള ജംഇയ്യത്തുൽ മുഅല്ലിമീൻ


  1. Académie Islamique Darul Huda

Bahasa Indonesia

  1. Academy Darul Huda Islamic

Bahasa Melayu

  1. Akademi Islam Darul Huda


  1. Darul Hüda İslam Üniversitesi


  1. دار الہدى اسلامک اکیڈمی


  1. جامعة دار الهدى الإسلامية
  2. بهاء الدين محمد الندوي

List of related domainsEdit

Darul Huda

  • Darul Huda's main website.
  • the first domain name of the Darul Huda.
  • a redirect to main domain, it was early used as main domain.
  • a journal by the Darul Huda.
  • an Islamic web portal by Darul Huda's graduates, Hudawis.
  • a online monthly published by Darul Huda.
  • official website of Hadia (Hudawis Association for Devoted Islamic Activities), the alumni of Darul Huda.

News Agencies

Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


An article moved to new titleEdit

Tinkvu @ Rinshad C moved the Darul Huda Islamic Academy to Darul Huda Islamic University (DHIU) and removed old contents containing the real name and related sources of “Darul Huda Islamic Academy”. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 05:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I removed the old contents which wasn't referenced correctly. @Sabeelul hidaya is bringing his personal hate to the university over Wikipedia!!!
I am not a student, alumni or any employee of Darul Huda Islamic Academy. I have been contributing to Wikipedia articles for 5 months and you can check my contributions on my User's page (And if needed, I can give you the records of my current University).
@Sabeelul hidaya Please note that Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia and as a contributors, we need to make it best. Please stop bringing your personal hate to Wikipedia.
Thank You! Tinkvu (talk) 04:28, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia should not be seen as a place to tell lies alone. Is it not a lie to say that you have not studied in Darul Huda yet? Did I say anything without the necessary references?
Why are you trying to mislead Darul Huda as a university?
Isn't Darul Huda an institution operating in India?
Isn't UGC the accrediting agency for the India-based universities?
Has the UGC or any other government-recognized council even recognized Darul Huda as a primary school?
Why did you omit the word "UGC did not recognize it even as a Deemed University until 2020" added to the article to avoid misunderstandings? This idea was contributed to this article by @Gab4gab:, not me.
Why did you remove the author's first name and last name from the citation linked to the it was copied from a post that posted in Two Circles by Shafeeq Hudawi. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
@Sabeelul hidaya I removed nothing from the citation as you're talking. The citations are auto-generated and it shows like this[1]. Tinkvu (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
What you say may sometimes be true. You answer other questions as well. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 03:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
I did'nt get what you're talking about! Tinkvu (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
I will make it clear to you.
Darul Huda Islamic University is a Private University under the managing committee, Darul Huda Islamic Academy. And it's because of the managing committee is Darul Huda Islamic Academy, all the bank accounts are under the academy.
There are a lot of institutions and other NGO's under Darul Huda Islamic Academy. Tinkvu (talk) 03:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
@Tinkvu: I do not intend to discuss their name or the notability of the organisation or to interfere with their freedom, they can use names they like.
There are many Islamic institutions in Kerala, both large and small. They do not use the word university in a way that misleads students, high educational institutions and organizations, both at home and abroad, nor do they offer the kind of degrees or PGs offered by universities.
I speak out against a group of people, including students, alumni, staff members and paid editors who work as writers, authors, journalists in leading news agencies like The New Indian Express and Gulf Times, and news portals like, and Wikipedians, presenting an institution that does not even have a primary school as a university based on its own press releases, books, articles and self-created web profiles instead of independent evidence. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
[Copyright infringement removed]
Darul Huda Islamic University is a Private Islamic University under the managing committee Darul Huda Islamic Academy. And it has affiliations by the Islamic Universities League. Tinkvu (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
@Tinkvu: FUIW and LIU are not accreditation/affiliation agencies, even if it is true that Darul Huda was granted membership. The document only mentions as "membership" and "member" on both of the certificates you claim to be the certificates they granted to Darul Huda.
I told you earlier that, I do not intend to discuss the name or the notability of the organisation. I speak out against a group of people, including students, alumni, staff members and paid editors who work as writers, authors, journalists, and Wikipedians, presenting the institution that does not even have a primary school as a university based on its own press releases, books, articles and self-created web profiles instead of independent evidence and offer the kind of degrees or PGs offered by accredited universities. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
(@Sabeelul hidaya) You have mentioned the wrong facebook account, Here's my facebook profile[15] and here's my LinkedIn.
And @Sabeelul hidayais a fake profile created by the haters of University to harm/destroy University. Sabeehul Hidaya Islamic College is a college affiliated by Darul Huda Islamic University and the @Sabeelul hidaya is a fake profile created only for harming articles related to Darul Huda Islamic University.
Please help Wikipedia grow, not to bring your personal interests on this Global Encyclopedia.
Thank You! Tinkvu (talk) 06:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Sabeelul hidaya is an Arabic word meaning "way of guidance". I do not think there is anything wrong with this name, contrary to username policy. However, there is no objection to change if the admins suggest me that you behave. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 07:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Okey! Agreed.
Can't be there different people with the same name? its not me that you're talking about above!
Prove your identity first and please help Wikipedia to be clean, not to be scrap. Tinkvu (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
@Sabeelul hidaya Can you please mention about your previous Wikipedia User Account here or in your profile? User talk:Sabeelul hidaya#Previous account(s)?
If you have an old account, you should mention it on your User Page. Tinkvu (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
@Tinkvu: Would you like to collaborate with this discussion? Just talk if you're interested or I have other work to do. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 02:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Rules are rules, always (You have to know it first).
And stop searching for the students of DHIU (who don't even have any user account on Wikipedia) with the same as that of the users contributing for telling that the article's self published.
I can prove that you're wrong. Tinkvu (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
@Tinkvu: Try to prove it with strong evidence. My first question. I have established on the basis of evidence that Suhail Hidaya is the major contributor to all Wikipedia articles related to Darul Huda. Can you prove otherwise? Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Suhail Hidaya's last contribution for the article Darul Huda Islamic University was on 4 April,2020[2].
It's 06 January 2022. And the article and everything was edited by many people later. It's around two years and more than 200 edits were done to the article later[3]. How can you still say that his contributions still exist on the article? Please explain @Sabeelul hidaya! Tinkvu (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
@Tinkvu: I did not refer to him as the latest editor, but as the major contributor. Who renamed the article Darul Huda Islamic Academy as Darul Huda Islamic University and created all related articles (approximately 13) on all non-English Wikipedias? Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
And I've replied to all your questions and please check if you have'nt seen.
Thank You. Tinkvu (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

List of references removed yesterday from the article Darul Huda Islamic Academy:

  1. MANUU: In this source mentioned that the Darul Huda Islamic Academy's madrasa course has been approved for admission in 2019-20 academic year
  2. About the vice principal
  3. About former principal
  4. NGO details at NGO Darpan, Gov. of India
  5. Google Books
  6. Kochi Post
  7. Jamia Millia: In this source mentioned that the Darul Huda Islamic Academy's madrasa course has been approved for admission in 2017 academic year
  8. AMU (dead link)

Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 01:27, 25 December 2021 (UTC)


  1. ^ bhatkallys (2016-09-24). "Kerala Islamic University to spread its wings in South East Asia". Retrieved 2022-01-05.
  2. ^ "User contributions for Suhail hidaya - Wikipedia". Retrieved 2022-01-05.
  3. ^ "Darul Huda Islamic University: Revision history - Wikipedia". Retrieved 2022-01-05.

Discussion (Darul Huda Islamic Academy)Edit

What do we needt do do at en-Wiki? Given the above I would suggest the article is moved back and move-protected. The Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi article is now at draft:Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi - moved by Barkeep49 as the result of a request. As an unreferened BLP that has not been worked on in eighteen months or more, I sugest that it is deleted and both draft and article titles are salted. Mjroots (talk) 09:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Darul Huda Islamic University is a recognized university in Kerala and Dr. Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi is the vice-chancellor of the University. Do not delete articles related to the university and do not take any actions against the Wikipedians because they are published on English, Malayalam and Arabic only after checking the grammar and making good sources and necessary news coverages. This is not a promotion. We have provided accurate information about this university. We write clearly on different Wikipedias so as not to be misunderstood by the general public, universities and other institutions that search for information about the university on Google and other search engines. Even if you delete it now or later, we will rewrite it with the help of Wikipedia's admins. I'm asking the admins what's wrong with using the university's real name on Wikipedia. You should not use Wikipedia to protect your interests. Suhail Chemmad (talk) 06:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
What is the meaning of promotion? Taking action against articles and accounts is not my goal. The rules should be the same for everyone. I started the discussion here when I saw activities that were against the rules. But the rules do not apply as long as there are paid editors to help you. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 06:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
I am curious Suhail Chemmad, when you talk about editing Wikipedia, why do you speak in such a plural tone (we have provided ..., we write clearly ..., we will rewrite it ...)? I'd assumed it was a matter of differences in language but seeing: "I'm asking the admins ..." indicates more fluency than I'd originally thought. I'll simply ask: do you edit Wikipedia as an individual or are your efforts coordinated with and for others, perhaps even while sharing accounts?--John Cline (talk) 07:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
I haven't carefully read this whole thing but I would suggest on the article front we don't need to do anything - my refunding of the article to User:Djm-leighpark/Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi (not the Draft version) and full protecting it ensures it's not put into mainspace. Since many of the editors identified aren't suspect to be socks I'm not sure what else we need to do. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Wrong place, if you think a AfD is appropriate for Darul Huda Islamic University (DHIU) and it passes a good faith BEFORE then so be it, but I personally would probably be !voting a keep for most sorts of higher education establishments with RS regardless of country, ideology etc. Regarding Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi has at least one viable source as far as I can tell, I wished i'd moved and stewarded into draftspace rather than letter CFORKs. The newer CFORK draft is way off mainspace requirements at this point. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Common names are fine. Loads of organisations don't use their legal name. Secretlondon (talk) 15:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for devoting your precious time to this. I do not intend to discuss their name or the notability of the organisation or to interfere with their freedom, they can use names they like.
There are many Islamic institutions in Kerala, both large and small. They do not use the word university in a way that misleads students, high educational institutions and organizations, both at home and abroad, nor do they offer the kind of degrees or PGs offered by universities.
I speak out against a group of people, including students, alumni, staff members and paid editors who work as writers, authors, journalists in leading news agencies like The New Indian Express and Gulf Times, and news portals like, and Wikipedians, presenting an institution that does not even have a primary school as a university based on its own press releases, books, articles and self-created web profiles instead of independent evidence. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 07:19, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

1 January 2021Edit

Tinkvu is still trying to misrepresent the madrasa. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 08:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Meatstuff resumesEdit

@Djm-leighpark and Barkeep49: Are TheAafi and Irshadpp involved in this conspiracy? Can their accounts also be included in the suspected accounts?

Tinkvu, TheAafi and Irshadpp are likely to be paid writers. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 02:10, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Suhail Hidaya, Aaqib Anjum Aafi and Irshad are not any relationship to the University. They are respected contributors and promoters of the Wikipedia. Don't drag anyone into controversy unnecessarily. It will destroy their sincerity. Suhail Chemmad (talk) 06:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in this discussion. Your account also listed in the suspected accounts. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 07:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Having spent rather more time on this than I'd planned, it seems clear that there is an active and sophisticated brigade of accounts - meatpuppets and/or sockpuppets - dedicated to claiming for the Darul Huda Islamic Academy the status of university, to which it has no right. The appropriate action on their article Darul Huda Islamic University is being [16] discussed elsewhere, the possible relevance for this board is admin action on the puppets. I'd have thought a Wikimedia-wide topic ban to be appropriate. Hunc (talk) 10:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: (Pinging you because you've been pinged above), Admins should take this accusation against longtime contributors like me serious. I was browsing through Islam related AfDs and came here through the Darul Huda AfD and I find this guy is here accusing me of not only being a paid editor but someone who is involved in some stupid conspiracy. Strange that I wasn't even notified on talk page which is necessary and "The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.". I seek admin help against this bullying and harassment unnecessarily. I haven't even ever edited that page. The best part of this game is that the user who has accused me is just here since last month..... ─ The Aafī (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
@TheAafi I've been pinged three or four times to this thread. I have made the only substantive comment I am planning to make above. I simply don't have the capacity to dive into this. I'm sorry that I can't look further into what is troubling you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@TheAafi I'm definitely not accusing you. Nor User:Irshadpp. To @User:Sabeelul hidaya, please provide evidence, and be careful, when making accusations. However, the edit war continues, and I'd hope for some admin attention to the repeated reinsertion of the claims of Darul Huda Islamic Academy to University‎ status, along with other promotional material. Hunc (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I've no doubt whatsoever that TheAafi is here to build an encyclopedia and their contributions are in good faith. They have been completely transparent in their interests and RL pursuits and I'm not aware of a single edit of theirs made with malintent. I find the accusations against them specious at best and should not be entertained. This approaches BOOMERANG territory to my mind. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Sabeelul hidaya saying that TheAafi might be a paid editor is a little paranoid, but I don't think it rises to the level of approaching a BOOMERANG. Especially considering the sheer amount of paid editors that have actually been involved in this. IMO in cases like this it's much better to caste a wide net and allow each person who has edited the article in a questionable way to say they don't have a COI then do the opposite. Otherwise you risk not holding people accountable for meatpuppeting simply because your afraid of retaliation over asking if someone has a COI. All TheAafi has to do is say they don't and everyone can get on with this. Accusing Sabeelul hidaya of bullying and harassments over it in the meantime is kind of ridiculous though. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
No one has a right to cast baseless accusations, we presume good faith until *proven* otherwise. TheAafi has aldready made a perfectly clear statement, which in my opinion it was not necessary since any examination of their edit history reveals good faith contributions... and that is the whole point, we don't allow people to run around accusing anyone of being a "witch" and place the onus on the accused, we expect evidence and proof before we adjudicate. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Saying "I think someone has a COI" on this forum isn't making a baseless accusation. That's literally what this is for. People say they think there's an issue here and other people get involved to figure out if there is one not. Someone saying they think someone has a COI isn't "adjudicating" anything either. There's no judgment or decision being made about it in this discussion. Let alone does Sabeelul hidaya have any power to act as a judge or take action against anyone for anything. He isn't an admin. In the meantime, multiple accounts that he has reported have been blocked. So in no way is this at all comparable to the Salem Witch Trials. The hyperbole on your part really isn't helpful. An admin will review and deal with this regardless of your opinion that it's meritless. At this point your just bludgeoning things. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Even though Tinkvu declared their COI I think it would be worth giving them a topic ban from editing articles related to this university if nothing else. Since they seem incapable of working on articles related to it in a neutral, guideline based way that respects other users edits. Even after the extra scrutiny brought on by this complaint. I could care less if they edit other areas of Wikipedia, but they clearly have no business editing the Darul Huda Islamic University article or anything even slightly related to it. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Close review of the latest RfC about Jacobin's reliabilityEdit

As I wrote here at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, and as I was suggested to by Tayi Arajakate, I am asking with no prejudice that an admin review the RfC, and a close review for a reclose/amendment. As I wrote there, I am not sure that "[e]ditors achieved a strong consensus that Jacobin is no better than marginally reliable. [emphasis mine; strong consensus and successive close wording is bolded in original], and in general did not seem to account for Option 1 and/or Option 1/2 comments when stating that "there is strong consensus that Jacobin is no better than marginally reliable" — e.g. it appears to be there was no clear or strong consensus on whether it was 1 or 2, with a minority supporting 3. I think both sides gave good arguments for either 'green'-rating (with bias and attribution like The Intercept and Reason) and 'yellow'-rating (no consensus).

