Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m ?
 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. -->{{User:MiszaBot/config
<noinclude>{{Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}} __NEWSECTIONLINK__
|algo = old(3d)
{{Template:Active editnotice}}
|counter = 361
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|archive = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d
|maxarchivesize = 600K
|maxarchivesize = 700K
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|counter = 218
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|minthreadsleft = 0
|minthreadstoarchive = 0
|minthreadsleft = 0
}}{{short description|Notices of interest to administrators}}{{Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}</noinclude><!--S
|algo = old(48h)
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
|archive = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d
|header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|archiveprefix=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive
|format=%%i
|age=48
|index=no
|numberstart=255
|minkeepthreads= 4
|maxarchsize= 700000
}}
}}
--><!--
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive index|mask=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive<#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no}}<!--

----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here.
New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here.
----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------

-->
__NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude>

== Request for the lifting of editing restrictions ==

{{archive top|status = none|result=There is '''no consensus to lift these sanctions at this time.'''<p> I am closing this discussion after it has been open for about a week. Only six editors, apart from Koavf, took part in the discussion. Three of them (Fetchcomms, Ncmvocalist, EdJohnston) state that they do not oppose lifting the restrictions (albeit with some reservations). Three (Swatjester, Jayron32, FayssalF) did not express a (clear) opinion for or against lifting the restrictions. In other words, few people have offered an opinion one way or the other, even though Ncmvocalist apparently [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=100&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Ncmvocalist&namespace=3&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1 asked] the participants to the original sanctions discussion to participate here.<p>By comparison, the restrictions were imposed by community consensus in a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=243110389#Specific_Sanctions_-_proposals discussion] in which almost twenty editors supported these (or similar) restrictions, and there was no opposition against the general idea of Koavf being restricted in some way (indeed, he seems to have narrowly escaped a site ban at that time).<p> In view of this, I find that the present discussion does not indicate a community consensus to overturn the sanctions under appeal. It does indicate a certain indifference of the community to the whole matter, but positive consensus is required to overturn sanctions imposed by community decision. The restrictions, therefore, remain in force. Koavf remains free to appeal to the community again at a later time, or to the Arbitration Committee (which under these circumstances may well be inclined to review an appeal on the merits). <p><small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</font>]]</span></small> 18:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)}}

'''Moved from [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment]]''' I have [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FAmendment&action=historysubmit&diff=390971053&oldid=390724809 moved this discussion from the ArbCom] to this venue for community input.

'''Initiated by ''' —[[User:Koavf|Justin (koavf)]]❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯ '''at''' 04:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
; Case affected : {{RFARlinks|Koavf}}

; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
#Koavf is limited to editing with a single account.
#Koavf is prohibited from editing pages relating to Morocco and Western Sahara, broadly construed. This includes talk pages, and other related discussions.
#Koavf is subject to an editing restriction (probation). Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on their talk page by the administrator and logged below.
*'''Suggestion''': Repeal all.

; List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
* {{userlinks|Koavf}} (initiator)
:Other user templates:
::{{Usercheck-full|Koavf}}
::{{User toolbox|Koavf}}

* I do not believe that any other editors are directly affected by this proposal.

===Amendment 1===
* Initial RfA: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Koavf]]; details of community sanction: [[User:Koavf/Community sanction]]

==== Statement by Koavf ====
I am under a [[Wikipedia:Community sanction|community sanction]] [[Wikipedia:Editing restrictions|editing restriction]] with three clauses. I am:
#Limited to editing with a single account.
#Prohibited from editing pages relating to Morocco and Western Sahara, broadly construed. This includes talk pages, and other related discussions.
#Subject to an editing restriction (probation). Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on their talk page by the administrator and logged below.

While I have had [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:Koavf further blocks] (including two in the past two years), these criteria have only been [[User:Koavf/Community_sanction#Log of blocks and bans|invoked once and subsequently overturned through a good-faith appeal]]. Five prior cases involved 1RR/3RR violations, including ones that were related to Western Sahara only in the broadest possible sense (e.g [[List of states with limited recognition]].) It is possible that I have made some other small edits to articles related to this issue (I have made ''many'' edits since then), but I have not made any substantial edits to these topics, nor has any user complained that I have (including blocking admins.)

As I stated in my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback&oldid=389444067 request for rollback re-institution], I am a reliable editor who has not recently engaged in edit-warring and is constructive in his edits. I have used my roll-back ability (as well as Huggle and Twinkle) to fight vandalism, I have made several thousands constructive edits, I have had articles promoted to FA status through my own work and collaboration with others, and if you speak with users who have known me over the last five years, you will find that I have been an increasingly thoughtful and trusted member of the community. I have helped new users and made several proper posts to AN/I and AN/V to help the community avoid edit-warring and vandalism. I feel like I have reached a level of maturity such that this edit restriction is not necessary in practice or theory; in the three years that it has been in place, I have become a much more sober-headed and constructive editor who is trustworthy. I do have a long block history, but note that there are other editors who have longer ones but have been recognized as reliable and helpful editors who no longer have editing restrictions--including editors who began as vandals.

In regards to the three specific restrictions:
#I have never edited with another account and I have posted all of my anonymous IP edits on my userpage. The only checkuser investigation on me was closed as inappropriate.
#I have respected this content restriction and have avoided Western Sahara-related topics with the exception of reverting vandalism and the most tertiary topics (e.g. [[List of United Nations member states]], where I have not edited on the topic of Western Sahara in years.)
#This restriction could still be placed on me at any time as appropriate, but--as noted above--it has only been invoked once and then rescinded.

I look forward to these restrictions being lifted in part so that I can be recognized as a trusted editor and in part so I can begin to edit Western Sahara-related articles again (the quality of which has generally languished for several years, as I was the only active editor on this topic.) Both my ability to edit and the quality of the encyclopedia will be enhanced by the lifting of these restrictions.

====Discussion====
*I don't see any major issue with lifting these restrictions. Unless another user brings up significant concerns over this issue, I see no reason why the restrictions should continue. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/[[User:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">ƒETCH</span>]][[User talk:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">COMMS</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">/</span>]]'''</span> 03:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
*I received a ping on this because I was involved in the arbcom case somehow (memory fails me how). I'm not in a position to offer any opinion either way, unfortunately, but I don't have any particular objections either way this may turn out. [[User:Swatjester|<font color="red">&rArr;</font>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="black">SWAT</font><font color="goldenrod">Jester</font></font>]] [[WP:DC|<small><sup>Son of the Defender</sup></small>]] 04:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
*I will mirror what Swatjester just said. Kaovf has stayed off the radar for a long time, so I don't really have much of an opinion on his editing history over this time, which is probably a good thing. I can't come up with a reason not to rescind the restrictions, at least #1 and #2. I think #3 may be a good idea going forward, since its still a check on backsliding to former problems, but I'm not too attached. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 04:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

====Sanctions Timeline====
Each of the numbered are blocks or enforcement of sanctions in relation to the user.
# October 2005 - blocked for disruptive edit-warring (3RR)
# Feburary 2006 - blocked for disruptive edit-warring (3RR)
# August 2006 - blocked for disruptive pointiness
#: unblocked as it was unintentional and he agreed to use AfD and other venues to bring attention to his concerns
# September 2006 - blocked for disruptive edit-warring (3RR)
# September 2006 (6 days after the previous block) - blocked for disruptive edit-warring (3RR)
# October 2006 - blocked for disruptive edit-warring (3RR)
# October 2006 (11 days after previous block) - blocked for disruptive edit-warring (3RR)
# October 2006 (3 days after previous block) - blocked for disruptive edit-warring (3RR)
# October 2006 (8 days after previous block) - blocked for using AWB too fast (he was making up to 10 edits within a minute; sometimes quite a bit less)
# October 2006 (5 days after previous block) - blocked for using AWB too fast
# November 2006 (9 days after previous block) - blocked for disruptive edit-warring (3RR)
# November 2006 - block extended to indef for exhausting Community's patience
#: Early 2007 - Koavf privately appealed to ArbCom
#: May/June 2007 - ArbCom lifted ban and imposed 1RR on him ([[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Koavf|details]]). Although concerns were expressed at that time that community members were not notified, those concerned also respected the outcome decided by those arbitrators in the interests of [[WP:AGF|assuming good faith]]. Did the outcome work?
# June 2007 - blocked for violating 1RR
# June 2007 - blocked for violating 1RR
# July 2007 - blocked for violating 1RR
#: unblocked to allow user to help correct problem and make show of AGF
# September 2007 - blocked for violating 1RR
# April 2008 - blocked for violating 1RR
# May 2008 - blocked for violating 1RR
# September 2008 - blocked for disruptive edit-warring
#: Community ban discussion initiated due to 19th block; 12 users endorsed a site ban; 7 opposed.
#: Community sanction proposals put forward; unanimous Community support for sanctions.
# November 2009 - probation measure invoked to prevent disruption relating to categories
#:March 2010 - appealed successfully
# late April 2010 - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Koavf/Archive019&diff=prev&oldid=359141907 blocked] for disruptive edit-warring ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Roxx_Regime_Demos&diff=358307382&oldid=358302813] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Roxx_Regime_Demos&diff=358965281&oldid=358609353] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Roxx_Regime_Demos&diff=359118351&oldid=359049052] adding the characterisation of 'demo' instead of 'compilation'). See his original unblock request, and the then amended unblock request with the administrators reasons for declining it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Koavf/Archive019&diff=next&oldid=359425322] followed by his response which maintained he would revert upon the block expiring [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Koavf/Archive019&diff=next&oldid=359433367]. Another editor told him not to do so [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Koavf/Archive019&diff=next&oldid=359447859].
# October 2010: within the last few days, he has been using AWB in the same way he was warned not to in the past (making up to 12 edits using AWB within a minute; sometimes quite a bit less).
#:appealing the Community sanctions in total.