It is not so easy to tell which colour better reflects consensus, and if a review would change that; however, my main issue is with the closure's wording that should be revised and/or improved, and if so, also amend on the same grounds the current (RSP entry), which appears to be too wordy and could be further improved, perhaps due to the similarly too wordy closure that may be, at least in part, due to being closed by a non-admin. Thank you. Davide King (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

  • I would support scrapping the close followed by a re-close preferable from an admin, especially after the closer's response at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § Jacobin (magazine). To start, the close is very long and quite hard to navigate. It consists of a lot of redundancies and over-emphasises particular arguments, some of which only had the support of one or two editors. On the other hand, it downplays and in some cases completely ignores other policy based arguments, including those that directly addressed the other set of arguments and enjoyed wider support. In the end, the close somehow ends up coming to a conclusion that is even harsher than most of the opinions expressed by Option 2 !voters and more in line with those expressed by Option 3 !voters. If the response to this is simply that the arguments were stronger, then this is a supervote and not an appropriate summarisation of the consensus. Tayi Arajakate Talk 07:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Any updates? Davide King (talk) 11:28, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
      • Not yet, it seems. Hopefully, others would eventually comment after looking into it. Tayi Arajakate Talk 12:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm unarchiving this section, as it did not recieve sufficient participation and the closer has till now been largely irresponsive to concerns depsite contuining to uphold the close. See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Jacobin (magazine). It would be helpful if the community could please weigh in on it and resolve this.

To clarify a bit upon why I said what I said in the previous comment, I'll give one additional example. The close assesses the arguments for poor "sourcing practices of Jacobin" to be stronger than those for "the use of Jacobin as a source for facts by reliable sources". The former argument was expressed or supported by 4 participants and explicitly argued against by 3 participants, while the latter argument was expressed or supported by 6 participants. Note also that the former links "sourcing practices" to WP:LAUNDER, an essay that wasn't even linked by any of the participants and might as well be a novel argument. In contrast, WP:UBO is part of a content guideline.

In addition, looking at the closer's degree of involvement in the topic area of American left wing politics, I do not think they are sufficiently uninvolved. Take for instance, The Grayzone was mentioned by participants in their arguments around sourcing practices, which was prominently reproduced in the close summary, all the while the closer has considerable involvement on its article. This is a fairly controversial and complex RfC, involved significant participation from a number of experienced editors with well articulated reasoning for their positions, but was closed by an involved NAC. My position is therefore to Overturn and reclose by an uninvolved admin regardless of whatever it is, with a close summary that is more concise and coherent. Tayi Arajakate Talk 15:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm lost as to what your position is and exactly what the complaint is. If I understand right, your ultimate concern is that its designation is yellow on WP:RSP, rather than green? And that the closer did not close with an option 1/2/3/4 response? On the latter, I don't think that's a requirement; I've closed RSN RfCs with statements not resulting in a clear option answer. RSP regulars can turn the closing statement into whatever colours/entries they think best represent the statement. As for the former, there's no consistency on how that's handled. e.g. The Spectator is pretty decent, but WP:SPECTATOR is yellow. Reason wasn't subject to an RfC and I'm not sure its RSP rating is actually indicative of the consensus in the recent discussion (which, incidentally, it appears I started). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
No, that is not my concern. The concern is the summary in the RSP entry does reflect the close but the close doesn't reflect the actual discussion. It overweighs arguments presented by those favoring general unreliability. One central point being that it concludes that there is "a strong consensus that Jacobin is no better than marginally reliable", which is not reflected in the discussion as it implies that either some form of additional considerations should apply or that it is generally unreliable. Most participants who !voted Option 2 don't indicate support for this kind of position so it appears plain inappropriate. Tayi Arajakate Talk 16:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
On a sidenote, the recent discussion on Reason took place after the Jacobin one and the participants supporting "Option 2" make explicit references to the Jacobin. Its entry is not indicative of the consensus of the last discussion though it is for those before it. So it seems instead of the practice shifting, this is an inappropriate close making us deviate from WP:RSOPINION for the sake of consistency. Incidentally, the closer of the Jacobin themselves is the sole person expressing support for the general reliability of Reason with a WP:UBO arguement which is quite ironic. Tayi Arajakate Talk 17:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the Reason thing, it is not an outlier. I would point out that the closer has extensively weighed in on RSN discussions over sources perceived to have a left / right bias, virtually always, relative to the average of the discussions, on the side of low reliability for left-wing ones and high reliability for right-wing ones eg. dubious right wing sources [17][18][19][20][21][22] vs. an eagerness to depreciate or limit the use of left-leaning ones [23][24][25][26][27]. On top of that, Mikehawk's top-edited talk pages include Uyghur genocide, Mass killings under communist regimes, and The Grayzone, staking out clearly positions on socialism, the far left, and left-wing media coverage in general. It's fine to hold those positions (eg. believing there are a lot of left-leaning sources we use that we shouldn't is a valid position to take), but when it comes to closing RFCs where that is a major focus of discussion - like, say, a source called Jacobin - they are plainly WP:INVOLVED to the point where I'm honestly slightly shocked they thought it would be acceptable for them to close it or that it escaped notice until now. Would anyone involved in that discussion on the other side have been happy if, instead of weighing in with my opinion in the proper way, I had waited a bit and then closed it as generally-reliable (which I do think is the accurate reading of the consensus?) People knee-deep in something like that should not be closing RFCs about it, especially not in close or controversial cases, and especially not with closes that are so obviously at odds with the actual discussion. --Aquillion (talk) 05:52, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The close is from September and it is almost January. I think we have passed the point of a reclose --Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
    I've seen older RfCs being closed though I suppose it can be overturned and just left as is, not the option I prefer. Tayi Arajakate Talk 19:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
  • That close doesn't sufficiently reflect the discussion that gave rise to it. It should be overturned and reclosed, regardless of the amount of time that's passed. A mistake doesn't become less mistaken because it's an old mistake.—S Marshall T/C 18:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree with S Marshall; all else aside the close is plainly a WP:SUPERVOTE, not an accurate summary of the discussion. Numerically the numbers favored option 1; and the closer did not even attempt to argue that the arguments otherwise were stronger, yet they baldly claimed that there was a strong consensus that Jacobin is no better than marginally reliable, which is inaccurate to the point of absurdity. No plausible good-faith reading of a strong consensus to that effect exists. --Aquillion (talk) 05:52, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, this is now quite old, but the alternative to keeping a bad closure is redoing the RfC, which is more of a waste of the community's time. So I would suggest the closure be reversed. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Agree with the need for a reclose. The window for a review request is completely arbitrary, and can be either minutes or years. CutePeach (talk) 13:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • A reclose seems reasonable to me. The conclusion does not seem to match the discussion, and the closer does not address this discrepancy in terms of weight-of-arguments or policy. A seemingly-flawed close is a bad close and should be reviewed. Guettarda (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Overturn and reclose. Clearly not an accurate summary of the discussion. No need to hold on to it just because of time elapsed, nor for a fresh RFC. Folly Mox (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The points regarding the closer's editorial history might be of interest and it is not unreasonable to see this as a less than disinterested close, ie INVOLVED. Nevertheless, it's important to state that problem only arises because the close does not accurately reflect the predominant trajectory of the discussion. Overturn and reclose. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Overturn and reclose: Per Aquillion, Guettarda and others. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Jomart Allaguliyev and socksEdit

On 15 October, Canterbury Tail blocked Jomart Allaguliyev for disruptive editing. I do not exactly what the story was, and this is not important for now. 15 December, Jom Allaguliyev was registered and started editing. A couple of days ago I have realized that he are a sock of a blocked user, and blocked him for block evasion. Today, I saw Jo Allaguliyev on my watchlist. The account was registered yesterday, and I have blocked it as well. The guy does not seem to care that he is blocked, he just registers a new account every time and continues to do what he is doing. I am not sure whether anything should/can be done.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, I have   Confirmed that these three accounts are operated by the same person. I agree that not much more can be done. EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Probably we just need to block on sight, and I do not see what else we could do.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: The account has been abandoned for months, but there's also User:Jomart Allaguliyev (real) which is obviously the same person. (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, blocked this one--Ymblanter (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
@Ymblanter:, J. Allaguliyev (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) would appear to be them also. FDW777 (talk) 12:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, this is clearly an account registered after I have blocked the previous one.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
For the record, Jomart-Guly is the newest one.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Allaguliyev, Jomart (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) appears to be a new incarnation. Folly Mox (talk) 04:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, blocked this one, as well as a couple of socks who showed up in the meanwhile. I guess he is just going to continue like this for the foreseeable future.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: Back again as Jomart Allakuliyev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (talk) 11:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Blocked this one, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
@Ymblanter Back as Jomard Allakuliyev. We need an edit filter? TrangaBellam (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, blocked this one as well. I would not know how to write an edit filter - they do not have a recognizable edit pattern, and blocking the name would not help much.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Their edit pattern is simply editing short descriptions, possibly still through the #suggestededit-add 1.0 tool included on the Wikipedia Android app. That is all any of the accounts ever do. Don't know how to filter it, but at least it's mostly harmless. CMD (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Self-requested review of my WP:XRV closeEdit

Close in question

I just closed the above thread surrounding a complaint of misuse of rollback by an administrator. I think my rationale is in line with the emerging talk page consensus to remove links to the page from other noticeboards as not being ready to be live, and with how we've typically handled such things in the past. Since I was in opposition to the creation of XRV and am still a skeptic, I'm posting here for review, but I believe that closing off that thread now was in line with our normally accepted practices and on the whole benefited the project. For the record, I'm not involved with the case itself, but since this is all so new and I suspect someone will object, taking here for review seems ideal. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I can understand you wanting a second opinion as, as far as I know, there aren't any guidelines on how this board is to be used, how discussions are to be closed or by whom. If I'm wrong, please point me to where this was all decided (not discussed but decided). I mean, for example, can non-admins close reviews of admin actions? It just seemed like the board appeared after a discussion but prior to any policy consensus on how business there is to be conducted. I mean, considering admin and advanced permissions actions are under review, it seems to be something along the lines of WP:AN but, I don't know, more specific about a particular action that was taken instead of a focus on a pattern of conduct? 07:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I didn't scroll up and see the other discussion on this review board. I guess I'm not the only one ambivalent about how it was introduced. Now, back to Tony's original question. Liz Read! Talk! 07:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Endorse close As the close notes, a temporary rollback-usage problem where the editor has issued an apology does not warrant an ongoing investigation. If there are any special rules for WP:XRV, they don't apply unless a specific RfC supports the rules—an RfC on a dedicated page that does not include 26 unrelated proposals. Johnuniq (talk) 08:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Endorse close - the thread under discussion relates to a one-off questionable use of rollback, debated over 36 hours and ending with the editor in question apologising for the incident and committing to do better in future. The new noticeboard has a rule of 7 days before closing, but this issue really doesn't need another 5 and a half days of conversation.
Unrelatedly, I respect the consensus of the RfC to create this additional noticeboard but agree that it needs to define a clearer purpose to avoid duplicating ANI and/or simple usertalk. Something for discussion on the noticeboard's talkpage perhaps. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Also don't see why threads there can only be closed by admins. If a close is based on determining consensus and doesn't need admin tools to implement, surely that close can be done by any experienced uninvolved editor as is the case on multiple other noticeboards. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am the user who opened the WP:XRV close under review. I had a demotivating experience when I tried to convert Yat Siu from a redirect back to an article. The article's full history is here from Herostratus (talk · contribs).

    David Gerard (talk · contribs) reverted back to a redirect twice: first with rollback and second with the edit summary "Please keep to consensus". I asked him three separate times about where a consensus to redirect was formed. He made numerous edits in between each time I asked him but did not reply to my questions. Hobit (talk · contribs) repeated the question during the deletion review and the administrative action review discussion but did not receive a reply. As Hobit asked, "Was that statement in error or was there such a consensus?" This experience has taken up a lot of my and the community's time which could have been avoided if David Gerard had responded to my questions.

    I thank David Gerard for his apology for the rollback. I appreciate that. I thank TonyBallioni (talk · contribs) for closing the XRV discussion as I agree that closing it benefits the project. It now is clear that it was better to have raised this at WP:ANI instead of WP:XRV as XRV was not ready to go live yet.