<s>Although</s> I was ready to accept his March 2010 appeal regarding the categories specific enforcement<s>, I'd certainly oppose lifting the probation altogether</s>. <s>I don't mind lifting the account restriction bit, but really, that's dependant on the Moroccan/Sahara topic ban, and I'm going to leave it to others who encountered issues on that particular topic to decide whether the scope of any such problems can be dealt with via probation.</s> [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 10:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Striking per my comments below - although I'd have favoured keeping probation (term 3) in place for 6 more months, I don't oppose the lifting of the sanctions. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 19:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
:'''With all due respect''' What would I have to do for you to be comfortable with lifting these sanctions? Should they be in place forever? For that matter, I honestly don't understand what the purpose is of the third clause, as this stipulation would be true regardless--if I was making a series of disruptive edits to (e.g.) Western Sahara-related articles, I could be topic banned from them again (more likely, I would have a more serious punishment, considering my block log.) Having this as an editing restriction seems redundant as any user making a series of disruptive edits to any set of articles or topics could be barred from editing those topics.
:Regarding my AWB usage, I see nothing in the [[Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/User manual|documentation]] about speed of use other than to be careful (correct me if I'm missing something here.) The initial reason for the request to make slower edits with AWB was users who check [[Special:RecentChanges]]. This was years ago, and if anyone is manually checking that today, it's impossible to keep up with the flood of new edits from all users and my contributions are a drop in a bucket. If someone is using [[WP:HUGGLE|Huggle]], then I am whitelisted anyway. In point of fact, I [[User_talk:Koavf/Archive021#Barnstar|got a barnstar]] from one user precisely because I was rapidly tagging these talk pages with AWB. I can't see how adding tags to category talk pages at the rate of (e.g.) 17 a minute is really a problem, but I'm willing to concede that it might be if you can explain to me how this is unhelpful.
:Finally, while your assessment of the final block is not inaccurate, it is (unintentionally) misleading, as you omit the fact that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Roxx_Regime_Demos&action=history I did not revert] as I planned after my block was lifted for precisely the reason that you cite. (And the edits I ''did'' make were [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Roxx_Regime_Demos&action=historysubmit&diff=359663073&oldid=359662334 reverted as "vandalism"], even though that was a false charge.) We ended up discussing that issue on talk and found an acceptable version of the page. Again, this is the difference between my editing five years ago and today and I would like to think that it shows that I am a mature enough editor that I don't need any active restrictions or patrolling of my edits. —[[User:Koavf|Justin (koavf)]]❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯ 21:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
::::Justin, should you make disruptive edits again, then:
::::* if probation remains in force, an administrator will ban you from certain pages/topics and only block you for violations.
::::* if probation is lifted, an administrator will block you for the edit(s) and/or the Community will ban you from editing Wikipedia (due to the history/context/pattern here).
::::That is, in the case of the latter, you must remember: these 3 measures were imposed as a last chance good faith measure so if these are lifted, the Community is unlikely to contemplate coming back and going through a full discussion to reimpose more of the same if there are any relapses; it would come back to discuss it if a site ban is the only way to get through to you or the only way to deal with the disruption. On the other hand, obviously, if there are no issues, then that's the most ideal outcome for all.
::::Absent any concerns about 2, I was not going to stand in the way of 1 or 2 being lifted, but I was going to suggest that the third term operate for another 6 months in which you time you should edit without other issues (that is, without anymore blocks/bans due to disruptive behaviors). But if you accept the likelihood of what will happen in case things don't go to plan, then I'll strike my oppose and not stand in the way of the appeal (which means I would not actively oppose all 3 being lifted now). [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 08:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::'''Ah''' Now I understand your position. I am confident about lifting these sanctions because any "disruption" that I would make at this point would not be the type of inflammatory edit-warring or [[WP:POINT]]-style POV-pushing that I would have engaged in in the past. Anything that would constitute disruption on my part now would be bold editing that is misguided. If someone simply asks me to stop or explain myself, I will (and I have.) As far as six more months go, we would still be in the same boat then, right? The only difference is that I could say I waited six more months--that's fine, I suppose, but I'm not sure that it's really necessary nor that it will do anything in my favor in case there is some issue in the future. In sum, my problem in the past was edit-warring and I'm not going to deal with that now. If you prefer a six-month trial from this point forward or immediately lifting restrictions, either is fine with me. Thanks again. —[[User:Koavf|Justin (koavf)]]❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯ 15:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

::Yeah, the fact that he was blocked 4 years ago for using AWB too fast seems irrelevent here. Both AWB and the mediawiki software has changed so much in the past four years that the conditions which would have led to the AWB throttle have changed drasticly. I can't see where this behavior, of itself, is a problem. If THAT is the only actionable objection to his behavior in the past 6 months, then I don't see that as a problem. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 02:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
:::What happens in the present cannot be viewed in a vacuum. They're informed by a context, either of a pattern of behavior or history - after the history we see here, I'd have expected the disruptive behavior to stop after these measures (short of a full site ban) were employed, and it should be clear; the 3 sanctions being appealed at this time were the alternative remedy to a full site ban that was to be imposed two years ago; it was a good faith last chance. That is, one should try to avoid engaging in the same disruptive behaviors; unless an unjustified block was made, or a sanction was imposed unjustifiably under the probation, there should not have been any other issues. Incidentally, misuse of rollback (if it occurs) is a lot easier to handle than the other problems encountered so far. In November 2009 (a little over a year after the probation was imposed), the sanction was invoked to prevent certain behavior that was disruptive. Incidentally, if we'd lifted the ban after a year, and he engaged in this behavior afterwards, he probably would have faced a harsher outcome than the sanction that was imposed on him. Still, by March 2010, we accepted his assurances and removed the additional restriction.
:::A month later, in April/May 2010, he was disruptively edit-warring and was blocked. The main issue I find is this block (which was imposed less than 6 months ago); I think that is a problem. If the block was unjustified, and either the blocking admin, the admin who declined the appeal, or even the community are ready to come to that view, or at least there was not a strong consensus in support of imposing a block (despite the context), that needs to be considered. If the mitigating factors are sufficient that another editor should also have been blocked, that may also be worth considering (but unless I have missed something, the issue (again) was Koavf disruptively edit-warring in April/May 2010). [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 08:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
::::I am grateful for the thoroughness of Ncmvocalist's analysis, but I'm not certain of his bottom line. I agree with Ncmvocalist that Koavf's block in April of 2010 (and the ensuing unblock dialog) are a concern because it suggests that the old problems from 2006 and 2007 have not entirely gone away. I myself would be OK with the lifting of all the restrictions, but suggest that Koavf voluntarily observe a 1RR regarding Western Sahara articles and be aware that any renewed problem in that area could lead to bad consequences. I didn't see any actual violation of the AWB terms of use but putting project tags in article talk space [[User talk:Koavf#WP:LITH|is not recommended by some projects]], and I recommend that he consider whether all his AWB changes are truly valuable. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 18:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::'''Sure''' I would be fine with being extra vigilant about my Western Sahara-related edits (as a strictly practical matter, I have to, or else face some certain disciplinary action.) As far as the tagging goes, I have checked these WikiProjects and they do not have any guidelines about not tagging non-article namespaces. In point of fact, the other person in the discussion that you cited acknowledged that there was no precedent guideline for this and changed his mind about the tagging based on this fact. The only other person who responded to me about this was from the Simpsons WikiProject, which also had no guideline about tagging and still doesn't, in spite of the fact that there banner [[Template:WikiProject_The_Simpsons/class|explicitly includes an NA parameter, as well as one for books]]. —[[User:Koavf|Justin (koavf)]]❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯ 20:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
::::::Justin, the wiki-past is gone. Now, could you tell admins on this board that you are serious enough about observing the 1RR rule and wp:consensus? So far you've just talked about how you have been respectful of sanctions and restrictions. I am asking you this is because all what has been talked about here is your editing style but it seems that the discussion has ignored your attitude toward [[WP:CONSENSUS]] on talk pages. Probably because you have not been explicitly sanctioned for it but the 'consensus' issue is still bothering me. It's a core policy of this business. Officially, it is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making. If you still believe that one single user has the right to sabotage a consensus of 9 nine other users and still insist that he's within his rights then we'd surely have problems in the future. I'll appreciate if you could offer some assurance regarding this point. After that, there'd be no reason for me as a concerned user to object to your appeal.
::::::P.S. I'd have liked to be notified since I was the user who brought the complaint to AN/I which resulted in the community sanction in question. Justin, everytime you appeal for something you miss notifying concerned users. It's just a courtesy matter but it has to be mentioned since this is the third time it happens. Thanks. -- [[User:FayssalF|<font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF</font></font>]] - <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: gold"><sup>''Wiki me up''® </sup></font>]]</small> 02:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::::'''Consensus''' As a for instance, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A173.79.191.176&action=historysubmit&diff=391171154&oldid=391163483 the last disagreement I had with an editor], I counseled him to speak with the appropriate WikiProject(s) to reach consensus about contradicting a guideline. (The other half of the discussion is on my talk page.) Other recent examples of my editing raising a red flag and me respecting consensus include [[User_talk:Koavf/Archive021#Edits_to_November_18]] (where consensus was against me, and I ceased editing) and [[User_talk:Koavf/Archive020#Categorization]] (where consensus favored me, and I continued editing for several weeks.) Alternately, here is an example of me following consensus and asking a user to do the same with the resolve to respect that process: [[User_talk:Koavf/Archive020#Category:Jews_is_correct]]. And these are all examples of boldness on my part rather than POV-pushing or sheer recklessness. I haven't had anyone complaining about me flaunting consensus lately and I don't do it.
:::::::In terms of reverting, I don't have much of a recent history for it or the prospect of it due to the types of edits I have been making lately—that is to say, I have been doing a lot of maintenance, such as categorization, tagging, etc on pages that I do not watch rather than substantial edits to the text of articles. Off hand, I cannot remember any instances within the past six months where I've had a ''prospective'' edit-war, and I certainly haven't actually engaged in one. This prospective 1RR restriction would be self-imposed and (apparently) limited only to Western Sahara-related articles, so for this, I guess you have my word and your gut.
:::::::I really didn't know who to alert about this, since I don't have anyone on Wikipedia who would be directly affected by this—no one with whom I have had any Western Sahara-related edit-wars is still on here. —[[User:Koavf|Justin (koavf)]]❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯ 03:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
::::::::Fair enough, Justin. -- [[User:FayssalF|<font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF</font></font>]] - <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: gold"><sup>''Wiki me up''® </sup></font>]]</small> 19:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
----
'''Moved from archive''' I have copied the above discussion from [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive218]] for a fuller discussion and deleted it from that same archive. I have done this per a discussion on [[WP:IRC|the main IRC channel]] by "killiondude", "SpitfireWP", and "Sky2042" (not necessarily their usernames on en.wp.) Please post any further comments below this horizontal break. —[[User:Koavf|Justin (koavf)]]❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯ 00:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
----

So, what are we doing now? Move forward, wait for more discussions? -- [[User:FayssalF|<font size="1px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF</font></font>]] - <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: gold">''Wiki me up''® </font>]]</small> 12:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
:'''More input''' I "recruited" two admins to take a look--[[User:Explicit|one of whom I have had good relations with]], [[User:Good Olfactory|the other of whom has had to rebuke me a little in the past]] (but we still get along just fine.) I hope that someone will close this matter after having decided that some consensus exists. —[[User:Koavf|Justin (koavf)]]❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯ 15:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

== Proposed partial removal of restrictions on Δ/Betacommand ==

{{archive top|status=none|result='''The restrictions remain unchanged.'''<p> I am closing this discussion after it has been open for about a week. Community consensus is opposed to modifying the restrictions that apply to Δ. I also see no consensus to even relax them as outlined by Rd232. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</font>]]</span></small> 19:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)}}
{{user|Δ}} (previously [[User:Betacommand]]) is currently under a series of community-imposed restrictions (listed below, see also original list [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2#Community-imposed restrictions|here]] and discussion that led to them [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/I have blocked Betacommand|here]]):
* Before undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages, Betacommand [Δ] must propose the task on [[WP:VPR]] and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion. If there is any opposition, Betacommand [Δ] must wait for a consensus supporting the request ''before'' he may begin.
* Betacommand [Δ] must manually, carefully, individually review the changed content of each edit before it is made. Such review requires checking the actual content that will be saved, and verifying that the changes have not created any problems that a careful editor would be expected to detect.
* Betacommand [Δ] must not average more than four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time.
* Betacommand [Δ] is placed under community enforced civility parole. If any edits are judged to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked by an ''uninvolved'' administrator. If not a blatant violation, discussion should take place on the appropriate noticeboard ''prior'' to blocking. Blocks should be logged [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2#Log of blocks.2C bans.2C and restrictions|here]].
I am proposing that the first two of these restrictions be rescinded, and the third be amended to read "Δ must not average more than four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time ''while editing under his primary account''." The reasons for this are several. Firstly, Δ is most valuable to the project for his work on bots and automated scripts. He has done outstanding work in these fields in the past, and remains one of the more experienced bot operators Wikipedia has. While it is in part the operation of these automated tools that led to these restrictions, this brings me to my second point. Δ has demonstrated that he is able to maintain and operate a bot within the expectations of our community. As a result of a community discussion [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=375375818#Relaxing_or_rescinding_of_community-imposed_restrictions_on_User:Betacommand_.2F_.CE.94 here] and a subsequent Arbitration Committee motion [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive215#Arbitration_motion_regarding_User:Δ|here]], he manages [[User:Δbot]], which does a good job of clerking the (frankly overcomplicated) pages at [[WP:SPI]]. Thirdly, these changes to Δ's restriction continue to restrict him from operating scripts from his main account, which in large part was what led to difficulties previously. Δ would still be required to obtain approval from the [[WP:BAG|Bot Approvals Group]] (and/or ArbCom, as appropriate by their previous motions) before operating any other accounts or adding any more tasks to his existing bot.

I have asked Δ to come and explain what he would like to do on the project if these restrictions were lifted, although he has stated that he will have intermittent internet access for the next few days, so please be patient if you have questions for him. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/a|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold|c]])</sup> 03:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

:I really would ''like'' to be able to say I support this, but I have reservations. On the one hand, Beta (or Delta now. Whatever greek letter he wants) has skills which are very useful to the project. On the other hand, Beta has two very serious problems related to the running of his bots which led to the above restrictions. The first is that he has, at times, made poor decisions regarding the running of his bots for sometimes nefarious purposes (such as making thousands of dummy edits to make a page undeletable under technical limits of the Media Wiki software). He also has shown, in the past, problems with personal interactions which are not helpful in a bot operator. Basically, he doesn't interact well when asked to explain his actions, his attitude seems to be "I know better, so leave me alone". This sort of inapproachability is part of the reason for the civility parole. I have concerns about expanding his bot-running privileges given these past problems. I would like to hear from him directly, and especially would like to hear about what he has learned from his troubles and how he intends to operate differently. I am open to being convinced here, I am just not there yet. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 04:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
::Ive spent a long time reviewing my past actions, Ive also spent a considerable amount of time reflecting and analyzing both my actions and the communities (actions and re-actions) and have learned quite a lot. I've since adjusted my approach, and I have changed quite a bit personally. If you would like we could take this to a private conversation off wiki. (I do not want my personal details public). I could write several essays about what I have learned, and about how I fucked up and what I could, (and should have) done differently but my skill with a pen just is not there to give it proper justice, so I would rather just go back to doing what I do best, gnoming. [[User talk:Δ|ΔT <sub><sup><font color="darkred">The only constant</font></sup></sub>]] 13:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
:Support: These restricitons cause nothing but problems [[User:Access Denied|<font color="red">Access Denied</font>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Access Denied|<font color="black">[FATAL ERROR]</font>]]</sup> 04:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
::Um, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20101009235959&limit=224&target=%CE%94 this] was never asked for at VPR, and 50-60 edits in 10 minutes from 20:28-20:37. Relevant thread: [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive643#Unauthorized bot: Δ again]]. I was fairly forgiving because I didn't know his restriction, but I'm not happy to hear about it now. I'm going with no; if you can't edit according to the already agreed sanctions, you shouldn't have your previous ones lifted, because we can't trust you. Period. [[User:Magog the Ogre|Magog the Ogre]] ([[User talk:Magog the Ogre|talk]]) 04:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