    Cunard (talk) 11:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  • @Cunard, Johnuniq, and Euryalus: John Cline raised this on my talk page as well, hinting at the idea that I was involved because I was a skeptic, which is part of the reason I took it here since I'm aware of the optics of a skeptic making a close when something is first opening up. I have a very long reply here, which I won't repeat, but the short of it if anyone else wants a tl;dr is that my understanding is that expressing opinions on how a board should work does not make on involved in regards to specific closures, especially if there is a rough consensus on things on the talk page discussions. I think an other stance would risk a Wikipedia:Fait accompli type situation, but like I said, I'm very open to the community telling me I'm wrong. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    • We would say you were wrong, but you're not. WP:XRV might be the best thing ever, but it needs to be set up in a dedicated RfC and procedures such as "must stay open for seven days so passers-by can needle anyone in the stocks, no matter how silly the case" can be fully aired. Johnuniq (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    • You would be involved if you were a party to the specific dispute about this use of rollback. You are not "involved" simply because you commented on how the noticeboard should be structured. Worth adding that I wasn't a skeptic about XRV when it was proposed, but have become one in watching it over the last few days. This thread is a good example of why. I wish the new XRV "regulars" all the best with setting this up, but for now I've unwatched the page. -- -- Euryalus (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
      Comment - I can hardly imagine a worse outcome than to know the discussion Euryalus linked above gave them cause to stop watching the XRV page, especially considering that I offered a comment in the said discussion. I would sooner have redacted every comment I'd ever published there and taken a wiki-break for as long as necessary to avoid having fostered such an offense that could lead to such a sorrowful end. FWIW, that particular thread is no more than a thought provoking exercise with nothing else proposed or endeavored. If it was a proposal, I'd have been somewhere in the long line of snow-close opposition. And I hope you will reconsider and resume the lend of your eyes for the entire process is better with your watchful presence, and considerably diminished when without instead. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 06:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
    • WRT the closure under review, I do not endorse the closure and recommend that the discussion be re-closed by another uninvolved administrator. While not suggesting the closer acted in deliberate disregard while being directly involved (regarding the discussion he'd set out to close) he had become too closely involved in related talk page discussions to even realize that conflicting interests had affected his ability to properly asses and close the very discussion now under review. To illustrate, just as TB states upon self-requesting this review: "... I think my rationale is in line with the emerging talk page consensus ...", his close summary begins similarly, by saying: "Bold/IAR close per the emerging consensus on the talk page ...". When, if ever, is the formal closure of a discussion (requiring closure by an uninvolved admin) closed per the emerging consensus (which never did emerged and, quite arguably, never was in an actual state of emergence) on the talk page, while practically ignoring the consensus (emerging or otherwise) in the very discussion they, ostensibly, were obliged to formally close? I suggest that such a misstep could only occur when rational judgement was in a state of serious compromise. And TB's was in fact so, by vertue of his involvement in and strong affiliation with the side of that talk page discussion that he monitored and commented in. I'm not going to enumerate things further because I have a life too, and anyone serious about establishing the property of this closure can see it easily enough by simply having a look, anyone not serious isn't going to look or give a damn no matter how hard I try. Quite literally, the only thing said in summary that actually was in the discussion supposedly being closed were the things Euryalus rightly said about closing the discussion early (not to imply there was nothing within the discussion to summarize and no actual outcome to mention, which there were and was matters worthy of each (not said) every other point made in the summary were either related to forces external of the discussion, from more mention of the talk page discussion, through how he felt about the page title and his interpretation of what an administrative action is, all the way to posting a final link and instruction directing people away from XRV when if there ever was anything even closely resembling a talk page consensus, it was about removing links from high visibility places that directed people to XRV, never even once was it suggested that people coming in of their own volition being directed away. There's a lot more I could say about policy violations and other mishandling of accepted best practice but I'm out of time and done with this. I know without any doubt that if TB hadn't held such a conflict within his closure would have been on queue and beyond reproach. To his credit, I admire his fortitude to bring it here for review. Thank you and best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Cline (talkcontribs) 06:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Overturn and reclose as a bad close based on a bad invocation of IAR. Per WP:CLOSE, the closing editor or administrator will determine if consensus exists, and if so, what it is. To do this, the closer must read the arguments presented. Knowing this, the closer invoked IAR to enable himself not to make a relevant determination regarding consensus and outcome, but instead to close based on his personal view about the status of the process page. The closer is entitled to express such views in any number of ways, it is just that closing is not one of those ways, because closing is not about the closer's opinion, but about determining consensus. So why did TB subvert the role of a closer in order to advertise his opposition to the process instead of commenting somewhere relevant? Obviously this was done to take away the opportunity for the discussion to get a proper close, where consensus is determined. That means that the discussion was rendered pointless and that the venue isn't functioning. Talk was cited, but it wasn't agreed upon beforehand that the venue isn't functioning—such an idea has been discussed, but hasn't garnered consensus. This is true even if the mentions on the noticeboards are removed (logically, doing so or not does nothing to render the venue inoperative). In fact the venue had been, and is, operative (proof). So TB stated his opposition to the process and immediately acted on it to make the venue appear as not functioning.
    The closer's choice to invoke IAR, and to file this for review at AN immediately afterward, shows that he was aware that an anomaly is about to happen. The community held an centrally advertised RfC in which an idea was accepted that the project would benefit from XRV. It was established in a subsequent MfD that there is a sufficient correspondence between the XRV process stipulated in the RfC and the existing XRV page (i.e. that the page is not "illegitimate", but that is an actual process page). TB could close any XRV discussion like that with the same IAR argument for an indeterminate future period. Shutting these discussions down through such clearly inappropriate closes is against the wider community's idea for how Wikipedia would be improved (per RfC), and so it was not justified to invoke IAR in this case as it was done contrarily to that idea, and it can reasonably be presumed not to have improved Wikipedia. — Alalch Emis (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure I don't see what would be gained from further discussion. An apology has been issued, there does not seem to be a community desire for punishment. This whole thing could have been resolved on a user talk page really. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 00:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Not thrilled that someone who disapproves of XRV has speedily closed a thread, I must say. It might be the right decision but it's not a good look. At the time of closure we had already reached consensus that these discussions should last seven days, and the reason for that is to enable people to reflect and consider before they say something. At AN, where threads can be closed at any time, it's a rush to speak your piece before someone hats it up, which is great for those who're on wiki 24/7, but not so great for others. I wouldn't advocate un-closing it now but I'd ask TB not to do that again.—S Marshall T/C 11:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Endorse - In a forum with no established format, rules, scope, or anything else except authority, it was a close over a fairly trivial matter that probably is out of scope anyway (it is in not "administrative" to use rollback), AND where the problem was already solved, the closing makes sense. It's already a cluster-mess over there, dragging it here really isn't helping. Allowed, but not particularly helpful. Dennis Brown - 16:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
    Hi Dennis. Am I understanding you correctly (when you say "dragging it here really isn't helping") that you disapprove of the admin who closed the discussion's decision to self-request a review of the (potentially controversial) closure? I personally thought it was one of the better things done and loathe the idea of discouraging such an open willingness to be admin-accountable. I hope you'll reconsider that criticism. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    I see no point in dragging a rollback to that board to start with, it isn't an admin function. Use of rollback, and community review of it, is a trivial ANI/AN issue, easily reversible, and didn't really belong on that board. Reviewing it here without cause or expressed concern from the community is just as pointless. Blocks, moves, deletions, etc are really what that board is for, not reverts and rollbacks. It's akin to taking a content dispute to WP:AE. Dennis Brown - 11:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Closure of COIN thread by involved editorEdit

Hi! AlexEng recently closed Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Rp2006. I agree with some of the point raised in the close, such as the thread being inordinately long. However, the closure was made by an involved editor, and I also don't believe that it provides a guide for editors to resolve the issues raised within the thread in a constructive manner. I believe that two editors (Levivich and Sgerbic) on opposite sides of the discussion were slowly getting to a constructive common ground, or at least better understanding, and there were some good ideas (the creating of a new WikiProject) that merit further discussion. I believe that either an uninvolved editor should close the thread and provide some guidance on where to continue constructive discussion or the thread should be allowed to reopen for a few days in order to move towards this more constructive resolution that I believe is possible. Additionally, I believe the closure should've mentioned that functionaries had testified that editors in the dispute had been editing in areas where they have an undisclosed COI, as that is an important conclusion of the thread. Cheers. Santacruz Please ping me! 11:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I explicitly approve of any review of my close, and I am happy to apologize and self-revert if there is even rough consensus that I was wrong. A. C. Santacruz should get no flack for bringing this here, because I invited her to. For visibility, there is some additional discussion on this closure at WP:COIN#Closure, which I expect may get merged at some point. First, I want to articulate that I closed the discussion as a good faith attempt to stop ongoing disruption and incivility as well as to bring a colossal and dense discussion that had grown stale and circular to a constructive end. I did this knowing that closure by involved editors is unusual and rare but not strictly against policy per se. This is a discussion that 1) sucked up a ton of time and effort from the community[a], affecting other discussions at COIN; 2) had grown extremely long and dense, featuring a lot of back-and-forth in massive threads; 3) would require, for a fair close, a contextual understanding of both the discussion itself and the veritable tree of branching disputes stemming from the equally massive and dense ANI thread concerning GSoW; and 4) had grown stale, with new editors coming in on rarer and rarer occasions and with no fresh takes on the situation or new commentary. I weighed the options, and I thought it would be a net positive to close the discussion after 22 days and 35,000+ words, excluding links, videos, articles and diffs used as evidence. At this point, both the originator of the discussion and one of the two main editors in focus had withdrawn from the discussion; the former, assumedly, after 32 hours of no reply after having made increasingly brief additions in the previous few edits, and the latter by pointed assertion.
Given my somewhat involved role in the discussion and to try and avoid as much of a perception of impropriety as possible, I took pains to formulate a close in as neutral a way as possible. I was hoping to amend it based on feedback, which I explicitly invited in my close summary, on a point-by-point basis if there is anywhere that I erred in my attempt to faithfully summarize the discussion. Closure review is another viable option, and I would welcome the extra eyes. I would also welcome a re-close by an uninvolved editor who is willing to wade through the discussion. And, as I said earlier, I am happy to self-revert and apologize if the community feels that the close was inappropriate in any way. My agreement is not required, in any case.   Thanks, everyone. I will be back when I wake up. AlexEng(TALK) 12:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Oh, two more quick things to add before bed. First, not that anyone needs me to remind them, but I think this thread on this board is supposed to be focused on the close itself rather than an additional forum to discuss the topic; correct me if I'm wrong. Second, if it's a WP:SNOW situation, any editor in good standing has my direct permission to revert/re-close before I wake up. You don't need to wait for fruitless rebuttals or anything. Thanks! AlexEng(TALK) 12:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Nevertheless, while I have been somewhat active on this board for nearly three years, I feel a bit uneasy being the only one truly uninvolved responding to this. A far-reaching case above has grabbed most of the attention and I feel a little alone which is why I asked for patience." - SVTCobra
  • Endorse close. (non-admin view) I can't believe anybody believes it would help Wikipedia to resume that meandering megathread. Alexbrn (talk) 12:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Endorse This was a painfully careful close and AlexEng deserves praise for being brave enough to end that WP:TRAINWRECK. In this case, following WP:INVOLVED would certainly have prevented them ...from improving or maintaining Wikipedia... and they were fully justified in ignoring it. Kudos to Alex. That said, it was opaque in the extreme what the original thread sought to achieve and it is even less clear what overturning it and subjecting everyone to even more useless debate would do. There is zero rational reason to re-examine the close. Seeking to overturn such an extraordinarily well-reasoned close takes on the appearance of pursuing a personal vendetta rather than trying to improve the project at this point. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    • @Eggishorn: Must Rp2006 disclose any COI relationship they have with an edit, if that edit is a revert? is "opaque in the extreme"? Huh? Levivich 16:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Agree with Levivich that the only issue with the close is after wading through all the material, AlexEng appears to have forgotten to address the original question and someone should amend the close to include the community consensus on whether Rp2006 has to disclose their COI including reverts. Rest of the close is a great summary of the larger issuesSlywriter (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    Besides what Levivich brought up, I'm also uncomfortable that the close was by someone whose involvement was very much non-neutral. I feel this raises legitimate questions over the purpose of the close itself, which even if in good faith (as I think it mostly is), can easily be interpreted as biased toward one party. I had considered closing, or at least commenting with my distillation of the discussion, before deciding my having commented in a couple prior threads with mild criticism of one aspect of GSOW's approach would make doing so unfair. JoelleJay (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment. Is there an option to not reopen the thread, but instead have an uninvolved admin add a close summary? Because I agree the thread needed to be closed, not least (actually, maybe this is the least important reason...) because the "subscribe" function was no longer able to highlight all new comments which made it very difficult to track what was going on. JoelleJay (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Quickly looking over that discussion, it belongs at ARBCOM as it's clear the community can't deal with it. No opinion on the specific close, but I agree it needed to be closed with no outcome. And, if anyone still thinks there is an issue (and I very much imagine they do) they should open a case at ARBCOM. Hobit (talk) 20:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    I agree with your perspective that the issue belongs at ARBCOM, seeing as it seems from my understanding most people agree that the thread is a shitstorm, all other threads on the issue have been a shitstorm, and as we have been unable to find a constructive way forward (on what should've been quite a straight-forward COIN thread) it is very likely this topic will be a shitstorm repeatedly in the future and therefore be detrimental to the wiki. I originally opposed the close partially on my belief that a constructive resolution through community discussion could be found. Many more experienced editors than myself do not believe so, so ARBCOM is probably the best way forward. Santacruz Please ping me! 22:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
With all due respect, and the only thing I know about you is that your signature is distinctive and makes it easy to see how often it appears in a conversation and that you have a current ANI partial block for CIR issues, maybe step away from this now. nableezy - 23:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Id re-close it, but the last time that happened several unfortunate things transpired. But happy to help if nobody objects. nableezy - 23:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  • (Non-administrator comment) Endorse - As someone who has read the complete discussion including how AlexEng mostly participated as an effort to be able to finally close it, then having read the closure message, it all seems fine to me. Although AN is the right place to review a closure, I have the impression that this is the continuation of recent FORUMSHOPPING. —PaleoNeonate – 02:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It's concerning to me that a discussion of this magnitude would be closed by an involved, non-neutral editor (though it was a very thorough review and close). Some editors seem a little too anxious to sweep the concerns under the rug, say it's all just a big mess, and move on while the issues still hang in the air. The close offers no indication of what potential next steps could be. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  • (Non-administrator comment) Though most of the closure is OK, as a participant in that discussion I do share the concerns that some have raised here; that AlexEng was an inappropriate closer due to being involved in the discussion. Even if AlexEng's close is endorsed by those here, I would like to see it modified to address the original purpose of the thread; Rp2006' COI.
    Given that a functionary (GeneralNotability) received credible evidence privately indicating Rp2006 has been making COI edits, that needs to be addressed in the closure. Even if the recommendation from the closure is to escalate to arbcom. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) - Fully agree with Sideswipe9th BilledMammal (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
    That's where I'm at as well. A functionary said there was undisclosed coi editing, and lying about it. I provided diffs of the editor using the source they have a COI with to add negative information to a BLP over the course of years. Seems odd that it wasn't mentioned in the close. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) It's worth quoting GeneralNotability's comment: Speaking with my funct hat on, I have received credible (OUTING) evidence indicating that Rp2006 has been making COI edits, contrary to their claims otherwise. Obviously close-worthy. JBchrch talk 22:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note that an ArbCom request has been filed, which makes most of the discussion here redundant. I would suggest to close this discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Until Arb accepts, this is still a valid thread. If they decline, closing this beforehand would be a problem. I suggest waiting until it is obvious they will accept. Dennis Brown - 23:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
      There are three outcomes possible here.
      1. Nothing, and it gets closed or archived eventually.
      2. The close is overturned, the thread at coin is reopened, and it sits around until it's closed by someone else, or is archived, since anything that should be said at this point would be at arbcom.
      3. Someone else takes the close as their own, and appends the closing statement. That doesn't need this thread open to happen.
      As far as process goes, yeah, this should remain open, but it can really only increase drama. Also, I bet you 10 edits to the article of my choice that it gets accepted. It's exactly what arbcom is for.
      I'm tempted to close this discussion myself so that we can have Closure of Closure of COIN thread by involved editor by an involved editor. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
      Can you imagine if I closed it?   AlexEng(TALK) 01:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
    • It only causes drama if people keeping posting nonsensical tangential comments instead of waiting to see what Arb does. Dennis Brown - 01:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
      To be fair, I think the levity helps, rather than ratchets up drama. At least there's no aspersions, personal attacks or arguments. Instead we get chuckles (hopefully), cringes and face palms. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Endorse close. I would agree with the close if anyone else had said it, so it does not bother me that this user closed it. I don't think this situational relationship is an absolute contraindication to closure, either. As long as it is NPOV in nature, and very carefully performed. Yes, it would be better if someone even less involved did so. But I think the only issue regarding closure reviews should be: is this a reasonable interpretation/summary of the discussion? Which I believe yes, it is. — Shibbolethink ( ) 21:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
    The big issue is leaving out that a functionary said I have received credible (OUTING) evidence indicating that Rp2006 has been making COI edits, contrary to their claims otherwise[28] which is a pretty huge omission to the close of a COIN thread. That said, I still think that this thread should be closed as no action. It's already at arbcom, and nothing productive will happen here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Coldstreamer20 (J-Man11) - repeat my request for a topic banEdit

The 1991 British Army Master Order of Battle is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE, which WP guidelines specifically instruct us *not* to use.

In accordance with previous concerns raised about Coldstreamer20 (J-Man11) at places like Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive334#Proposal for topic ban: J-Man11 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 161#Repeated massive, shoddy additions by J-Man11, I advised him on his new Coldstreamer20 talkpage (User talk:Coldstreamer20#Smaller unit Templates) on 4 January, several days ago, that he should not use the 1991 Master Order of Battle, in view of longstanding WP:CIR - Competence Is Required - concerns.

Now I find it utilized and added at 51st Infantry Brigade and Headquarters Scotland, on 8 January, after my warning. This breaches at least two sub-clauses of WP:PRIMARY, those being:

  • "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."
  • "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." In particular, the late 1980s unit listing that I have just removed from the 51 Brigade article was a synthesis and interpretation based among other sources on the 1991 Master Order of Battle - which was issued *after* the date of the claimed unit listing.

Concerns by others regarding use of dubious sources have also been raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Peer review? and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Assistance requested; as well as copy-paste moves at User talk:Coldstreamer20/Archive 4#Field Army (United Kingdom). I also raised a confusion of units separated by twenty years being conflated at User talk:Coldstreamer20/Archive 4#Leave United Kingdom Land Forces alone unless you want a block request, please, after misuse of a source (Colin Mackie) which is good on officers' names but *not* titles of posts, and have now reached the point where I believe a topic ban, if not a block, is desirable in the interest of avoiding future extra clean up work.

I was advised after the last post at WP:AN that I could seek a WP:CR - closure request, for a site topic ban for Coldstreamer20 / J-Man11 for any military topics after 1850.

In accordance with the last parts of the archived Archive 334 proposal for a topic ban, and continuing concerns about this user's adherence to referencing, WP:PRIMARYSOURCES, and other CIR issues I would like to propose/request a sitewide topic ban for Coldstreamer20 ex J-Man11 from any military topics after 1850. Such a restriction would allow this user to gain more experience at building and referencing articles properly using secondary sources only. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Support TBAN from all Milhist articles Coldstreamer20/J-Man11's long-standing propensity to use online sources leads them into this quandary. Instead of slowing down and borrowing books from libraries to properly source the articles they work on from reliable secondary sources, they work very fast and seek the most accessible sources of information, despite some of them being unreliable SPS. The 1991 British Army Master Order of Battle is a Ministry of Defence printout using military abbreviations and multi-alphanumeric codes obtained via FOI, and even someone like me that actually served with the British Army around that time has to interpret what it says using my existing knowledge. The requirement for the use of PRIMARY sources is that you cannot analyse or interpret the source, and it is clear that Coldstreamer20/J-Man11 is doing that, and inaccurately. It is therefore not an acceptable use of a PRIMARY source. After so many instances of Coldstreamer20/J-Man11 using unreliable online sources for military history articles, I agree with the CIR issue and actually think an indefinite TBAN from all military-related articles is warranted. The clean-up and monitoring work involved is just too much to expect other editors to do, and Buckshot06 has done the bulk of it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Would a more focused tban that excludes coldstreamer from citing any: 1) Websites, 2) self-published sources, 3) primary sources on milhist related articles work? I'd certainly agree that they do not seem like a net positive. (t · c) buidhe 03:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Buidhe I do not believe so. The amount of fast sloppy work, not demonstrating any underlying understanding of how forces fitted together, especially for the British Army, after 1900 makes me believe that a topic ban is required. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Coldstreamer20 would benefited from gaining access to Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library ages ago, based on the accusations levelled here. I am somewhat surprised nobody has pointed them to that. Peacemaker67's repeated insistence on offline sources is mistaken as it's presenting a false dichotomy that the "quick and easy way" is not the right way. It is quick and easy to find actual secondary sources if one has access to online databases and I would highly recommend that regardless of what happens here, Coldstreamer20 should endeavour to gain access to an online research database. It would seem that TWL checks if an editor has an active block and not a "ban" per se unless it's enforced by a block. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 06:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
This is not a new problem, Chess. My "repeated insistence on offline sources", is nothing of the sort. Many books, journal articles, newspapers etc are available online, and I am not suggesting they can't use those, as long as they are reliable. But instead they use SPS fanboi sites that are clearly unreliable. My suggestion about the library is just one way of obtaining access to reliable sources, as is TWL. If Coldstreamer20 does not learn what a reliable source is, they will never be able to utilise online sources in a way that is acceptable on WP. And they have been given plenty of rope already. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Chess, The Wikipedia Library does not include the kind of extremely detailed data points (individual company locations, exact command chains etc) that Coldstreamer20 / J-Man11 is trying to write about. The information is usually only reliably available from official sources or through specialist publications with years of delay. Instead this user has repeatedly tried to patch together WP:SYNTH listings for 2019, 2020, or even now 2021. This user does not appear to be able to interpret what a reliable source is, and does not appear to have an underlying understanding of how for example the British Army has fitted together since 1945 (eg problems distinguishing United Kingdom Land Forces, 1972-1995, from HQ Land Forces, which only appeared in the 21st century, c2012). This is why I have been forced to make this TB request. I'm tired, very tired, of running around after her/him to clean up. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support as a participant in the two previous AN threads. (The second is further down on Archive 334, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive334#Restarted proposal for topic ban : User:J-Man11.) Both were unanimous, but not everyone agreed on the precise scope, and the thread went stale and were archived without action. I'll stick with the post-1850 cutoff from the second proposal, unless someone can demonstrate evidence of disruption on a pre-1850 or timeless military topic, or explain why such behavior is likely to occur. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 07:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Thankyou LaundryPizza03 I was going half bananas trying to find the second thread. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Tban from military history articles Seems like IDHT problems. To note, there's probably nothing easy about finding the right sources for these kinds of specialisized subjects. However, if you cannot find reliable sources for a topic, that does not make it acceptable to use unreliable sources. The proper response is to move on and edit something else. Clearly this user needs official nudging in that direction. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support TBAN from all Milhist articles I don't understand how a user who claims to have a Master's Degree in History is struggling to properly utilize reliable sources after repeated warnings from others.--Catlemur (talk) 10:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment (non-admin) I have found Coldstreamer20's editing to be good faith disruptive and that Coldstreamer20 fails to rectify edits when advised of mistakes or omissions. Example for WP:UNSOURCED and WP:COPYVIO - advised in August 2021 for edit, no action with acknowledgement that "I DID get a ping and notification", in January 2022 I removed UNSOURCED, I gave Coldstreamer20 another opportunity on their Talkpage to address COPYVIO, Coldstreamer20 has failed to act again, afterwards Coldstreamer20 edited the article with edit summary "(Some changes, also millions of infobox cats removed and image added"), COPYVIO still on the article. Examples for WP:DISRUPTIVE: WP:MOVE edit with mistake, advised and no action (I had to revert); creating essentially a duplicate template that had mistakes and that displays a lack of understanding of military terms; misrepresenting source edit (corrected url) that has been removed; lack of understanding of military ranks edit, reverted by another editor, reverted by Coldstreamer20 and finally I removed.--Melbguy05 (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Topic Ban AppealEdit

I'd like to submit a formal request to the administrators and the community for the lifting of sanctions imposed on me relating to a TBAN on a subject matter concerning "Erica Nlewedim". The TBAN was implemented on 30 June 2021 as a result of my inability to edit around the subject neutrally because I'm a big fan of hers. Since then, I have refrained from editing articles covering this subject and also refrained from resubmitting the draft at AfC.
I have been contributing actively at AFC and AFD especially in the Nigerian space because that’s an area I understand. I have also been doing article creation, deorphaning articles and welcoming new users. I have not had any warnings or come under fire for any untoward behaviour. I have earned barnstars for my AfC work and content work. The editor who caused me stress apologized for being overly critical of my work and praised me for my ability to edit in a collaborative manner.
Also, I would like to emphasise that I understand the rationale behind the TBAN and have no interest in resubmitting the draft at AfC any further. I just want to be able to edit without being worried about sanctions. Thank you.
Princess of Ara 19:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  • I'm always for lifting tbans if possible. Would you be willing to adhere to a WP:1RR restriction on all things related to Erica Nlewedim for a period of 12 months if the tban was lifted? It would automatically expire, you wouldn't have to ask for it to be lifted. This means that you could edit things related, but you couldn't revert more than once per 24 hour period. The 1RR would only apply to Erica Nlewedim topics and edits, nothing else. I haven't looked at your history yet, but this is common idea I like to throw out early. Since it has only been 6 months or so since the tban was instituted, a little extra caution on our part is warranted. Dennis Brown - 03:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello @Dennis Brown, I'll be willing to take the restriction so far it gets my username off the editing restrictions list.
Princess of Ara 06:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
It would remain for one year, as 1RR, but automatically be lifted afterwards. But I'm not the only one here, it's just one idea. Dennis Brown - 15:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm not @Dennis Brown, but believe a 1RR would still have you listed. Can you clarify why exactly you want the restriction removed? Is it just so you're not on a list? Star Mississippi 15:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Affirmative @Star Mississippi, My username on the list really discourages me so I want my username removed from that list. What led to the ban did not involve edit warring so if the 1RR involves remaining on the list, I'm promising not to get into trouble surrounding that subject. Princess of Ara 15:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
My personal opinion, should the topic ban be lifted but 1RR be implemented, is for you to pretend it the topic ban exists. Don't edit in the area, that way you won't have to worry about sanctions. Courtesy @Celestina007: as they don't appear to have been notified. Star Mississippi 15:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
But @Star Mississippi @Dennis Brown, what will be the essence of 1RR when there was no edit warring prior? Princess of Ara 15:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
The justification is to prevent diving in too deeply into an area where you've already had enough problems that it warranted a tban. A tban is a more severe thing than a 3rr block, after all. It doesn't limit how much you can add to that topic, but it limits how much you can remove other's work, a much milder restriction than a tban. It is not required to have 3RR violations to get a 1RR restriction in a topic, it is only necessary to demonstrate that there has been a problem with that topic, and the tban indicates such. Since you are asking for the tban to be lifted so soon after it was placed, it is compromise, one I suggest you accept gracefully if a consensus supports it. Dennis Brown - 15:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Alright. Anything to get my name off that list. Thank you. Princess of Ara 16:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I support the lifting of the TBAN. The 1RR restriction seems like a good idea, though I'm not too sure if it needs to be as long as a year. Few months would be enough. — Golden call me maybe? 15:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support lifting with 1RR restriction of a duration of 0 to 12 months. The restriction isn't a deal breaker, but I think a good idea. Dennis Brown - 15:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Lifting of TBAN with 1RR for at most 6 months(or maybe less) since their TBan is already more than 6 months. I believe Princess of Ara have learnt from the past and will never go near the aforementioned draft just like they have abstained before now. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support lifting the TBAN, preferably without the 1RR restriction at all, but with it if that is the only way for this proposal to pass. I am more concerned by the interactions between Princess of Ara and Celestina007. Despite being banned from asked not to comment at Princess of Ara's talk page, for instance, Celestina007 filed a frivolous ANI report against Princess of Ara a couple of weeks ago, and the report strikes me as extreme rudeness with only a thin veil of politeness. Despite this, Princess of Ara responded politely at ANI, and did not escalate the situation, though I am not a fan of the edit summary "Don't archive hysterics". I'm afraid an interaction ban (IBAN) would be logged as well, possibly causing distress to Princess of Ara, but perhaps we are not yet at the point where it is needed. I would say to Celestina007: here, you have been reminded that civility and NPA apply even to editors you are accusing of UPE. Your behaviour has not been the correct way to act; even if everything you have claimed is true and needs to be recorded, the tone of your reports makes it look like grudge-bearing and hounding. — Bilorv (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Slight rewording per below.Bilorv (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
    • The consensus in that ANI discussion was very clear, that the community made it very well known that Celestina007 needed to pull their head in and quickly. I haven't been keeping track of the situation, but if that hasn't happened to an extent that we're happy with, I would absolutely support a wider community discussion around whether further action is required (either now, or in the future if it persists after your direct remarks to Celestina007 above). Daniel (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
      Bilorv and Daniel, just 24 hours after I defended Princess of Ara on this Celestina007's time wasting ANI report. As a revenge, Celestina007 accused me of COI without evidence [29], and she also created this delete discussion that ended in keep. And before the above, she has opened an SPI with me as the suspected socks few days after an AN discussion. Lastly, she also posted this personal attack [30] against me and Princess of Ara. I don't know if all these is right? Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong Support — First off @Bilorv, please correct yourself I wasn’t banned from her TP, she asked me to not post anymore on her TP which I obliged, following the ANI. Furthermore please do not cast aspersions of hounding, because up until that ANI, i initiated a week ago, I hadn’t interacted with them, so where is the hounding? The very ANI you are referencing was closed on 26th of July 2021 (from that moment up until now, i have matured immensely), I’m not without flaws and I am far from perfect but I make conscious efforts and strive to be better, Please do retract your aspersions of me hounding. In-fact see here, where i expressly state that I certainly didn’t handle matters appropriately in the past and that I wanted to mend relationships, although they didn’t reply, I totally know they mean well. Myself and Princess of Ara definitely did disagree on several things but moving forward I am making conscious efforts to handle things better. So yes, I certainly support this, coincidentally i had been trying to reach them in order for them to make this very appeal unfortunately as she asked me not to come to her TP thus I was constantly at an impasse, having to deal with other aspects of the project predominantly NPP & Teahouse hosting, I intended to e-mail them at some point but it seemed like a horrible idea, since they didn’t even want me on their TP. @Daniel, I stated in that very ANI that I’d handle things in the collaborative project with less confrontation which I believe to a good extent I have tried to abide by my own promise, please i support that the TBAN be lifted. Celestina007 (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I did not mean "ban" in the sense of "community ban", but in the informal sense you described. I've changed my wording accordingly as I can see the confusion. The ANI report is what resembles hounding. I really cannot see why the AFD alone would not suffice as the action to take. However, I happened to see the ANI report within a minute of looking, so if it really is the case that you have not interacted with Princess of Ara since July 2021 other than that report then I may have got a mistaken impression of the scope of the issue. I would still encourage you to take this on as feedback (as you say you did after the July 2021 ANI thread). — Bilorv (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Bilorv, all is well, thank you for making the adjustment, all is well Bilorv, I never miss, nor take for granted any opportunity to learn as I stated in the ANI in July 2021, i see every mistake I make as an opportunity to learn, i do not take for granted any feedback from a community that has trusted me. It took a number of sysops to tell me to be less confrontational and still carry out my duties when dealing with potential article spamming, of which I have, I haven’t been perfect Bilorv but my goal (which ought to be the goal of us all) is to be better than the person/people we were yesterday. I’m still largely accurate when dealing with possible unethical practices and have nabbed several unethical editing and multiple possible sock rings with next to no confrontation, with the help of Timtrent, Dan ardnt, DGG, and a host of co-editors. To the best of my ability I have abided by the promise I made to myself and the community of approaching possible unethical practices with little to no confrontation. Once again thank you for the adjustment you made. Please I believe Princess of Ara has potential to do good and I honestly would want to work with them moving forward. Celestina007 (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Please I’m currently heavily multi tasking and shuffling between co creating a new article with another editor, new page reviewing and Teahouse duties. Please if there are specific questions directed at me please I would appreciate the {{ping}} function be optimized as I may not be manually checking here for new comments due to how busy I am right now. Celestina007 (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support conditional removal of topic ban and replacement with 1RR for 12 months We seem to have become distracted with other matters. Whatever the rights and wrongs of these it is a shame to dilute this discussion with those other matters. The appellant deserves clarity im their appeal discussions. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 09:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support with a 6-month 1RR restriction - the reasons for removing are fair, and there is some basis for the 1RR, but 12 months seems overly long. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support A trusted editor with a demonstrable track record. Best, —Nnadigoodluck 22:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Any chance this thread can get closed? Princess of Ara 14:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
    The result here seems obvious but I would wait two more days so that it runs a full week. This makes the result stronger, especially if we collect a few more opinions. Jehochman Talk 14:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Another opinion wanted? Sure, i support with a six month restriction of 1RR just for safety; time to close this ~ it's clear. Happy days ~ LindsayHello 19:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Lifting the topic ban with a 1 year 1RR sounds good to me. SQLQuery Me! 19:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


I am pretty sure the IP belongs to Borden Grammar School, was there a way to tag that? I think a kid is being disruptive right now from there. Govvy (talk) 12:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I've given them another 3-year anonblock. Primefac (talk) 12:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Three years sounds like a long time. I had thought I had seen some school template tags on other IPs before. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 12:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
They were blocked for 3 years in Nov '18, and clearly went right back to it when it expired. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.
And yes, we have a number of school-based talk page IP templates, including {{Shared IP edu}}. Primefac (talk) 12:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit filters for Talk:Harry Styles and Talk:Louis TomlinsonEdit

Can some edit filters be set up to handle the years long disruption at these talk pages, centered around edits like these? Any assistance would be appreciated, thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: This might be more appropriate at the edit filter noticeboard Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested Vahurzpu (talk) 02:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Wouldn't semiprot be appropriate if there is IP vandalism, even on a talk page? Seems more useful than an edit filter only for a pair of talk pages. Primefac (talk) 09:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I was thinking about that, and was actually about to close this as withdrawn, based on responses I saw at the edit filter request page. I don't think semi is a great idea though, as pages on celebrities do get a fair amount of IP and new user traffic. That said, I just took a quick glance through the talk pages and archives, and I don't think there's been any constructive editing that semi would have stopped, except an instance of letting us know about vandalism. In conclusion, I'd be fine with semi, or just removing the disruptive edit requests as they pop up until the heat death of the universe. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Swear comments on my talk pageEdit