*I agree with Jayron's initial sentence. How many times has Δ/Betacommand been given an inch, only to take a mile? There have been too many secondsecondsecond chances here. He can continue editing under these restrictions (though as Magog points out, he actually hasn't), or he can go elsewhere. →&nbsp;[[User:Roux|<span style="color:#082567;font-size:80%;">'''ROUX'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Roux|<span style="color:#082567;">'''₪'''</span>]]<small>&nbsp;04:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)</small>
*Generally per Jayron32. I'm OK with "triangle" and have asked him to help collate information in the past (when he was just Betacommand), he is really quite skilled in that area or at least has a decent framework to execute tasks on. I've seen no positive indication that he will interact better with the general community though, Hersfold, can you point to a successful execution of a [[WP:VPR]] request for leave to make a series of edits? Did that ever happen once? [[User:Franamax|Franamax]] ([[User talk:Franamax|talk]]) 05:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
*As with others, I have reservations. These restrictions were put in place to protect the community, and certainly not without reason. He drained far, far too much from this project in the past because he had useful skills, and I have no desire to go down that route again. As of yet, I've not seen compelling reason to lift these restrictions, and in fact has broken one of said restrictions just recently. [[User:Resolute|Reso]][[User Talk:Resolute|lute]] 05:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
*Based upon the available evidence, Betacommand/Δ seems no more trustworthy now than he was when the restrictions were enacted, so I oppose. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 05:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per problematic history of unauthorized bot activity, incivility, and negligent operation of automated and semi-automated tasks. [[User:Peter Karlsen|Peter Karlsen]] ([[User talk:Peter Karlsen|talk]]) 07:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - I've detected absolutley no change in attitude that would justify this as yet. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 08:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

'''Point of order &mdash; further information about this request, need a statement from Delta; please'''. I'm a bit confused about how this request came to be here. I don't see any discussion between Delta/Beta and Hersfold on their user talk pages about this request, though I gather that there was some communication between them in other fora. It's rather unusual for an unblocked, unbanned editor ''not'' to make requests for changes to paroles and sanctions on their own behalf. It also seems less than helpful &ndash; and kind of disrespectful to the community, Hersfold &ndash; for such a third-party request to be made while Delta is going to have limited connectivity. (Why couldn't this have waited a week?) At this point, there's no visible participation at all by Delta in this process; we don't have any information about what ''he'' wants, or why ''he'' believes that this request should be granted. I'm disappointed in Hersfold for bringing this forward under such inopportune circumstances, in Delta for going along with it (presuming he agreed) and with the editors above for being willing to jump to judgement without input from Delta.

Hersfold, you should withdraw this request until such time as Delta is able to participate fully in it. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 13:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
:I discussed and requested Hersfold to do this for several reasons, He was a mentor of mine for a year, He has always been better at drafting request that me (I make the same points but just not as well worded), I have been doing quite a lot of gnoming lately and I have noticed several areas where I help improve the encyclopedia in some of these cases automated processes would drastically improve the process, and I have also seen quite a few [[WP:BOTREQ|Bot requests]] go stale due to a lack of qualified willing bot operators, while I sit around twiddling my thumbs. As for my connection issues, I let Hersfold know that I would have intermittent connection for a short time, (knowing he would post the request soon). That ended last night, however when he posted I was already offline for the day. As I stated above I just want to go back to doing what I do best, gnoming. I have a project Im working on right now that appears to me a fairly large task (15k+ items) that Ive been slowly working on for the last few months manually. I know my actions of the past have caused drama and that is something I don't like, and I am trying to avoid as often as I can. As I have stated I want to go back to my roots (running non-controversial, useful bots) and avoid the drama that led to my burnout (dramafest). [[User talk:Δ|ΔT <sub><sup><font color="darkred">The only constant</font></sup></sub>]] 13:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
::I would have thought it's more likely for specific exceptions to be agreed for specified tasks than a blanket lifting of restrictions, if you can show that the tasks have community support and how the restrictions limit your ability to do them. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 14:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
:::Agreed. We did that for the SPI bot, and I see no reason why we can't also consider another exception for your "fairly large task". Define this task for us and we can consider it. [[User:Resolute|Reso]][[User Talk:Resolute|lute]] 17:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
::::Indeed. "I want to perform an unspecified task comprising 15,000+ items, so please turn me loose!" (scare quotes) is hardly the best approach. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 17:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::Please don't misrepresent this, I am not asking to "be let loose", rather just the freedom to file [[WP:BRFA|request for approvals]] for tasks that cross my path. Each task will then be assessed by the community, and [[WP:BAG|BAG]] to determine the feasibility of each task. I am not asking for blanket approval on any bot activity, rather the ability to seek approval through the normal methods. As for my current project, a full listing of affected pages can be found [[tools:~betacommand/mostredlink2.txt|here]] which is just over 15,100 pages. It is a listing of all articles which include deleted/non-existent files. I've been going though that list slowly for the last 6 months doing the cleanup myself. Ive got several other ideas on the drawing board but no clue if they will ever leave that. [[User talk:Δ|ΔT <sub><sup><font color="darkred">The only constant</font></sup></sub>]] 19:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
::::::The restrictions in question were enacted with very good reason. Please explain what has changed to warrant their removal. How will you behave differently than you did before? If someone objects to an ongoing task, how will you respond? —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 19:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::::You might want to take a look at my response to Jayron32. As for objections, that is a loaded question, it really depends on what the objection is, almost no two objections are the same and thus cannot be responded to in the same manor. [[User talk:Δ|ΔT <sub><sup><font color="darkred">The only constant</font></sup></sub>]] 20:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
::::::::I'm sorry, Beta, but vague statements about having seen the error or your ways don't cut it anymore. Not after all of the chances that you've been given. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 00:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
{{od|7}}You could perhaps take the time to discuss the objections (without causing trouble in the process) and coming to an agreement with the editor. Then you could ask for input from a third party ([[WP:3O]]) if you and the other editor cannot come to an agreement. That's just one possible route to take, though, and I'm sure that each objection will have a different best practice for dealing with it, however, most of the time, what I recommend here (civil discussion) would be involved somehow. [[w:User:Ks0stm|<font color="009900" ><b>Ks0stm</b></font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Ks0stm|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Ks0stm|C]]•[[User:Ks0stm/Guestbook|G]])</sup> 21:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
:Thats just one of a dozen different approaches that could be taken depending on the user, their objection, and why they are objecting. [[User talk:Δ|ΔT <sub><sup><font color="darkred">The only constant</font></sup></sub>]] 21:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
::Agreed. My point was, in essence, that of the many different paths you could take in dealing with an objection, civil discussion must be involved. I raise this point because of some editors' concerns seen above about civility, and not necessarily because of my own opinion (I haven't looked deeply into the recent or far history of this, and so I do not have an opinion to share on this request attm.) [[w:User:Ks0stm|<font color="009900" ><b>Ks0stm</b></font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Ks0stm|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Ks0stm|C]]•[[User:Ks0stm/Guestbook|G]])</sup> 21:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
::Actually, for you Beta, that's the <u>only</u> approach to take. The big question is, if someone objects, will you stop your bot? [[User:Franamax|Franamax]] ([[User talk:Franamax|talk]]) 23:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
:::With any issue there are always multiple resolution solutions, however like Ks0stm stated remaining calm and civil is key. I actually used to have a feature enabled in my code that shut the bot off when it received the orange bar of death, I ended up shutting that off due to abuse. But with the ideas and tasks that I have planned, re-enabling it shouldn't be that much of an issue. [[User talk:Δ|ΔT <sub><sup><font color="darkred">The only constant</font></sup></sub>]] 23:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
::::For me to even consider supporting the proposed modifications to your restrictions, you would need to agree to stop your bot immediately upon receiving a complaint from a user in good standing, not restart it until the issue has been resolved or a community discussion has resulted in consensus that it is not grounds to halt the task, and revert any changes that the community deems harmful (irrespective of whether they were approved in advance). —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 00:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
:I think that David Levy's suggestion is a good one; there needs to be assurances that, when reasonable objections arise to a bots activity, the bot is stopped until such time as the objections are dealt with. Given Beta/Delta's past, we need to take the default action to be to stop the bot activity if there is ANY doubt about what the bot is doing. Unlike David Levy, I am very willing to be convinced that Betacommand's restrictions can be relaxed in limited cases. To be fair, other than the recent glitch noted above, he's kept his nose clean since his return, insofar as I haven't seen his name on the dramaboards at all. At some point, given a long period of good behavior, we need to consider '''slowly''' relaxing restrictions, regardless of our personal problems with Beta. I would be the first to admit that, especially in the past, I did not like him. I will not mince words on that issue. Still, my own personal tastes need to be put aside, and we need to consider what can be good for the Wiki. It would be good to see some trial relaxations. One posibility I could propose would be that all bot requests at [[WP:BAG]] would need a notice posted to [[WP:AN]], so that the wider community could review his requests; more eyes would be a good thing. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 00:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
::I actually am quite willing to be convinced, but I haven't been yet; Beta's statements have been far too vague. Given his propensity to exploit technicalities (both real and imagined), it's important to eliminate any ambiguity. —[[User:David Levy|David Levy]] 01:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
:::As am I, which is why I would rather we moved to discussing the specifics of what BC/Beta/Delta hopes to accomplish. Discussing lifting the sanctions in vague terms accomplishes very little. [[User:Resolute|Reso]][[User Talk:Resolute|lute]] 06:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