This 2409:4060:2014:13C2:0:0:1D8F:38B0 ip, left some swear comments on my talk page. See this, and this. He has even vandalized past 4 warnings, and I have reported him to WP:AIV. Just though to keep the notice here, as he also harrased me. Thanks. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 08:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocked. You are of course always welcome to remove garbage like that from your own talk page; no need to let it sit there. As a random question, why is your talk page flagging as a dab? Primefac (talk) 09:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, what is DAB? Can you please tell me properly? ItcouldbepossibleTalk 12:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) @Itcouldbepossible: It is a disambiguation page. Yoshi24517Chat Online 12:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't know why the my talk page is a disambiguation page. Can anyone solve it? Why should it be a disambiguation page? ItcouldbepossibleTalk 12:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
There was a category that wasn't properly linked, but it looks like it's been sorted now. Primefac (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I corrected that erroneous attempt to link a category, but I can't see why the user talk page had been believed to be a dab page. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@David Biddulph@Primefac I understand it now. Once an IP user (long time abuse report and sockpuppet user), was asking me to link to categories. I did not quite understand all that he was telling me, but he guided me, and I finally managed to do all that he wanted. It was later that I came to know that he was a banned user.
While he was guiding me, he forgot to use ":" before writing [[Category:Wikipedia soft redirected categories]], and so my talk page got categorized as an disambiguation page. I hope things get clear now. And lots of thanks to you David, for correcting the error. You know what, I find that many editors are 'really' there to help others, and not just busy with their own work. If it would not have been you, then I could not have understood what the problem was. Thanks again. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 13:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I would not have regarded Category:Wikipedia soft redirected categories as implying that your user talk page was a dab page, but perhaps others interpreted in differently. I noticed also that your user talk page is sitting in Category:Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues, but again this seems to be the result of one of your experiments. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@David Biddulph Oh my god! How should I remove it then? Why did it end up there? I did not perform any experiments. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 14:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Oh, yes you did! In this edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)--David Biddulph (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@David Biddulph I still don't understand. I put {{subst:uw-username}} between the nowiki template. Then why did it create problems? ItcouldbepossibleTalk 14:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
You're obviously not reading very carefully. Just above the line which starts: "PS. This is not a real warning. ...", you have placed Category:Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@David Biddulph Ok, now I understand. The last time, I clicked on the old diff that you had given me, but it is clear to me now. But what can be done now? How can I remove my name from that category? I don't want to get into trouble. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 05:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I've removed the inappropriate category in this edit, in accordance with the instructions in the comment preceding it. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
It's one of the categories that triggers a link highlighting change in User:Anomie/linkclassifier.css. Primefac (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@Primefac Can you be a little clear? What does that linkclassifier.css do? ItcouldbepossibleTalk 05:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
It, well, classifies links, by changing the wikilink colours of certain types of pages. The documentation tells more and will waste less space than me typing it all out here. Primefac (talk) 10:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
So, by the look of it, the confusion arose from the fact that the defaults show dab pages in the same colour as soft-redirect-cats. The OP's user talk page was in the latter category, but Primefac interpreted it as being in the former. Problem solved, I think. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
@David Biddulph@Primefac Yes, I have now got the facts. Thanks for the clarification. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 07:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Request for lifting of community block of Commander WaterfordEdit

We received the following in UTRS from CommanderWaterford:

"First of all Happy New Year to Everyone. Hope you are all doing good and healthy. I previously raised an Appeal via UTRS but response from it went unfortunately to spam so I did not take notice of it. I had been banned by Community Decision more than half a year ago, at the end of may. I now would like to ask kindly for an unblock by WP:SO and a New Beginning. In 2021 I translated dozens of articles and instead of learning and being thankful for being noticed about it I got angry and upset. I admit that I definitely made several mistakes not only but mainly while translating articles by not tagging them correctly. By making several hundred edits every single day - thousands a week, 6-8 hours entirely every day - I surely had been involved by far too much and at this time I took criticism too often as a personal attack since my main task - or let us be honest: meaning of life at this time - was to edit and improve Wikipedia. Since my ban you may perhaps has noticed that I still have been from time to time active on the Spanish version and several other Wiki projects. I would be okay for removing all of my previous User-Rights since I am only planning to edit from time to time and not even by far that much and in the areas as last year. Thank you in advance for considering my appeal, stay safe. Best, CommanderWaterford"

Posting this for the community to review, the discussion that lead to the block is here: [31] RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll just note that the link that RickinBaltimore has provided was the initial close of that discussion. The discussion was subsequently re-opened, and a bit more was said. See this additional section. Cheers Girth Summit (blether) 16:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Reading through that discussion, several concerns were raised about copyright violations in work they had written. This unblock request does not appear to mention that issue, which seems quite a crucial one regarding editing here. CMD (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • RickinBaltimore - I believe that it's customary for a banned user to have talk page access restored for the period of a discussion such as this in order to allow them to respond to queries. I will not take any administrative action here - after I unblocked them the first time around, I acted as a sort of mentor/sounding board for them off-wiki, and so would consider myself too involved to make further use of the tools with regards to their account. Would you consider whether or not talk page access restoration would be appropriate in this case? Girth Summit (blether) 17:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I'll do that right now, sure with a note that the talk page is to be used solely for responding to queries that may arise here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC) And that is now done. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Following a request, I opened a CCI on CW at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/CommanderWaterford. The issues went beyond not attributing translations and also included copying text from sources. A particularly bad case can be seen at the history of Port of Arrecife, where CW adds a copyvio, some of the copyvio is removed by the article's creator, CW reverts the user, claiming "Please do not remove without seeking consesus, content is included in references, no copyvio at all and if it will be treated in a different way". The copyvio is finally completely removed a few weeks later by Diannaa. Had I seen this when it happened, I would have indefinitely blocked CW. There are several other problematic behaviors not related to copyright violations highlighted in that discussion- CW often had aggressive responses when his poor behavior was pointed out, such as this, this, and this. Further aggressive responses can be seen in the ANI discussion and the autopatrol revoke leading up to his ban. But most importantly to me, there is the indefinite July 2020 block by TonyBallioni for "concerns about competence and unwillingness to engage with others"- the same issues that resulted in CW's May 2021 ban. There is also this discussion about CW's admitted previous account (which he has never disclosed) where he claims TonyBallioni is "stalking" him, simply because Tony was being careful with giving permissions to a clean-but-not-really-start. Unblocking at this point may very well just re start the block-unblock cycle CW is in. I am sympathetic toward CW; I do not think the ban discussion was very fair, it felt like a setup with far too much offsite coordination. I feel like CCI was used inappropriately as a weapon in that discussion, which I am very unhappy with. I will not be currently opposing this unblock request, but I will not be supporting it either, as the plethora of concerns with CW's editing are not really addressed in it. If I were to support, there would need to be some engagement and clarification from CW on what he would do differently. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 19:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • This appeal is clearly inadequate as the ANI thread brought up a number of issues which have not been addressed sufficiently, mainly surrounding CW's interactions with other editors and inability to take criticism. I can't see what CW has said he would do differently, other than edit less. I suspect there is a maturity issue, for which just 8 months away may not be long enough to resolve.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • For transparency sake, I’m quite fond of CW, and would support that their block be lifted as they showed a sincere commitment to better the collaborative project, although overzealous at times, having said, I do also note that Pawnkingthree does make a rather solid point. Celestina007 (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • It should be pointed out that this is in fact CW's 2nd indefinite block, not their first, they've already had another chance. As a result the text above isn't going to sway anyone. They will need to make a much better case and request to get anyone to take it seriously in any manner, list all all the issues that people have raised in the past and address how they'll do better on them, along with what restrictions they'll willingly place upon themselves. Canterbury Tail talk 21:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose I typically don't believe in third chances. An unblock from an indef means that the community has decided the potential benefits from unblocking outweigh the known risks of disruption. A reblock after an unblock such as this means that we were wrong when we took that chance the first time. Let's not be wrong twice. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I understand that finding oneself in financial ruin can take a toll on one's mental health, and it's not out of the ordinary for stress to facilitate aggression and irritability. I'm very saddened to read CW's admission on his talk page about his life being turned upside down because of the pandemic, and I wish him a healthy road to recovery. These unfortunate circumstances do not absolve the somewhat extended history of hostile interaction with other editors and unwillingness to take criticism, but it seems to me that reflecting on past mistakes and recognizing one's own faults should count for something, especially in such trying times. That being said, I don't see this unblock request going anywhere unless CW elaborates on his other wrongdoings, namely persistent copyvio, and how they would do better on them in the future. nearlyevil665 22:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support unblocking I am not an admin, and I have a fondness for CW. While I habve not always found our interactions to be cuddly and sweet I have found them as an edityor to be diligent and normally responsive to criticism. I am saddened that they worked hard to achieve this block. It was obvious from their reaction that they were highly stressed and reacted poorly. They have now stated their reasons. I understand TonyBallioni's thoughts on third chances, and would usually concur. The special circumstances of the pandemic and its effect on us all affects that, and I would offer CW that third chance. I keep wondering what conditions one might attach to that, but find that I feel none should be required. I think we have seen a foolish set of aberrations, and I believe that sufficient contrition is shown. THey have provided a fine example to us all of what not to do. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 22:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm sympathetic to CW's real-world concerns and am very sorry to hear about them, and I hope beyond hoping that they really were the sole explanation for some of the frankly awful things that happened here. I can't, however, do anything but oppose this. Very similar promises were made in the leadup to the un-indef, which resulted in even worse semi-automated tool misuse and civility issues than the pre-indef behaviour. (Also, to point at some terminology, CW isn't blocked as several of the responses are saying but rather community banned.) I'd like to believe as Timtrent suggests that this is aberrant behaviour of a productive editor, but I don't see that in the persistent pattern of behaviour between both the edits predating the indef, and the edits after the indef's lifting but before the ban. I also have concerns about offwiki behaviour that are difficult due to the current setup of our outing policies to discuss onwiki but leave me personally concerned about being harrassed by CW if he's unbanned. I agree maturity might be a concern here and I genuinely wish CW well in life, regardless of where it takes him. Vaticidalprophet 23:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
    @Vaticidalprophet I apologise for my misuse of terminology (ban/block). I took my cue from the section heading, and have obviously misinterpreted. I take your points on board. I am only able to comment on my personal experience, so I hope your concerns are misplaced, but I respect your feelings on the matter. I do not disagree about the circumstances leading to the sanction. I have rarely seen such determination to achieve a sanction. I am still standing by my opinion. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 23:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I'm very saddened though not fully surprised to hear CommanderWaterford's unfortunate real life situation. The pandemic has been a horrible, horrible time for many of us. I hope that they are doing better, and that this message is an indication of that. To unblock, however, it is not a matter of whether we are going to be fair or unfair to an individual, but whether the unblock will be a net positive or a net negative to the encyclopedia. I have not seen CW address the behaviour referenced by Vaticidalprophet above, which I was about to mention myself. Some of it was onwiki but I can attest to off-wiki issues too. I do want them back on Wikipedia one day, but this unbanning request may not be the one. — Bilorv (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The original appeal posted here fails to address much of the problematic behavior that CW was twice indeffed for. The response he posted on his talk page today addresses more, but I don't find it convincing, as it mostly just blames the pandemic for everything. He says he will accept any unblock restrictions placed on him, but when he was unblocked in January 2021 he agreed to not use high-speed editing tools and to accept constructive criticism. By late March he was breaking this promise by using Huggle for high-speed reverts; these were pointed out by others as being problematic in and of themselves. He also failed to uphold his commitment to taking advice, responding with hostility and sarcasm to even the softest criticism. Given the history, how we can trust him to hold to any unblock conditions this time around? ♠PMC(talk) 03:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support with a caveat, and echo Bilorv's sentiments about the pandemic and CW's RL situation; however, we differ relative to the substance of the appeal. What I see in CW's appeal is recognition of his unacceptable behavior, and acknowledgement of his editing mistakes which not only demonstrates a remarkable change in his attitude, it speaks to the lessons he has learned. We certainly need good reviewers helping out at NPP but another idea just crossed my mind for those editors who may be hesitant to give him another chance. Considering copyvios were a big part of the issue, why not school CW in that very topic? If Moneytrees is receptive to a little mentoring/guidance, or can recommend someone else who is receptive, what would it hurt if we gave CW a 90 day probationary period that limits his activity to helping out at copyright investigations? CW is certainly open-minded and receptive to learning and growing, and has demonstrated good qualities while attending NPP school. A substantial portion of his time as an editor on WP has been productive, so why not AGF one more time? Atsme 💬 📧 04:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Support with a caveat I second this. Seems like a reasonable compromise. nearlyevil665 06:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose And in reply to Tony - this wouldnt be a third chance if CW's editing history is looked at as a whole. Supporting at this point is just handing someone a stick to beat you with. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose at this time. I see no issue with a fresh request in 6 months that addresses the points made above. The two previous cases with CW presented themselves as large timesinks, and as editor time is valuable, I cannot support right now. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose while I'm sympathetic to the pandemic's effects on CW, the reality is his temperament issues didn't start then and all of us have lived through this without having such conduct issues. I feel that if he's unblocked (again) we'll just ultimately be back here. Further, I see no addressing of the copyvio concerns. Star Mississippi 17:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I would not support an unblock this case, for the same reasons Star Mississippi gives.—S Marshall T/C 01:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose unblocking/banning, per Star Mississippi & others, and having reread the orignal ANI discussion.. Happy days ~ LindsayHello 19:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose I was going to post earlier, but I kept getting edit conflicted. His unban request did not adequately address why the community was upset with him. I see no reason to believe that he has changed enough to not be disruptive in the future. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

CounterPunch RFC and extended confirmedEdit

A user with all of 16 edits, 12 of them on one day in 2020, and none since August 8th of last year, found their way to the RFC on CounterPunch at WP:RSN. The user made a comment referencing Israel Shamir, which a quick look at Talk:Israel Shamir will show to be in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. Many of the comments in the RFC are specifically discussing material related to the Arab-Israeli topic area. Additionally, AlexEng has reported an attempt at stealth canvassing by a suspected sock of יניב הורון, a banned user largely focused on the Arab-Israeli conflict topic with his various socks, see here. The last RFC had 6 confirmed socks in it, 5 from Icewhiz and another from NoCal100, both active in the ARBPIA topic area. Levivich undid the striking of the comment, claiming that neither the comment nor the RFC is related the ARBPIA topic area, despite the comment specifically discussing a subject that is listed as being in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. The most recent clarification by ArbCom shows that such discussions should be treated as extended-confirmed protected, and given the comment specifically discusses the ARBPIA topic area I find the removal of the strikeout dumbfounding. Can we get a ruling on if EC applies to that discussion? nableezy - 16:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