::::My first major task, which I have manually been working on is removal of deleted/missing images, as I stated above, my goal is to file a BRFA for missing/deleted image removal using AWB. (I cant seem to figure out a good regex myself for removal). I was hoping for general relaxing of the restrictions so that I could avoid a majority of the knee jerk reactions that people have when me and bots are brought up. I actually think Jayron32's proposal above makes good sense. One of the main reasons Ive avoided VPR is just like this discussion, there are a flood of users who regardless of what I may say or do, just think that I should be banned from bots forever, regardless of how the circumstances may change. For the most part its just not worth the drama fight necessary to get small scale projects done. (Ive privately poked a few bot ops with ideas in the past). If anyone would like clarity on anything specifically let me know or just ask for it. Also if anyone wants to see how I respond to objections draft a situation up and an objection and it can be "role played" though. Short of someone objecting its the best case example that I can come up with. [[User talk:Δ|ΔT <sub><sup><font color="darkred">The only constant</font></sup></sub>]] 20:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::Obviously, if someone wants to see how you respond to objections, they can check e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%CE%94&diff=next&oldid=385362131 this discussion] on your talk page from just one month ago, where you reacted to being called "Betacommand" with '''"Since you cannot show me the basic respect to use the right username I think this conversation is over with."''' (emphasis mine). [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 07:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::: It would help people to extend good will to Delta if he had a link on his Talk page to his archives. The current revision of his talk page no longer contains that thread, which from the page history was archived [[User talk:Δ/20100901|here]]. (Further, the name of that archive page leads one to suspect there are even more talk archives in Delta's userspace, which would require anyone wanting to evaluate his behavior since his name change to do some determined fishing in order to find them.) -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] ([[User talk:Llywrch|talk]]) 18:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' and troutslap anyone who proposes such a thing in the future. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 03:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

In sum, if Delta follows the terms of Restriction 1 and proposes his specific task at VPR, he can as part of that proposal explain why restrictions 2 and 3 would be a particular limitation for that task, and ask for them to be relaxed ''for that specific task''. A general lifting does not seem on the cards, at least at this point. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 10:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''', is not able to handle objections in a reasonable way (see e.g. the link I gave above). [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 07:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' for many of the reasons above. Don't think lifting them would be a good idea. -[[User:Djsasso|DJSasso]] ([[User talk:Djsasso|talk]]) 17:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I admit that I may not know all the history and I understand the misgivings that many of the above editors have but I am going to be bold and be the first support that I can see and be willing to see this user get another chance at redeeming their honor and this is a worthwhile task that he wants to perform to do that. Remember, This is only to rescind the first 2 of the 4 restrictions. Although I am not sure myself how to stop a bot from making more than 4 edits a minute. The bot and its operator are still restricted to no more than 4 edits a minute and they are still being watched. Otherwise my advice is that someone else on this page needs to step forward and volunteer to perform the task that he is recommending. --[[User:Kumioko|Kumioko]] ([[User talk:Kumioko|talk]]) 19:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
*'''oppose''' - per Rd232, and that the user has a very hard time following community norms and restrictions placed by the community. I have no issue with task specific relaxation of specific sanctions, but only through a proper bot review process. --[[User:Rocksanddirt|Rocksanddirt]] ([[User talk:Rocksanddirt|talk]]) 21:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

== Request uninvolved merge-discussion close ==

Two merge discussions at [[Talk:Longevity myths#Merge discussion]] and [[Talk:Longevity myths#Merge counterproposal]] appear to be over. As per [[WP:MM]], would someone please determine whether they should be closed and archived, or relisted somewhere to restart discussion? There are also larger issues involved, and, after performing this minor request, it would be useful to consider contributing at [[WP:FTN#Longevity-cruft]] or elsewhere, or to request additional links. [[User:John J. Bulten/Friends|JJB]] 21:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
:<span style="color:#FF4F00;">'''[[WP:RELIST|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached'''</span> in the ''next'' 48-hour bot-enforced limit.<br /><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User:John J. Bulten/Friends|JJB]] 20:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)</small><!-- modified from Template:Relist -->


--><noinclude>
== Mass redirect deletion request ==


==Open tasks==
Can a kind (and deletion hungry :) ) admin please delete some 30-odd implausible redirects listed at [[Talk:List of settlements in Bosnia and Herzegovina#Mis-merged villages]]? Thanks. [[User:No such user|No such user]] ([[User talk:No such user|talk]]) 09:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
<noinclude>{{Centralized discussion|float=left|compact=very}}
:Some are still liked in to articles. I see no pressing reason to delete these. They are harmless at worst.--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac]] 09:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
{{Administrators' noticeboard archives}}
{{Clear}}
{{Admin tasks}}
</noinclude><!--Here because there's a bug in mobile, please don't remove-->


== Pages recently put under [[WP:ECP|extended-confirmed protection]] ==
::Um, none should be linked to -- which exactly? Those entities simply do not exist. Besides, every redirect is harmless, but we do have [[WP:RFD]] and CSD R3. [[User:No such user|No such user]] ([[User talk:No such user|talk]]) 10:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
{{collapse top|bg=#F0F2F5|Report}}
::: I spot-checked a few using [[Special:WhatLinksHere]]: for example, [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Zavalje i Zlopoljac|Zavalje i Zlopoljac]] ([[Bihać#Settlements]]) and [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Vršani i Zagoni|Vršani i Zagoni]] ([[Bijeljina#Settlements]]) are linked from their municipalities. Oddly, [[Bijeljina#Municipal subdivisions]] has [[Vršani]] and [[Zagoni]] separated, but Zagoni redirects to [[Zagoni (Bratunac)]]. [[User:Flatscan|Flatscan]] ([[User talk:Flatscan|talk]]) 04:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
{{User:MusikBot/ECPMonitor/Report}}
{{collapse bottom}}
==RfC closure review request at [[:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 433#Closing (archived) RfC: Mondoweiss]]==
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 01:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1715475679}}


:{{RfC closure review links|WP:RSN|rfc_close_page=Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 433#Closing (archived) RfC: Mondoweiss}} ([[User talk:Chetsford#Close of Mondoweiss RfC|Discussion with closer]])
== New AfD tool ==


'''Closer''': {{userlinks|Chetsford}}
I have had an AfD parser available for a while, but due to some toolserver configuration changes it has broke, Since I am unable to fix the issue that caused the break I re-wrote my parser so that scans all active AfDs. A full listing of all parsed AfDs can be found at [[tools:~betacommand/reports/afd]], However in the process of re-writing the tool I have also implemented a summary tool, its [[WP:RFASUM]] but for AfDs which can be found at [[tools:~betacommand/AFD.html]] if you have any questions,feature requests, or bugs please let me know. [[User talk:Δ|ΔT <sub><sup><font color="darkred">The only constant</font></sup></sub>]] 14:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
:PS please note that you can sort that table by any column. [[User talk:Δ|ΔT <sub><sup><font color="darkred">The only constant</font></sup></sub>]] 14:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
::I have already been finding this the best way to scan quickly the thousand or so open AfDs. Thanks! '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 06:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


'''Notified''': {{diff|User talk:Chetsford|1219154073|1218726050}}
== Bot running wild? ==


'''Reasoning''': <small>''The following is copied and modified from my post at Chetsford's talk page.''</small> I think that [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 433#Closing (archived) RfC: Mondoweiss|Chetsford's close]] was generally correct, but I think that this aspect is an incorrect assessment of consensus: {{tq|A few editors suggested that, regardless of outcome, it should not be used for [[Wikipedia:BLP|WP:BLPs]]. No direct reasoning was presented for that, however, some indirect reference to our policies could be divined within the greater context of the remarks of those editors and these suggestions were not really rebutted.}} I searched the RfC and "BLP" was used six times in the discussion. Only two of those mentions are in relation to the reliability of the source, and as Chetsford noted, neither provided any {{tq|direct reasoning}}:
{{Resolved|Sfan00 IMG is not a bot. Use his talk page first before filing premature AN reports. -'''[[User:Fastily|<span style='font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; color:#4B0082'><big>F</big><small>ASTILY</small></span>]]''' <sup><small>[[User talk:Fastily|<font color="#4B0082">(T<small>ALK</small>)</font>]]</small></sup> 02:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)}}
* {{tq| In addition, based on some of the past statements linked, a use for BLP or politicised situations within the fog or war would be very reckless at best.}}
<div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #f5f3ef; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
* {{tq|Yeah, I have very little faith in their editorial review which go beyond [[Wikipedia:BIASED|WP:BIAS]] and regularly [[Wikipedia:Fringe theories|WP:Fringe]]. At best, they really shouldn’t be used for anything related to BLP, Russia and Israel, at worst (and IMO this part is most likely) a full depreciation may be in order.}}
:''The following discussion is closed. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.'' <!-- from Template:discussion top-->
The only {{tq|indirect reference to policy}} is to BIAS (as FRINGE is a guideline), and Chetsford discounted that argument in another part of the close. I can't really {{tq|divine[]}} what other policies these editors may or may not have been thinking about. I'm not sure what {{tq|past statements}} the first commenter is thinking about, and without more reasoning, I wouldn't say that this single argument is strong enough to establish a consensus that ''Mondoweiss'' should not be used for BLPs just because nobody happened to rebut it in a long discussion. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 02:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)


===Uninvolved===
Thought I'd drop by during the course of my attempts to take a break and I found a bot notice on my talk page from [[User:Sfan00 IMG]] regarding a fair use image I uploaded more than four years ago from Trainweb.org. The user/bot's history page is a long line of these notices issued on what appear to be perfectly fair photos. I took the time to remove the deletion notice; the photo is justified under this site's own rules and I have done work with that the webmaster of that particular Trainweb portal before. Basically, it's a snapshot of an old railroad crossing signal. If I lived near San Jose, California, I'd gladly take a snapshot of the thing myself. It is the last one of this particular type of signal in use in California. --[[User:PMDrive1061|PMDrive1061]] ([[User talk:PMDrive1061|talk]]) 15:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
*<s>'''Endorse close'''</s> '''Amend''' While the specifics of BLPs weren't addressed in-depth, it's a reasonable addendum for clarity. They can be used but people should be careful with each individual article...not sure why that's not a blanket statement for every source on Wikipedia. For example, the NYT has published some egregious "journalism", but that doesn't mean it's always wrong on the basic facts. Every source should be evaluated for accuracy on its merits. If I say "Person AB said in an op-ed '<insert quote here'" and then cite it, there's very little reason to doubt ''that'' statement is true, but quoting it for purposes of establishing it as something that's true is inappropriate without additional verification. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 14:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
:Sfan ''is'' correct, all trainweb images must meet our [[WP:NFCC|non-free content policies]], The image(s) in question do not have a non-free rationale, Nor does [[:File:Griswold bayshore12.jpg]] meet the criteria because it can be replaced with a free license version of the file. [[User talk:Δ|ΔT <sub><sup><font color="darkred">The only constant</font></sup></sub>]] 15:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
*:Amended: This sounds like a [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT|WPian hearing what they want to hear]]. There isn't a need to add additional steps beyond what we normally do if people are going to abuse that to exclude the contributions of others. I'd prefer to keep it as-is, but I certainly can see that point. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 16:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
*::Wow...the EXACT reason I said it SHOULD be included was used...#clairvoyance [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 16:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
*'''Amend''' Remove the BLP clarification: 1) Regardless of the sources' reliability, we always them with great caution for biographies of living people. 2) No valid reason was given for why Mondoweiss should be treated differently from the other RS. 3) Such an unneeded clarification can easily be misconstrued to mean that Mondoweiss shouldn't be used for BLP. Just this week, one of the RfC participants used the close statement [[Talk:Mohamed_Hadid#Footnote_13_for_BLP|to claim]] that {{tq|we should avoid using Mondoweiss for BLP.|q=yes}} Obviously, it [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_MW_better_or_worse_than_aboutself_for_a_claim_about_Mohamed_Hadid|ended up]] in RSN again. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 16:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
*'''Amend''' to remove the statement about BLPs. If only two editors made an unsupported assertion and nobody else discussed it, then it isn't a valid part of the consensus. I'm all for interpreting arguments to try and pull a consensus out of the flames where it isn't obvious, but "divining within the greater context" in this manner is a [[WP:SUPERVOTE|left-field supervote]] and should be removed. The rest of the closure is reasonable. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 18:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
*'''Amend''' per M.Bitton and Wordsmith. We already treat BLP with caution, and this issue was not discussed enough to reach consensus. If needed, a new discussion on how to use MW with regard to BLP can be made. Meanwhile, I’m wary of using the ‘average’ value of 2.6 to conclude that option 3 should be reached. Note that since option 2 is essentially the middle ground, option 1 and 3 have the same weight, but '''option 4 has twice the weight of option 1 when skewing option 2'''. This doesn’t seem very fair, and then rounding 2.6 to 3 because of this is increasing the unfairness, leading to essentially 13 editors overruling 21 editors. '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 03:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
*:A-men [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 15:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
*:'''Two minor points of clarification:''' I have zero problem with amending per above and, while I can't -- objectively -- read the RfC that way, I would ''personally'' be glad to see this outcome.<br/>That said, I am concerned that some editors are reading the aggressive and misinformed arguments of two relatively new editors on the "anti-" MW side who have attempted, very poorly, to summarize my close and assuming those summaries accurately represent the close. The only closing statements I wrote are [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_433#Closing_(archived)_RfC:_Mondoweiss|this one]] and [[User_talk:Chetsford#RFC_close|this explanatory comment]], both of which are much more modest than the way in which two editors are summarizing them to make sweeping changes across multiple articles. To avoid the further spread of this misinformation, I would ask, as a personal favor, that editors attempting to describe my close (regardless of where you land on it) reflect only on the source material, and not the apocrypha it's spawned. To wit:
:::*{{Xt|"I’m wary of using the ‘average’ value of 2.6"}} The "average" of 2.6 was never used for anything (and, yes, I realize the incidental appearance of this meaningless number in the close has been fixated upon by the aforementioned editors to make major changes to articles). As per the text of the close rationale, the number 2.6 was simply noted as ''"indicative but not definitive as per WP:NOTAVOTE"'' and then immediately discarded as ''"not clearly learning toward either option"'' before the narrative analysis began.
:::*{{xt|"to conclude that option 3 should be reached"}} The RfC close reached no such conclusion in any dimension of time or space; in this reality or any parallel reality that the mind of man can conceive or imagine. It stated that no ''"consensus as to its underlying reliability"'' emerged which, if anything at all, was a "2" close (but, actually, no consensus).<br/>
::To summarize, this was a "no consensus" close with a relatively modest (and not proscriptive) BLP corollary described by [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] in this first (now stricken) comment. The fact my loquacious reasoning, intended to promote transparency, instead provided an opening to wedge in battleground behavior is beyond both my control and mandate <small>(RfC closers are not RfC enforcers)</small>. [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 23:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
:::Thank you for the clarity...I think... :-) [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 01:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
:::*{{re|Chetsford}} - perhaps there has been a misunderstanding, you quoted from me, but I was not referring to your RfC close. I was referring to the below analysis by FortunateSons. I apologise for my vagueness having caused confusion. '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 08:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