First of all the user is probably a sock and his edit will be struck soon but lets assume they are not, their edit is not about the conflict but about holocaust denial that has nothing to do with I/P conflict Shrike (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Here's the diff of the comment at issue: Special:Diff/1065201226. It's in an RFC about whether CounterPunch should be deprecated -- not an RFC that is covered by ARBPIA. The comment doesn't mention Israel/Palestine. It does link to a source that mentions it, but I don't think that 30/500 in ARBPIA means that no non-ECP can even link to a source that mentions I/P without having their comment struck. That's too much attenuation. No doubt that the editor is a sock, and I'm simultaneously !voting in favor of ECPing all of these RSN general-reliability RFCs... but merely linking to a source that mentions I/P in a comment that doesn't mention I/P, in an RFC that isn't about I/P, can't be grounds for striking a non-ECP's !vote. Levivich 16:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
The edit is about Israel Shamir, and Talk:Israel Shamir shows that to be in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. Non extended-confirmed users may not discuss material related to the Arab-Israeli topic area in the WP namespace, full stop. The very idea that an RFC that had its prior run infested with Icewhiz socks is not related is absurd, and having editors obfuscate that relation away is dispiriting. nableezy - 16:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
But as far as I can tell they did not and Israel Shamir does not only write about the israle/Palestine conflict (and the material posted mentioned neither). In fact, it seemed more related to his work as a notorious holocaust denier.Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Do you see the banner at Talk:Israel Shamir? I have zero interest in discussing the merits of the comment here, this is not the place for that. nableezy - 16:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Are you seriously suggesting that no non-ECP editor can mention Israel Shamir anywhere on Wikipedia, even in a discussion not about ARBPIA, in a comment not about ARBPIA, simply because Shamir's Wikipedia article is tagged with the ARBPIA tag? By your logic, no non-ECP editor can mention Alan Dershowitz. Levivich 16:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
"Broadly construed" covers a lot of ground.Selfstudier (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes. Do you not understand what broadly construed means? Do you believe that many of the comments in that RFC do not directly relate to the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area? Whatever, I dont want to waste anymore time with this type of crap, and I await an admin to respond. Consider me uninterested in any further discussion with you on this topic. nableezy - 16:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Have you guys completely lost your minds? So you think non-ECP editors cannot mention, anywhere on Wikipedia the following topics: Simon Wiesenthal Center, Religious war, Military occupation, or Alice Walker, all of which are tagged with the ARBPIA tag. That is not what "broadly construed" means. Non-ECP editors can't engage in discussions about the topic; they are not prevented from mentioning anything related to the topic anywhere on Wikipedia. Levivich 16:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
That would be my take, what it means is those ARTICLES are covered by it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Not even that, in many cases, it's just parts of articles that are covered by it. It's nonsensical to suggest (as some here have) that no non-ECP editor can even mention Media bias, Jewish diaspora, Israeli cuisine (including Israeli wine and Israeli salad), UN Watch, Settler colonialism, Max Blumenthal, Stephen Walt, Richard Goldstone, or Richard Behar, all of which are tagged ARBPIA. There are thousands of articles tagges ARBPIA [32] (I'm not sure who went about tagging all these). It's patently insane to say any article tagged ARBPIA == a topic that no non-ECP can talk about anywhere on Wikipedia. Levivich 17:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
From the Arca "I cannot prescriptively give a definition of "broadly construed" beyond "if it is related broadly in the opinion of a reasonable uninvolved individual" so let's wait for someone like that who has not "lost their mind" to say. Although I have to say I feel quite sane. Selfstudier (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

NOTE - Levivich writes (his own words) - No doubt that the editor is a sock [33] so why did Levivich consciously restored (un-striked[34]) (in his view) sock puppet's comment? What is such action called again administrators? - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Becouse we struck only after CU confirmed it he will probably do it before RFC ends and that the reason I tagged his comment as SPA till that. Shrike (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
The editor's comment was struck becasue that editor is not eligible [35] to comment in that topic area, NOT becase they were declared a sock puppet. Levivich restored their comment and later discloses that they have no doubts that user is a sock puppet. What is such action called again @Shrike? - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
The RFC is not in the ARBPIA topic area. Levivich 17:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
You knowingly restored a sock puppet's comment (your own words [36]). We have an issue here. Would you mind undoing your action, since you have no doubts the user is a sock-puppet Levivich ? - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Maybe if you used more bold I might agree with what you're saying but until then I'll follow WP:AGF. Levivich 17:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Comment on my writing fashion does not explain your behaviour, neither WP:AGF does. I'm done commenting here and will leave it for the administrative team to evaluate. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
wp:spi then look into it and ban them if they are. But an accusation is not enough.Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
NOTE - it's called WP:AGF, and it's a policy here. Levivich 17:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Since many of you know and like me, may I propose a way to avoid further conflict? (1) Can we please agree to tag possible socks with {{spa}}, and then before the discussion is closed a checkuser can review, and/or the painstaking work of sockpuppet investigation can be done, to strike the statements of improper accounts. (2) As for EC, it seems to me that the restriction applies to any edits exhibiting the problematic behavior, even on pages only tangentially related to the topic. If the scope of the EC restriction is disputed, I recommend requesting a clarification from ArbCom, rather than engaging in circular debates. Let them earn their pay. It may also be useful to let the person closing the discussion decide whether the EC restriction should apply, rather than the involved editors debating this issue endlessly. Jehochman Talk 17:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
    Seems fair, as long as it is Arbcom closing it after they decoide.Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
We just got that clarification here. What is needed now is editors not disrupting an RFC that was already subject to rampant socking in its past iteration by making comments like it's called WP:AGF, and it's a policy here when discussing even an editor they call an obvious sock. I am asking for administrators to determine if an editor may make comments about Israel Shamir in an RFC on deprecating a source in a discussion that has several explicit references to a restricted topic area, in light of the fact that two ARBPIA sockmasters voted 6 times in the last RFC, and that another ARBPIA sockmaster has engaged in stealth canvassing at both the last RFC and the current one. nableezy - 17:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Very good. The key point seems to be It is of course a case-by-case decision, but I would suggest the following general rule: an RSN discussion is "related, broadly construed", if the RSN discussion itself substantially discusses to the ECR topic, or if the source typically reports information within the topic area. But a source that covers many things including some things that are related to an ECR topic is not covered (unless the RSN discussion substantially relates to the ECR topic). Again, this should be determined case-by-case. (L235). It seems that the discussion should be flagged as "EC restriction is potentially in effect here. A closing or patrolling administrator should make a determination whether an EC restriction is in effect based on ArbCom's guidance." Whether the EC comes into play could depend upon the course of the discussion. I am not sure whether this question can be judged in advance, or if it is better to wait for the discussion to play out, see what participants say, and then decide. Jehochman Talk 17:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
My question is can an editor specifically discuss an article that is in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area at an RFC. I find that to be a clear question with an easy answer, and does not need to be judged in advance as it has already happened. This is a fairly clear question and administrators can say no if they feel that way, but I dont understand why this is being dissembled and obfuscated. The question at the start of this section is clear, and I hope an admin will evaluate it before this devolves further. nableezy - 17:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
No, the editor did not specifically discuss an article that is in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area at an RFC. In an RFC about CounterPunch, they linked to an article in CounterPunch written by a guy who has a BLP on Wikipedia, and whose BLP is tagged ARBPIA. They did not discuss the BLP article (or ARBPIA), meaning they did not discuss a Wikipedia article at all, they discussed a subject about which we have an article. Levivich 17:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I dont understand why this is being dissembled and obfuscated. and I await an admin to respond. Consider me uninterested in any further discussion with you on this topic. in case you didnt see it the first time around. nableezy - 17:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
You still need to accurately describe the history here; "specifically discuss an article that is in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area" was not accurate. Note, by the way, that CounterPunch does not have an ARBPIA tag. Levivich 17:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
You might have a point, except for the fact that they linked to Israel Shamir in their comment. Which, again for the obtuse, is in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area per its talk page. So maybe you need to accurately describe the history here and stop blustering. Ah dammit, you got me to waste another keystroke on you. nableezy - 18:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
First of all, linking to an article is not the same thing as discussing it. I agree non-ECP editors shouldn't discuss articles that are tagged with ARBPIA. But you seem to be saying a non-ECP editor cannot even link to an article if the article is tagged with ARBPIA? That is so irrational. Levivich 18:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, because the article linked to on CP by that user does not discuss the Arab-Israeli conflict either. Oh wait, no it does. And because quoting a person is not discussing him. And Im the irrational one here. ECP was designed for this purpose, to prevent these throwaway accounts from having an impact on our articles through voting in RFCs and AFDs and in editing the articles. And editors like you who so blatantly undermine that goal should be treated as the WP:MEAT aiding editors that they are, that is treated the same as the meat puppets themselves. Remind me of this the next time you say give me a diff of an editor sticking up for Icewhiz, before or after he was blocked. nableezy - 18:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Discussing a person is not the same thing as discussing a Wikipedia article about that person. ARBPIA doesn't mean that non-ECP editors can't link to outside sources if those outside sources mention ARBPIA somewhere. See my response to Selfstudier below. Levivich 18:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
See my response on how people who aid WP:MEAT accounts should be treated above. Going back to my disinterest in discussing anything about this with you, but thinking it be better to remove the about this qualifier at this point. Toodles, back to waiting for an admin to deal with this. nableezy - 18:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
You would need to consider why they would link it, wouldn't you? Anyhoo, Man on the Clapham omnibus applies (sorry, idk the US equivalent of that).Selfstudier (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
The reason why they linked to it is because they were pointing to an article about that guy as evidence of antisemitism published by CounterPunch, and the link helps inform the reader (us fellow editors) of who this guy is (a notorious antisemite). Now, of course, every notorious antisemite will at some point write something about Israel, but that doesn't mean that just because a guy mentioned Israel means non-ECP editors can't mention that guy anywhere, even in a comment not about Israel. The problem is that ARBPIA is not the same thing as "anti-semitism", and we don't have 30/500 on "anti-semitism" as a whole. This (Special:Diff/1065201226) is clearly a comment about antisemitism in general, not about ARBPIA in particular. Levivich 18:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
AS -> IHRA -> Israel/anti-Palestine, this picture gets drawn all the time so "not the same thing" but "broadly construed"...? Selfstudier (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
That's stretching broadly construed too far. Antisemitism is not a part of the ARBPIA conflict, and ARBPIA doesn't cover all of anti-semitism. There's some overlap, but it's really quite small (antisemites are also anti-Israel, but I think that's the only overlap) (giving no credence to the argument sometimes made by some zealots that anti-Israel = antisemitism, which of course is bullshit). Levivich 18:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@Levivich - their comment in fact applies to both - ARBPIA and Holocaust in Poland, the topic area also covered by the same restriction. Quote from the user's statement - a Raphael Lemkin, a Polish Jewish lawyer, in the wake of Holocaust, in order to stress the difference between murdering Jews and killing lesser breeds.[37] Please give it a rest now and let administrators examine your behaviour, okay Levivich? GizzyCatBella🍁 22:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Can we not have this discussion here and at RSN (which is a derail anyway)?Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

This is about whether or not extended confirmed applies to the discussion, which would normally be appealable here as per usual. RSN is for discussing the source, I am asking if the RFC is covered by the topic area. El C, any chance I can ask you to take a look at this? Or any other admin familiar with arbitration enforcement and the ARBPIA topic area? nableezy - 17:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I am asking we stop discussing this at RSN until this is resolved here.Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Oh, that I agree with, sure. nableezy - 18:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
What this seems to be is trying to equate extended-confirmed with a topic-ban. A topic-banned user who mentions the taboo topic anywhere should and would get dinged for the violation. A non-ECP user who mentions an ECP topic somewhere on the project getting dinged? That is a curiously invasive stretch of policy, IMO. ValarianB (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
For RFC and other formal discussions ECP is essentially a topic ban. nableezy - 18:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Outside of the "is it covered by ARBPIA" question, there's a "would it improve the project for this RfC to be EC-protected" question. I'm landing on "emphatically yes" for the latter. The history of socking and canvassing makes that clear. Could we hold the RfC on a 500/30 protected subpage that's transcluded onto RSN for visibility? Firefangledfeathers 18:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Smart! Jehochman Talk 18:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
IMO, tagging with {{spa}} for the benefit of the closer, as FFF just did in this RFC for a single-edit account (see the Streisanding Note: below), is all that's needed to completely defeat this problem and neutralize any possible harm. Levivich 19:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: We have another one that just arrived - [38] - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Which for all we know could be a sock of a user trying to prove their case there is socking. So maybe we need a CU?Slatersteven (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

What a shocking development, a users first ever edit is to an RFC at an internal WikiProject. But dear me no, shouldnt worry about the socking and meatpuppeting in ARBPIA related discussions. Anybody who thinks that Icewhiz would use 5 socks in one RFC and it is somehow not related has drugs that I want to buy from them. I dont really care if it is purposeful or not, editors doing things like this are aiding in that disruption and should be sanctioned for it, but in the meantime can we deal with this issue? There is documented stealth canvassing, there is documented extensive sockpuppetry. I more than any of you want to stop talking about CounterPunch. I swear there will not be another reply from me in that RFC, just deal with this issue so that it can actually come to a valid consensus. Otherwise just say this topic belongs to Icewhiz and be done with it. nableezy - 19:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Given the prior disruption of the same discussion, to the point that it had to be redone, I think it is prudent that the new discussion be held on a subpage which is transcluded and EC protected to prevent further abuse. Could an administrator make it so? Jehochman Talk 19:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
In my opinion its a trolling just mark it as spa and carry on the closer smart enough to discount his !vote Shrike (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Disagree. That might be appropriate in the first instance, but once some banned editors have disrupted a discussion, they should not be given a second chance to do so. We have an easy technical means to prevent this disruption. Let's use it. Jehochman Talk 19:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that it is extremely unlikely that this particular RFC will be decided by socks - now that everyone is aware of the issue, people who comment will be scrutinized, and the closer will definitely know to examine commenters critically and take into account if someone looks suspicious. But my problem is that we can't realistically apply that level of vigilance to every single RFC; part of the reason the previous Counterpunch RFC was so different than how this one is going is because normally editors don't look closely at RFCs that seem to have an overwhelming conclusion, which allows socks to push things through by making their consensus appear obvious and inevitable if nobody is looking closely. And when it comes to combating that, I'm not seeing how we can realistically put only some RSN RFCs under ECP, since it is so easy for someone to base their opinion on a source on eg. just a single ECP-related article that source published. So I feel that while the Counterpunch RFC is a good example of the problem, we ought to be worrying more about long-term solutions - sockpuppetry is most dangerous in situations where we aren't paying close attention. --Aquillion (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Under current policy, the only reason to have this covered by extended confirmed required to participate is if it is broadly construed to be related to the Arab-Israeli topic area. Given the extensive amount of material already in the RFC related to that topic area I find that to be fairly obvious, but thats the only thing I was looking for here. Would also like something done about the users who regularly and repeatedly aid sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry, but doubt its going to happen here. Still would like some uninvolved admin making a decision on if it, the RFC, is covered by ARBPIA. nableezy - 22:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Would also like something done about the users who regularly and repeatedly aid sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry
We should insist the issue be dealt with here and now since such behaviour is very disruptive. Note how much energy is being wasted right now because of that. - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Who are "the users" you are referring to? You didn't name anyone so it's unclear who you're talking about. Levivich 23:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I thought I was clear. You. nableezy - 23:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
"Please sanction Levivich for disagreeing with me" would be even clearer :-) Levivich 23:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
It’s a serious problem Levivich you appear to be attempting to turn it into a joke. I expect it’s not going to work this time around. - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that I wouldn't worry too much about this specific RFC. If socks can slip into and decide an RFC where we are at maximum vigilance then we're in so much trouble that there's not much we can do; fortunately I don't think that that's the case (as can be seen from the fact that we seem to have caught one sock already.) So I'd worry more about how we can tweak policy or practice to solve this problem for future RFCs rather than this one, which requires ideas that are practical, sustainable, don't require constant maximum vigilance, and which we can reasonably get the community to agree on. --Aquillion (talk) 04:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, nableezy, I'm too busy for the next little while to look into this (or much of anything) even if I was so inclined. But carpet bombing the thread with collapseses might help with the lulz. Ah, cherished memories of RFRRRRRRR. You really had to be there. El_C 23:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Two comments, having now read all of the above. 1) I think Aquillion is right; the level of scrutiny on non-extended confirmed editors at the current RfC means it's not a problem. But I also don't think policing non-extended conformed eds would have made any difference to the original CounterPunch deprecation: I think the socks were all extended confirmed, and the two non-ECR editors who joined the discussion joined !voting very late and said almost nothing. 2) I don't think it is practical for editors or admins to check the articles non-ECR editors mention and see if they might be broadly covered by a protected topic if it's not immediately obvious. For example, I don't understand why Israel Shamir is considered to fall within ARBPIA: there's perhaps two sentences in the article that vaguely relate to Israel/Palestine, and it's not a topic Shamir has focused on much. (How do articles get tagged as ARBPIA, and what review and scrutiny does that get? Alice Walker also seems pretty tendentious, or even Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party, which is being invoked in relation to another recent RSN RfC.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
There were 4 non-EC accounts there, and one of them I suspect is an IW sock as well. nableezy - 15:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Ah OK. I guess that means that one of them became ECR since the RfC. And am I right that none of them said more than a sentence and that they all !voted late in the period the RfC was open? BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Estnot and Crystalfile had the most substantive contributions. Incidentally, that was Crystalfile's last edit, and first since March, and excepting the 6 edits in early March 2021, all at Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, third since 2014. Wonder how that happened. nableezy - 22:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Question for uninvolved adminsEdit