===Involved===
OK. Working on that right now. He's online and explained the situation. I thought it might have been posted by a bot. [[User:PMDrive1061|PMDrive1061]] ([[User talk:PMDrive1061|talk]]) 15:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
* I've archived my discussion with Voorts [[User_talk:Chetsford#Close_of_Mondoweiss_RfC|here]] for ease of review (versus diffs). For what it's worth, considering the contentious topic area involved, I am in full agreement with [[User:Voorts|Voorts]] that review of the close is appropriate. [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 07:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
* Amend close to read "and that it should <s>either not be used at all — or</s> used with <s>great</s> caution for biographies of living people." I don't think that the relative silence on the issue should have been construed as agreement with the two editors raising that specific, there was a lot else going on in the discussion besides that, especially since one of those editors appears to have construed the close as a license to remove citations for BLPs. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 15:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
* '''Amend close to 3 (Gunrel), optionally clarify the statement about BLP requirements per the qualifiers suggested by Chetsford''' <s>per the arguments made by @[[User:Chess|Chess]] and @[[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]], which were not sufficiently addressed</s>; also using the votes as an indicator. Acknowledging that I advanced the BLP arguments poorly (and thanking @[[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] for his generally accurate deciphering of what I meant), I would suggest the following, in the spirit of his comment made [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1219524558&title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FNoticeboard&diffonly=1 here], @[[User:Bobfrombrockley|Bobfrombrockley]] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1218542171&title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FNoticeboard&diffonly=1 here] and as a compromise: ''used with great caution for biographies of living (and recently deceased) people, and not to be used in cases of (a) for statements that, if proved false, would be legally defamatory; (b) for extraordinary claims (c) for analytical statements about the person; (d) for quotes and facts the accuracy of which is contested by RS or the subject him/herself.'' In addition and as a partial clarification, perhaps e) should be ''content marked as activism and similar'' would be appropriate. [[User:FortunateSons|FortunateSons]] ([[User talk:FortunateSons|talk]]) 08:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
*:You're going to need to bolster your opinion more than "we should do what I want", when support for #2 had ~6.5:1 support over yours. This is not the place to relitigate this RfC, IMHO. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 16:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
*::I‘m pretty sure you’re off on the math, as I voted 4 (which obviously endorses 3 over 2). That option obviously does not have consensus (and just for the sake of clarity, removal of problematic BLP uses is not backdoor deprecation, the overwhelming majority of MW uses are non-BLP or unproblematic). The straight vote count (as stated by Chetsford) has the average at 2.6, and of the counted votes, 14 votes included at least 3 (including 2 or 3), while 21 did not, of which an overwhelming amount were 3 or lower (please check my math).
*::I was unaware that we are not supposed to reference specific points when requesting a reassessment of the outcome, and have struck that part, except in context of the phrasing to avoid (light) plagiarism. Thanks for making me aware, this is one of my first contributions to such a noticeboard :) [[User:FortunateSons|FortunateSons]] ([[User talk:FortunateSons|talk]]) 17:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
*:::When giving a list of options (1. Action A 2. Action B 3. Action C 4. Action D and 5. Action E), saying "the average is 2.6 so we should choose option 3" is a horrible misunderstanding of statistics. You are heavily weighting all other actions other than #1 (Example, 20 people !vote 1, 2 people !vote 2, and 3 people !vote 5, the "average" is 2 despite an overwhelming preponderance of people !voting 1...in other words, a 5 is worth 5x a 1). Rounding up only further exacerbates the issue. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 16:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
*:Second attempt at a more policy-compliant argument, please correct me if this one is also wrong:
*:The relevant arguments regarding BLP usage were not addressed, and similar arguments where not fully rebuffed in general; therefore, the section regarding BLP should remain as is, or be alternatively clarified while remaining in the spirit of discussion and close.
*:Regarding the status of the entire source, I believe that the arguments made by those voting for „higher than 2“ should have led to a close of 3, and respectfully request that it is amended (as well). [[User:FortunateSons|FortunateSons]] ([[User talk:FortunateSons|talk]]) 17:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
*::"''The relevant arguments regarding BLP usage were not addressed''" They were addressed. You just didn't agree. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 16:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
*'''Amend''' per The Wordsmith. My own views on the source aside, the issue of BLP use was barely discussed - there was no consensus on it one way or another, so to assert one in the closure seems odd. [[User:The Kip|<span style="color:#333f42;">'''The'''</span>]] [[User talk:The Kip|<span style="color:#b4975a;">'''Kip'''</span>]] 19:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
*I don't object to the amendment that is being proposed here, because I think it goes without saying that ''any'' source where there are serious reliability concerns should be used with extreme caution in BLPs, especially where content is potentially defamatory. While no consensus was reached, given that 15 out of 36 !votes (I think) were for an option higher than 2 and only one editor considered option 1, this is obviously a source with serious reliability concerns. My only worry is that editors will take this amendment as permission ''not'' to use extreme caution with the source on BLPs or, worse, that this source has somehow been cleared for use in BLPs, so I hope that editors supporting this amendment will be vigilant in ensuring that we do not use this poor source inappropriately in BLPs. [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 11:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)


===Discussion===
For the umpteenth time, <u>[[User:Sfan00 IMG]] is not a bot account!!!</u> –[[User talk:MuZemike|MuZemike]] 19:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
:I gave up that fight a long time ago, regardless of what you may say, people call you a bot and there is nothing you can do to convince them otherwise. I tell people that we have user talk pages for a reason, yet no one seems to use them, rather they jump to AN or ANI (or some other drama board) before trying to make a reasoned logical discussion. [[User talk:Δ|ΔT <sub><sup><font color="darkred">The only constant</font></sup></sub>]] 19:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
::Ah, but I did use his/her talkpage, only to hear crickets. [[User:Shubinator|Shubinator]] ([[User talk:Shubinator|talk]]) 01:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.''<!-- from Template:discussion bottom --></div>


*Could we get an admin to close and amend this. Consensus seems quite clear. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 22:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
== [[Wikipedia talk:Verifiability]] ==
**I already listed this at [[WP:CR]] for maybe more than a week. '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 06:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


== Edits from The Banner ==
Discussion on [[Wikipedia talk:Verifiability]] is breaking down very quickly. Discussion was intense yet collegial over the past few weeks, but today has turned into a series of edit wars and personal attacks. I request not that some action be taken here, but that a senior editor or administrator please try to calm down that situation. '''<font color="navy">[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)'' 19:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


I would like to request another perspective on edits made by [[User:The Banner|TheBanner]]. I am uncertain about their intentions, as they seem to be consistently reverting many edits, often citing [[WP:CIR]], I know my edits are not perfet however I have seen problems. For instance, my addition of a military service module on Chuck Norris's page—similar to those on Morgan Freeman and Elvis Presley—was removed with the rationale that Norris is "not known for his military service." Although this is true, the inclusion of such a module can be informative. Furthermore, there have been issues regarding [[WP:Civility]]; TheBanner has described my edits as "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALuxembourg_rebellions&diff=1220124615&oldid=1220123071 cringe]" and made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Utah_War&diff=1214775588&oldid=1214771489 sarcastic remarks], asserting that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALuxembourg_rebellions&diff=1220131291&oldid=1220130080 competence supersedes civility]. This focus on my contributions has been puzzling, and I would appreciate an external review. My editing history is publicly accessible, and I anticipate that TheBanner might respond to this discussion. I am simply seeking additional opinions on this matter. [[User:LuxembourgLover|LuxembourgLover]] ([[User talk:LuxembourgLover|talk]]) 00:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
== Image restore ==


:In fact, I have a severe concern about the competency of [[User:LuxembourgLover]] to edit wikipedia. The main problem is his failure to judge the due weight of many items, resulting in him writing articles about tiny events. I just point to [[Talk:Luxembourg rebellions]], [[Talk:Morrisite War]], [[Draft:Battle of Amalienborg]] and [[USCG Auxiliary Flotilla 6-9]] (and related [[Talk:United States Coast Guard Auxiliary]]). <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">[[User:The Banner|<span style="color:green">The&nbsp;Banner</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:The Banner|<i style="color:maroon">talk</i>]]</span> 00:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
A request for an admin to undelete [[:File:National Organization for Marriage.gif]] as it was deleted for being orphaned when [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Organization_for_Marriage&diff=382241496&oldid=381381388 a user who meant to remove the Unbalanced tag also inadvertently removed the article's infobox containing the image] in September and no one caught this mistake until I just did now. Thanks. [[user:ase|<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;overflow:hidden;"><span style="position:absolute;bottom:1px;width:100%;height:8px;background:#eee"> </span><span style="position:relative;border:1px solid #bbb"> allstar✰echo </span></span>]] 19:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
::{{U|The Banner}}, that response would have been so much better if you'd but the first sentence and a half. You're probably right in suggesting (?) (the diff above must be off) that competence supersedes civility, but that doesn't mean that a lack of civility isn't problematic. I don't think the comments here rise to a blockable level or I wouldn't be commenting, I'd just block, but I wish you'd think twice before pushing "Publish changes". [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 00:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
:Hi Allstarecho, I've restored the image. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 20:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
:::Even advice to use a spell checker (done by multiple people) is ignored. AfC-drafts turned down within a couple of hours. Copyvio. I have even requested a third party to take up some coaching (what he agreed to). But see also [[Talk:Morrisite War]] and [[Talk:San Elizario Salt War#Info box]]. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">[[User:The Banner|<span style="color:green">The&nbsp;Banner</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:The Banner|<i style="color:maroon">talk</i>]]</span> 09:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
::Thank you Phil. [[user:ase|<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;overflow:hidden;"><span style="position:absolute;bottom:1px;width:100%;height:8px;background:#eee"> </span><span style="position:relative;border:1px solid #bbb"> allstar✰echo </span></span>]] 20:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
::::Please note I have two well done drafts waiting review. [[Draft:Latter-day Saints Militias and Military Units]] and [[Draft:Hector C. Haight]]. [[User:LuxembourgLover|LuxembourgLover]] ([[User talk:LuxembourgLover|talk]]) 00:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
:::That's {{tl|pd-textlogo}} anyway. Someone change the tag, find an SVG version, and transfer to Commons. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/[[User:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">ƒETCH</span>]][[User talk:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">COMMS</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">/</span>]]'''</span> 02:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
::::I'm with Drmies on this one. Tempers have clearly run a bit high (or patience has run out) but I'm not seeing any need for admin action this time around.
::::Is it pd-textlogo, though? I think it's a debatable case, but I think interlocking rings ''may'' be unoriginal enough. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]])</sup> 14:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
::::Regarding long term behaviour in the section below, it's worth remarking that the "February 2023" thread actually relates to activity in December 2022; the other threads listed are obviously from even further back. While it's sometimes important to examine long term behaviour patterns, we really don't need to drag up old threads every time a new one is created. I appreciate that it wasn't resolved to everyone's satisfaction as The Banner was cut some slack due to his computer issues, but some kind of [[statute of limitations]] seems appropriate.
::::One final thing for me to say here is that The Banner and I come from opposite sides of the Irish Sea and both edit in the often-controversial ''British Isles'' area. That means we encounter points of disagreement semi-frequently, yet I've always found The Banner to be civil, polite and patient, abiding by consensus and policy in those discussions. Obviously that's just my own experience but I felt it was worth adding some balance to this thread. [[User:Waggers|<b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b style="color:#728">s</b>]][[User talk:Waggers|<small style="color:#080">''TALK''</small>]] 13:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