Does the edit Special:Diff/1065201226 violate WP:PIA#500/30? Levivich 19:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

A little insufficient, that framing, also this ARCA Selfstudier (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Tim KaineEdit

As the original enforcing admin, I have removed the 1RR and BRD restrictions on the page for now. The issues for the past few years has been mainly persistent vandalism/BLP issues,[39] and thus can be dealt normally. Regarding SkyWarrior's comments, I believe there may be some confusion regarding WP:AC/ All of these post-1992 US politics articles are still under WP:ARBAPDS. What we are talking about here is the specific enforcement option to apply these special 1RR and BRD restrictions on these articles as warranted. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

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

There are discretionary sanctions for this page. I think that the time has come where they are no longer needed. I am requesting that the DS be rescinded since there hasn't been recent disruption to the article and the only disruption to this article since is vandalism. Interstellarity (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah... no. The discretionary sanctions for the page (WP:AMPOL) applies to "all pages related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people", which definitely applies to Kaine, an active American politician. As such, discretionary sanctions are mandatory, regardless of whether or not there's any actual, current disruption to the article. Besides, I'm pretty sure we can't rescind DS for a single article, only for a topic as a whole, which we absolutely should not do here. SkyWarrior 01:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
@SkyWarrior: The op here is referring to the specific page restrictions imposed here (i.e. the 1RR rule and the requirement for talk page consensus) which can be removed via consensus here, per the process for appealing sanctions. (talk) 02:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
For what it's worth, those restrictions are actually the default for the entire AMPOL DS, not just this one article. Although, reading over the appealing sanctions page, it doesn't exactly say we "can't" remove DS from one specific article (unless it's stated elsewhere), so I think what I said above in regards to that can be ignored (unless someone else agrees with me). With that said, I'm not too sure rescinding DS for Kaine's article is a good idea given the fact that he is an active member of the U.S. Senate. SkyWarrior 03:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Killing of Barel Hadaria ShmueliEdit

Not an issue for the English Wikipedia. Sandstein 11:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

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

You deleted a historical news item:

Wikipedia editors votedto remove an entry on IDF soldier Barel Hadarya Shmueli, who was killed by a Hamas terrorist in August.

“Those who voted in favor of erasing his memory, the only thing left for us, they should know that they spat in our faces,” said the soldier’s sister.

Such bias is vile. I have supported wiki every year via donation. Not a penny more now, neither from my family nor friends. You are a tool for terrorists and liars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/2603:6081:7942:66F5:C152:E9CA:806E:BE84 (talk) 04:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you mean Killing of Barel Hadaria Shmueli? Also, contributors do not receive donations. —PaleoNeonate – 04:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
@PaleoNeonate, they probably mean [40]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
This has been receiving media coverage and it was the Hebrew language version of the article that was deleted following a discussion. Currently the only versions are English and Russian.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Just to make this clear to the IP editor, who is probably not familiar with the differences between different language versions of Wikipedia: decisions about content are not made globally; each different language version of Wikipedia is run as a separate project, with its own rules and internal processes determined by its own community of volunteer editors. The decision that you are talking about took place on the Hebrew language version of Wikipedia. This page you have come to is only relevant to the English language version. Editors and administrators here have no say in what happens to articles over there, except for those few of us who are bi/multilingual and who choose to contribute separately to that project. In other words - you're in the wrong place, we didn't delete the article, we have no say in whether or not it should have been deleted, and we have no power to restore it. If you want to complain about it, you need to go to the Hebrew language project to do so. Girth Summit (blether) 09:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm not familiar with their policies but when seeing this en-wiki one I did wonder about notability (WP:NOTNEWS, WP:1E, although there are some mainstream news sources). Not seriously enough to propose it for deletion myself though. Since we're here, I invite editors to evaluate if the incident or shooter should be called terrorism/terrorist. I've seen two Israelian sources being careful not to describe it as such, with one citing some quotes calling it terrorism. The original en-wiki article didn't, but an IP address recently changed gunman to terrorist which I reverted for now. —PaleoNeonate – 09:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
On the face of it, if RS aren't themselves directly calling it terrorism, neither should we; probably something to discuss on the article talk page though, rather than here. Girth Summit (blether) 10:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Related: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 215#the falling of barel shmoeli נפילת בראל שמואלי discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

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


There is quite an unusually large backlog at AIV. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 10:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Links are your friends: WP:AIV. Sandstein 11:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Backlog at RFPPEdit

There's currently 51 pending requests at WP:RFPP, some around 36 hours old. Would admin(s) be able to look at these- I imagine some would be stale by now. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I m looking in from time to time, but RL calls, and help would indeed be appreciated. Lectonar (talk) 13:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Much appreciated all who helped, it's down to 5 requests now :) Joseph2302 (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Facilitating a merge discussion via RfCEdit

There are many areas of the encyclopedia which are edited by two or three editors, at most. Merge requests do not (usually) attract a lot of attention and if these two or three editors disagree among themselves, there is a limbo for months. Preempting such an outcome, can merge requests be advertised via a RfC?

I do not intend to blame any individual editor but is this edit reflective of best practices? [WP:RFC is not a policy or guideline.] The more non-canvassed voices, the better - ain't that the spirit of Wikipedia?

Fwiw, I I had affixed all relevant merge-tags to the pages. So my invoking of RfC did not replace but supplement the usual procedure. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Yes, it is, imo. The best way to publicise obscure mere propposals is to post notices at all the relevant projects. I recognise there is a problem here though. Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks. Why do you think using a RFC in advertising any merge-process is a poor choice? TrangaBellam (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
    We have an established process for mergers, described at WP:MERGE. Templates such as {{merge to}}, {{merge from}} etc. do not just put notices on the articles, they put the page in categories like Articles to be merged from January 2022 and All articles to be merged. They are picked up by certain bots and scripts, which log the event and may then add entries to Article alerts (example). By using RfC for something that it is explicitly not intended for, you are bypassing these. You may have affixed all relevant merge-tags to the pages, but removed one of them again. BTW - why take this straight to AN without, for instance, asking me on my talk page first? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
    Adding a RfC template does not either purge the page out of the category or affects the log? So, I am not bypassing any procedure but supplementing it.
    I removed one of the tags because I had chose the wrong target; my edit summary is self-explanatory. Check all the tags and log, as things stand now.
    I brought it to AN to evaluate the position of community. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
    A problem across Wikipedia for the last few years has been people reaching for the stronger methods of late (if not last) resort, whether that be RfC, AN or even Arbcom rather than the most appropriate one, even if milder. Discussions are also often started on less-than-relevant pages: a merge discussion should be held on the talk page of one of the articles involved, and apparently Gilgit-Baltistan is not one of them - so the discussion should have been at Talk:Trakhan dynasty, Talk:Gilgit or Talk:History of Gilgit-Baltistan (Trakhan dynasty mentions merging to Gilgit-Baltistan but there is no reciprocal merge tag). Too many such processes are started for quite trivial matters. Was it really necessary to do this? Is this particular AN thread really necessary? No and no. If you want to broaden the remit of RfC, please suggest it at WT:RFC which exists for that purpose (amongst others). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
    None of your reply suggests what is wrong with soliciting more comments via a RfC rather than pointing to a page that is neither policy nor guideline. If you think that escalating a dispute straight to ArbCom is a valid comparison, you need to come up with more originality and nuance in arguments.
    The issue with merge tags: I had mis-typed the target in Twinkle which created a mess. And I fixed that of my own barring a couple of trivial errors. Which are now fixed.
    If you have any reasonable argument about how advertising a merge discussion (concerning a page, that is almost watched by none) via RfC hampers the process of finding a consensus, I am all ears. This is my last comment and pending a day or two, I will start a discussion at WT:RFC. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
    To be clear, I have nothing against you or your edit. [Otherwise, I would have requested a revert or reverted you.] This thread is not about you; it is about the process. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
    If a talk page has few watchers, and you want more participation, make sure that the talk page has relevant WikiProject banners at the top. Then either wait for people to arrive via Article Alerts, or you can pust a notice directly to the talk pages of those WikiProjects - templates like {{fyi}} or {{subst:please see}} are available for this. There are more suggestions at WP:APPNOTE. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Global block of 2607:FB90:0:0:0:0:0:0/32Edit

I'm not autoconfirmed on meta, so I can't request a global unblock, but Operator873 put a year long block on all T-Mobile IPV6 IP addresses that prevents logged in editing. Is this okay? Can someone request a global unblock, or can we override this locally? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish is absolutely correct. That range should have been anononly and has since been modified by AmandaNP. I apologize for my slow response to the issue. I received an emergency phone call and was disposed shortly after making the block. Operator873 connect 20:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! I appreciate the quick response, which I wouldn't really characterize as "slow." Looked to have been within an hour. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@ScottishFinnishRadish: The global block log indicates that AmandaNP (talk · contribs) amended this to "anonymous only" eight minutes before you posted here. Did you notice the link to Wikipedia:Advice to T-Mobile IPv6 users? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I did notice the advice page, what concerned me was the inability to edit from my account. When I was looking into the block and writing this report I was no longer using a mobile phone, so I didn't notice that the block had been amended. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Images of sex workersEdit

I noticed diff at Sex tourism which added an image (File:Sonagachi jon gresham 2.jpg) with caption "A sex worker in Asia's largest red light district, Sonagachi, Kolkata, India." Checking the image shows it is also used at Prostitution in Kolkata, Sex industry, Sex work and Sonagachi. Is it reasonable to use someone's image in this way? Johnuniq (talk) 06:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how we can verify that it actually represents what is claimed. It obviously depicts a woman, but I don't see how we can say anything more than that with any degree of confidence. So, no - I don't think we should be using it in this way. Girth Summit (blether) 06:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Then how can we verify these women's images (File:A German prostitute's self-portrait in a brothel.jpg, File:Inkorrektes tournage1.jpg, File:SexWorkers2009Marcha2009.JPG or File:Woman lying on bed, looking at mirror, Berlin 2001.jpg. I don't think we can make a swiping statement like this. Though I agree it is difficult to verify those women's images as sex workers. Please check these three images of women which all are from the red light area of Sonagachi (File:Sonagachi jon gresham 1.jpg, File:Sonagachi jon gresham 2.jpg, File:Sonagachi jon gresham 3.jpg. If necessary then we can change the caption of those images. One thing is for sure those images of women are from red light area Sonagachi. Whether they're sex workers or not that is debatable. Thanks-- (talk) 07:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
The first 4 images you linked clearly show a connection with the things they're claimed to be. The Sonagachi images, however seem to be pictures of random women on the street. — Golden call me maybe? 07:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
+1. The jon gresham images aren't very good anyway. Even if they are sex workers, it isn't good enough to use someone's blog as a way of verifying this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
On a human level, this is pretty distasteful. I don’t think we should be labelling or even implying that identifiable non-notable people are sex workers in this way - even if they were. These are real people and we don’t know their circumstances and what their familes etc know about them. Apart from anything else there could well be a BLP issue. DeCausa (talk) 08:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Guys I got one source of one of the images of those women. Author says "A shot I took from the taxi as we drove through Kolkata's red light district, sonagachi". Guys if necessary I can do one thing by changing the caption of those images but keep at least one image in those articles. Don't you guys think so it would help the ordinary users to understand how big the prostitution industry is in India. Yes we can't verify weather they're sex workers or not. But those images are from red light area, sonagachi. And in future if we get a better image we'll replace it no problem. As of now keep at least one image and given source is also quite reliable. Thanks-- (talk) 08:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
No, it’s not even a reliable source and likely a WP:BLP violation. We shouldn’t be permitting this. DeCausa (talk) 08:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Policies and guidelines aside, I find it in incredibly in poor taste to label persons as sex workers on an encyclopedia for everyone to see, unless it has been permitted by the subject of their own volition. Outing people in professions like this could literally subject them to threats and put their lives in danger. Whatever encyclopedic value can be extracted from such images can be identically done by obscured images and not face close-ups. nearlyevil665 10:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I've gone ahead and removed that particular image from our articles here. Girth Summit (blether) 11:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    I had also taken it out of 5 other articles (as well as 2 other similar/related) images. DeCausa (talk) 11:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

A few points:

  1. The intersection of images and WP:V is really tricky for a wide range of subjects that cannot be easily verified, but which we trust the photographer/uploader for unless there's a reason to doubt it. Let's not start down that path except for one thing: the photographer didn't even state unequivocally that this is a picture of a sex worker -- just that she was in a red light district. Existing in a red light district does not make one a sex worker.
  2. The main issue here is the use of photos of identifiable people (identifiable in the broad sense, not in the WP:V sense).
  3. If this was taken from a taxi, he obviously didn't ask for consent. Per Indian law, consent is not required to take a photo of someone in a public place, but there is a clause that publishing a photo of a person in a public place can be illegal if it's "embarrassing, mentally traumatic" or causing "a sense of insecurity about [the depicted person's] activities". I don't know it well enough to know if it applies, but it sounds like it could. Looking at this a bit more, the "sense of insecurity about their activities" looks to be more about photos taken in private places (insecurity going about one's business).
  4. The image quality is terrible.
  5. For any article like this, we should be looking for photos where the subjects either aren't identifiable (a larger street scene, or even blurred faces) or where photos were taken with consent (regardless of whether that's absolutely required by law). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Evidencing consent to being publicly described as a sex worker (which I believe is what is needed) is I think unlikely to be feasible for the most part. Here in the UK, as it is in many countries, the norm in responsible media is to blur out faces in equivalent photos. DeCausa (talk) 14:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I've encountered the image before in the same place and wondered the same thing—I really should have raised the issue. I agree with the removals. The images do seem inappropriate under WP:BLP. — Bilorv (talk) 00:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
The creator of the photograph describes as "A shot I took from the taxi as we drove...", that is all I need to read. Not even the photographer knows for sure. This could just be a lady walking home in a bad neighborhood. Surely there exist photographs from self-identified individuals, and if not then the encyclopedic value of the photo is not very high anyway.
I was once videoed on the street and used in B-roll for a news bit on homelessness, guess what I was not homeless. I just has a big beard. I think we can do better than that. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 00:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, as someone who's been mistaken for a homeless man more than once (I know I have long hair and a beard and live in a minority/majority area, think maybe the Rush concert T-shirt might've been a giveaway?). Unless Wikipedia somehow thinks humans can't figure out that another human might be a sex worker, there's no use in proclaiming a picture of a random human to exemplify said procession. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I was once approached in Paris by a decidedly seedy character, who seemed to think I was a sex worker. Fortunately, he didn't photograph me and upload it here. Girth Summit (blether) 11:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Guys in Wikimedia Commons some editors had uploaded photos of sex workers and incidentally images of above mentioned girls are their. WikiMedia Source. And they're mentioned under category:Prostitutes in India. Nobody has removed those images from that category; anybody would get confused and again put back those images in those articles. Thanks-- (talk) 13:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons is not under our purview. If there are problems there, take them up there. Don't be too hopeful though, because my experience with Wikimedia Commons is that they don't have the best management and don't do enough to protect image subjects in situations like this. Not a single image in that category has a working link to a reliable source.Jehochman Talk 13:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I have removed another equally questionable image, added yesterday by the same IP user, from Prostitution in Brazil (diff of addition). While those people have their backs to the camera, making them less easily identifiable, there is nothing in the photo that shows that they are sex workers, and nothing about the photo that helps explain the topic. IP user, have you also added other similar images to other Wikipedia articles? --bonadea contributions talk 13:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I wonder if we should have something in our ( image use policy saying to the effect that not all images at Commons are necessarily appropriate or should be used on Eg: has strong BLP-favored rights (particularly for people unknown) and thus if we are talking potentially controversial pictures of random people (eg these sex worker photos) or with dubious include, editors should remove them and seek if there needs to be a separate discussion on commons to remove them. --Masem (t) 13:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Just because you find media at Commons, do not assume it complies with English Wikipedia policies. You need to make an independent determination under our policies. Jehochman Talk 14:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Added to IUP. I do note that even without this, these sex worker images were not appropriate without the subject's consent (potentially derogatory images of identifyable people). --Masem (t) 14:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The main takeaways for anyone looking to address issues like this one Commons are (a) remember that COM:PEOPLE isn't quite the same as WP:BLP - a lot of it is about the law, but COM:DIGNITY is relevant; (b) try editing/recategorizing before deletion. For better or worse, the most likely outcome if these images were nominated for deletion is that they would be edited to say they just depict the red light district, and not necessarily sex workers. It's a really low quality image, but brings me to...; (c) anything being used on any wiki other than Commons is automatically considered to be in scope on Commons, no matter how poor the quality or questionable the description. Those can still be edited/recategorized, but it needs to be an exceptional circumstance for them to be deleted. Personally, I do think there are a few admins there who insufficiently consider COM:PEOPLE, and several others who get frustrated when people don't understand what Commons considers to be in-scope so err on the side of keeping/doing nothing, but there are, I'd wager even more people who do care about this stuff but don't see it. I'm generally content to be pinged for an opinion on issues of COM:PEOPLE/consent, or to try to translate what Commons is doing for an enwp audience. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

  • I've always said that the easiest way to undermine Wikipedia is with images, due to the inability to WP:V the information shown, which can easily violate WP:OR, WP:BLP and host of other acronyms. Yanking these images was the right move. Dennis Brown - 14:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • This reminds me of Seedfeeder's drawn explicit illustrations (in this case presumably mainstream public porn would be less of a BLP violation), but it may possibly be a good approach for this situation if an illustration is necessary... —PaleoNeonate – 15:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Christine Weston Chandler page ("Chris-chan")Edit

Just drop it. Nothing new, and the refusal to drop the stick is increasingly disruptive. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


The page Christine Weston Chandler is currently salted. While I understand why such a page was locked in the past, it seems that she has (in recent years, at least) risen to a particular level of notability and I am requesting that the page be created.

Here is a small list of high-quality references speaking to her notability:

It makes sense that the page was originally locked because of the widespread harassment campaign, but I do not believe that is applicable these days.

--Mychemicalromanceisrealemo (talk) 09:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Those are supposed to be high-quality references? They are some news reports of a charge against her which, even if she was found guilty, wouldn't lead to notability, and some very fleeting mentions in a couple of books and an MA thesis. I can't see any other reason for allowing an article than a determination to be part of a campaign of intimidation. Please also see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1074#Chris Chan and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive335#Creating the "Chris Chan" article, where this was discussed after the charges. The advice given in the close of the first of those ("...find a different hobby-horse. Or a different hobby.") is good. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
There is almost zero chance of writing a biographic article on that subject that would not end up being read as an attack page on someone of barely (I would personally argue, not) notable accomplishments. Chief of which appears to be "antagonising people on the internet so much that they want a wikipedia article attacking them". Keep it salted. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I do believe discussion in academic literature and other circumstantial references speak to her notability as a figure of popular culture, for better or for worse. Note that none of the references I've listed have discussed Chandler per se but focus on the harassment campaign. If she is notable, it is not through her achievements, I agree. User:Only in death + Phil Bridger, would you be similarly opposed to a page on the harassment campaign (akin to Gamergate (harassment campaign) or Jessi Slaughter cyberbullying case) rather than a biographic article, where the pages in question could then be redirected to? --Mychemicalromanceisrealemo (talk) 09:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Hypothetically yes, practically no. The problem is it will just become a massive time-sink and harrassment vehicle against Chan over time regardless of the intent of the article. And Chan is far from being a popular culture figure. Actually to describe someone who has been the victim of harrassment as being a popular culture figure because they are a victim of harrassment is largely just enabling the harrassment, even unintentionally. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I understand your point. However I would like to point out that (1) there is already at least one page with its origin in the harassment campaign, including with a specific mention of Chandler albeit not by name, and (2) the Jessi Slaughter (Damien Leonhardt) page occupies a niche much like Chandler's, down to its origin on 4chan. There is in fact an entire category for cyberbullying victims. I do not disagree that, to a certain extent, it would be a time-sink, though that is largely subjective. I must disagree, however, that Chandler is not a pop culture figure, once again, whether for better or worse. I was particularly surprised at the amount of Twitter traction that Chandler's case received is evidence of that, as well as numerous references in media, including references in video games like Goat Simulator, McPixel, and Heartbeat; and YouTubers and internet personalities like the Angry Video Game Nerd. For what it's worth, I think that Chandler was severely mistreated, from the beginning. But that does not negate anything I've said here. --Mychemicalromanceisrealemo (talk) 10:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I think you are sailing fairly near the wind here. If Chandler is not mentioned by name in that article, that might be because no reliable sources would support such a mention. If that is the case, your assertion above is most probably a violation of WP:BLP (which applies to all spaces, including here). I already advised you to be careful about what you say here - please tread very carefully. Girth Summit (blether) 11:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I understand and appreciate the caution. I will tread more carefully, thank you. Both sources for the statement do mention Chandler by name, though it is not reproduced in the article. Chandler's initials are mentioned in the first line. To the best of my knowledge I have only referenced published secondary sources about a well-known individual.--MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 11:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Let me just say in general, a thousand times no. This is a hill I will happily die on. To be clear, I don't mean this as an indictment of this particular editor, but about the broader context. "Memeing" a person to Wikipedian notability and then using this site to further amplify their harassment is just an evil, evil template. Dumuzid (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Delisting of the Hungarian WikipediaEdit

Not related to enwiki — Golden call me maybe? 14:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The Hungarian Wikipedia has covered up several scandals, including unfair edit wars, creation-protection of important pages (even one about a Formula Two driver), (Redacted), and rampant admin abuse. Due to all of the controversies, I suggest that it is either delisted or closed permanently. Hell, I even got blocked for being a crosswiki vandal, even though I only tried to create a page for a certain person! --2A01:36D:1200:4D41:D9E6:E7D4:9D38:6C3C (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia has no authority over the Hungarian Wikipedia. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 13:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Also I have blocked this user for multiple, now rev-del'd, BLP violations and other disruptive edits. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 13:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
@HighInBC: There's one diff in the page history that still needs rev-delling [41]. (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
RickinBaltimore did the honors on that one. Miniapolis 23:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
(ec)Thank you, looks like someone else got to it first. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 23:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Category emergencyEdit


Issue being addressed at Village pump technical. – Athaenara 17:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

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

I don't know where to post this concern, so I'm starting here: there's a problem with Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, in that it currently shows over 600 pages in the categories included in it, 18 in one, 91 in another, 246 in another, and so on, BUT most of those categories are actually empty. This began several hours back, and I eventually rebooted thinking my browser had gone wacky, but no. Where does one take this? – Athaenara 16:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

There's a thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Problems with speedy deletion category counts. —Kusma (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. – Athaenara 16:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Block of LittleFinn9Edit

LittleFinn9 (talk · contribs) was blocked for NOTHERE and trolling; two unblock requests were declined. I am of the opinion that they should be unblocked (as unblocks are cheap and so are reblocks). I propose a reminder to follow NOTSOCIAL and perhaps some restriction from unnecessary user talkpage edits (i.e. not required by our processes). Discussion at their talk page was inconclusive, so here I am per BLOCKPOL. (The blocking & responding admins will be notified.) I could certainly be wrong and will happily accept that they should remain blocked. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Unblocks are cheap, go for it -- TNT (talk • she/her) 06:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment. My opinion remains unchanged from when I declined an unblock request by the user, but I won't stand in the way of unblocking. 331dot (talk) 09:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm with 331dot. If you (or anyone) would like to lift the block, I won't stand in your way. It may be the right call. But their continued insistence they did nothing wrong concerns me. --Yamla (talk) 11:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Unblock per TNT. I can understand Finn's reaction given their lack of experience on Wikipedia. 15 (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • meh - Normally I'm fine with second chances, but it's hard to see this as a second chance when they don't really seem to get why they were blocked in the first place. Not saying "no" directly, but I don't feel like it's a good idea. I'm also concerned the comments they are making are more likely what they think we want to hear rather than sincere. Dennis Brown - 15:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Unblock. To me this looks like possibly a younger user who may not realize their behavior would be seen as suspicious. Could it be yet another troll pretending to be that? Sure, but if they are it'll become clear soon enough. valereee (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose unblock. I've stated my reasons on the user's Talk page, and they haven't changed. I don't find the user's reasons for their edits plausible, meaning bluntly that I think they're lying, and their disingenuous "What about my aforementioned actions and conduct constitutes as 'trolling'?" only confirms my suspicions. Nor do I think this is "a younger user" - "aforementioned"? how many young people do you know who write like that? Also, what new user says things like "I assume a checkuser has already verified that my IP is unique"?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Sometimes it's better to unblock a user and keep an eye on them instead of having them make a new account and restart the whole process. How about asking this user to explain what productive thing they plan to do, and if they enunciate something that's actually productive, give them a chance to redeem themselves or to prove beyond a doubt that we need to play Whac-A-Mole? Jehochman Talk 17:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
    We unblock to prevent them from socking? The user has said they want to edit manga and anime articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
    Unblocking provides fresh CU data.   Jehochman Talk 17:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Unblock, even if what they did and what they're saying is a little suspicious, it's plausible the editor just doesn't know how to properly behave in Wikipedia because they're new and that they'll learn shortly. As others said above, unblocking and reblocking is cheap. —El Millo (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Renewed edit warringEdit

After previous thread Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive340#Koitus~nlwiki was archived, without any comment from user, resutling in edit warring block by user Girth Summit (talk · contribs), Koitus~nlwiki starts edit warring (4 days ago [42] and [43], today [44]) against consensus (Tercer (talk · contribs), Brienanni (talk · contribs), (talk · contribs), Headbomb (talk · contribs)), and multiple given sources contradicting the claim they make in their edit summary ("In Dutch last names (without first names or initials) begin with capital letters"), which is clearly false.

Discussion with sources on article talk page Talk:Van_Cittert–Zernike_theorem#Uppercase_or_lowercase_"van", and, 2 days ago, on their user talk page: [45]. See also User_talk:Brienanni#Last_names.

I have restored the original version: [46]. - DVdm (talk) 09:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked from article space for two weeks. I am hoping that they will take the opportunity to learn how talk pages work in that time: they have occasionally edited talk pages, so they know that they exist. If they choose not to engage, and return to edit warring after the block expires, the next block may need to be indef. Girth Summit (blether) 11:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, GS. - DVdm (talk) 11:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Note, regarding the warning here, see their own block request here. - DVdm (talk) 09:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Never met a bigger idiot than you, DVdm... they never met me though ;) SN54129 09:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Am I the only prude here? Surely the username "Koitus" is also completely inappropriate? Bishonen | tålk 09:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC).
    That was brought up last time; apparently it doesn't mean anything in Dutch. Kind of does in English though, and this is enwiki... Girth Summit (blether) 09:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
    I actually said it does not mean anything different in Dutch than in English--Ymblanter (talk) 09:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
    Oops - somehow my eyes glided past that rather significant word. Girth Summit (blether) 09:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Should we protect this?Edit

Very unsurprisingly, this talk page is getting vandalised by those who probably would vandalise the article instead. Should it be protected? – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 12:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Some vandalism today, but then nothing going back to December. Looks like there's something inappropriate once or twice a month, which I personally do not think requires protection. Primefac (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Media Viewer is fundamentally broken, and should be turned offEdit

In any case where there is more than one Creator of an image, Media Viewer will only show the first Creator. If there's more than one Creator template, it'll only show the first. If one Creator has a Creator template, and others don't, it will only show the one with the Creator template.

This means that it fundamentally breaks copyright. In any case where there's more than one creator, it will screw up showing this. This means that on any CC-by licensed work with two or more creators, if any of them has a Creator:Template, Wikipedia is violating Creative Commons.

Until it can be fixed, we need to turn it off.

Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 16:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

This seems like either a Commons or a Phabricator issue; I don't think there's anything we can do here. Primefac (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I will also note this has been posted at ARC (which will shortly be removed) and Jimbotalk (which... might get some traction?). I get wanting to get things resolved, but forum-shopping is probably not the best way to do it. Primefac (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I kind of hate the idea that, after 8 years of waiting, when I finally get upset because there's been no progress the entire time, and when I can literally point to an example of MediaViewer turning a CC-by into a public domain - while stripping me of the credit in the process: ... that me complaining about it is the problem. The situation is starting to get fixed, probably because I did make such a fuss. Wrong gender, but... "Well-behaved women seldom make history" and all. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 18:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
You complaining about it is not a problem. You complaining about it to people who cannot do anything about it (ArbCom, enWiki admins, Jimbo...) , though, is more akin to shouting in the wind; it doesn't really do anything. Primefac (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
enWiki doesn't have the ability to turn Media Viewer off if it's unfit for purpose? It's not an ideal solution by any means, but if it can't be fixed, it seems both the best way to mitigate the harm to the encyclopedia (and probably would have the side effect of causing it to be fixed after all) Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.5% of all FPs 18:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
It's a server configuration issue that has to be flipped by the server admins, which is the WMF coders. But please see what I wrote on Jimbo's page, there's a potential route around using the "Credit Line" template at commons. --Masem (t) 18:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
The Wikipedia community has made one of their best and most memorable experiences with turning off the Media Viewer. 5/5 stars. We should totally do that again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Spin-off filmsEdit

Hi. I can see that spin-off films are listed in the List of film series articles, just look here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Is it correct to list spin-off films there? Althrough a spin-off film is a part of the franchise, it's not a part of the film series. It's a standalone movie in the same franchise as the film series. Karamellpudding1999 (talk) 09:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Karamellpudding1999 How does this specifically require administrator action? 331dot (talk) 09:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
@Karamellpudding1999: - please ask your query at the Film Project for further input. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Skilyr HicksEdit

Please delete this edit with DOB. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I assume you mean hide it with OS or RD, but the current consensus/practice is that an unsourced DOB does not fit either of those categories (especially if the subject is dead). Primefac (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

RFPP backlogEdit

Hi. There's a backlog at WP:RFPP, with some requests being more than 12 hours old. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Need Logo Updated on Wikipedia SiteEdit

Hello! Mercury Filmworks has updated their logo and it is not reflected on the Wikipedia page Can someone assist with updating this? It can be found on their social media accounts, glassdoor, and a quick google image search. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElizabethAmyotte (talkcontribs) 20:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done. Primefac (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)