=== The Banner history of hounding and disruptive editing ===
== Margareth Tomanek W55 Record ==
::: {{user5|The Banner}} has [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AThe+Banner more than several blocks for disruptive editing]
* February 2023: [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive350#Long-term_pattern_of_hounding_and_disruptive_editing_by_User%3AThe_Banner|Long-term pattern of hounding and disruptive editing by User:The Banner]]. {{pb}} '''The Banner went missing from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=The+Banner&namespace=all&tagfilter=&start=2023-02-04&end=2023-06-24&limit=250 February to June 2023] to avoid sanction''' after clear hounding of [[User:Another Believer]] and a return to the AFD problem.
* 2022: [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1112#The_Banner_conduct|The Banner conduct]]
* 2020: [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1051#The_Banner|The Banner]], iBan
* 2016: [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive927#The_Banner|The Banner]]
* 2015: [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive872#WP%3ACIVIL%2C_edit_warring%2C_and_user_talk_page_violations_by_The_Banner|WP:CIVIL, edit warring, and user talk page violations by The Banner]].
* 2015: [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive902#The_Banner_-_AFD_Topic_ban?|AFD Topic ban?]]
There's more. Why are we still here ? Drmies, [[User:Barkeep49/Friends don't let friends get sanctioned|my friend, it's time to stop defending]] this editor, who is a bully. It's time for a site ban. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 09:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
:Let me correct you on your first bullet: I had a computer crash. It took me months to recover from that. I had never seen that discussion before I came back. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">[[User:The Banner|<span style="color:green">The&nbsp;Banner</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:The Banner|<i style="color:maroon">talk</i>]]</span> 13:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
:: Now you have seen it and now you can respond to it. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
:::"I had never seen that discussion before I came back." To be blunt, SG has more AGF than I do. You were clearly informed about it and had an opportunity to respond. If you are going to archive everything so quickly, you need to go back and check your archives. Regardless of others' behavior, yours continues unabated. I side with SG here [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 16:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
:::The case was closed before I came back. And as said, the break was not because of my own free will but due to a broken hard disk. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">[[User:The Banner|<span style="color:green">The&nbsp;Banner</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:The Banner|<i style="color:maroon">talk</i>]]</span> 12:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
::::It's here now, and with two responses, you aren't addressing the long-term issues: hounding of Another Believer and {{u|SusanLesch}}, faulty tagging of a '''most clearly''' notable article, and your history of generally disruptive editing. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 12:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
::::And, yet, you still have not responded, despite being back online for almost a year + being informed of this issue for 4+ days now. You've found the time to make 100+ edits. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 18:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::Last chance to reply... [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 03:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
:I have tried to ignore this user for nearly twelve years, since he made an edit in support of the sockpuppets at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salty Fingers (plant)]]. I'm rather surprised that the editor is still allowed to edit, given the long-term disruption shown. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 18:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
::Unless it is your contention that The Banner actually knew he was supporting sockpuppets, I'm afraid I don't see how that discussion ''from almost a dozen years ago'' is relevant. [[User:Lepricavark|L<small>EPRICAVARK</small>]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|<small>talk</small>]]) 01:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
:::I believe this is an attempt to show a long-term pattern of disruptive behavior. Beyond that, I would concur it's irrelevant. Admins, can take the input and assess what it's worth. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 18:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
::::I don't see what's inherently disruptive about voting keep in an AfD. I'm sure that the case against The Banner can be made without dredging up grudges from more than a decade ago. Heck, I'm pretty sure I've had a beef or two with him, although the specifics are lost to my memory. [[User:Lepricavark|L<small>EPRICAVARK</small>]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|<small>talk</small>]]) 22:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)


== SPI ==
I just created the page: [[Margareth Tomanek W55 Record]]. It should have been named [[Template:Margareth Tomanek W55 Record]] to avoid unnecessary challenges for deletion. I don't know how the word got left off this version of a bunch of templates but I need admin. assistance to rename the article. [[User:Trackinfo|Trackinfo]] ([[User talk:Trackinfo|talk]])
:Done. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/[[User:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">ƒETCH</span>]][[User talk:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">COMMS</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">/</span>]]'''</span> 18:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


I hate doing this because I know there's a backlog at SPI but seeing this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/HaughtonBrit#Suspected_sockpuppets sock-master] being so militantly aggressive in steamrolling their POV to the point where it's unsettling, using numerous burner accounts, openly making a mockery out of Wikipedia and manipulating people, time and time again deceiving or attempting to deceive admins in which he nearly succeeded multiple times, and him taking advantage of the long time it takes for SPI reports against him to be looked at, has me extremely concerned. I want to proceed with dealing with some of his more active, disruptive accounts but for that I'd need to deal with the current accounts in his SPI as it would establish precedence and bolster future cases. If possible, can this SPI be dealt with soon? It's been languishing for over a month now. [[User:Southasianhistorian8|Southasianhistorian8]] ([[User talk:Southasianhistorian8|talk]]) 23:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
== Requested edit ==


:3 others, including 2 admins, have expressed concerns that the first account Historian2325 is a SPA, by the way. [[User:Southasianhistorian8|Southasianhistorian8]] ([[User talk:Southasianhistorian8|talk]]) 01:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
'''Please create''' [[Talk:.ไทย]] and add {{tl|WikiProject Internet}} and {{tl|WikiProject Thailand}}. Thanks. —[[User:Koavf|Justin (koavf)]]❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯ 05:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
:Done. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 05:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


:Has anyone thought of making the following change to [[Wikipedia:CheckUser]] to see whether it works.
== Requesting rfc closure ==
:OLD - "The CheckUser tool is used by a small group of trusted Wikipedia users (called checkusers)."
:NEW - "The CheckUser tool is used by a very large group of trusted Wikipedia users (called checkusers)."
:[[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 02:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
::I'm not entirely sure if there's a double meaning behind your comment, but the reason I'm so concerned is because this sockmaster is currently operating an account which is creating an extreme amount of disruption and illegitimately subverting Wikipedia's processes by brazenly vote stacking. He's so incredibly relentless that it's unnerving and to see him time and time again evade accountability is nauseating. It'll become more clear once I file the report. [[User:Southasianhistorian8|Southasianhistorian8]] ([[User talk:Southasianhistorian8|talk]]) 02:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
:::In my perfect world we would all be checkusers, or there would be a very large number of them. Socking in Wikipedia is, for me, maybe one of most important unsolved issues here. Wikipedia's rules-based system breaks down when there are 2 sets of editors, one set that has to follow the rules and the other that does not because they effectively have unlimited number of lives. Using deception as a tool is pretty common in Wikipedia, especially in contentious topic areas, and the resources allocated to deal with it don't seem to match up with its corrosive effects. As you say, important processes that sample community views like RSN, RfC, AfD etc. are particular susceptible to the negative effects of deception. On the other hand, it's quite funny that we are training generative models using content that is partly the product of dedicated pathological liars. [[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 03:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
::I don't think we can make that wording change to the policy. A more actionable idea might be asking some admins with spi experience to apply to be checkusers, to help with the backlog. Although in this case, the delay is actually clerk endorsement, which doesn't require a checkuser. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 06:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
:::Right, but wouldn't the endorsement of 2 admins be a suitable substitute for clerk endorsement? [[User:Southasianhistorian8|Southasianhistorian8]] ([[User talk:Southasianhistorian8|talk]]) 06:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
::::Do the spi rules say that? I think it's supposed to be clerks. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 06:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
:I would suggest removing the IP addresses as a checkuser will not link IP addresses to accounts plus most have been inactive for sometime, between one and six months, and no action is likely to be taken because any disruption by these IPs is neither recent nor ongoing. [[User:Malcolmxl5|Malcolmxl5]] ([[User talk:Malcolmxl5|talk]]) 07:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
::I didn't put the IPs/proxies because I wanted them to be blocked but rather because the sockmaster has many different proxies at his disposal which helped his other accounts like {{noping|Finmas}} and {{noping|Dazzem}} evade CUs. The former was found "Unrelated" and then "Inconclusive" by CUs. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ponyo#PakistanHistorian? It was later revealed] that the Finmas account was exclusively using VPNs, which is what I had originally suspected. I figured that listing some of his proxies that I've dealt with before might help CUs establish a technical connection. [[User:Southasianhistorian8|Southasianhistorian8]] ([[User talk:Southasianhistorian8|talk]]) 07:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
:The problem here isn't a lack of CUs, the problem is that you've written a 20,000 byte wall of text that is going to be a major slog for someone to read through. If you want people to read and action an SPI case you need to present the information as concisely as possible. CUs and admins are volunteers and SPI is chronically backlogged - most SPI regulars coming across that case are just going say "[[TLDR]]", pass over it and go deal with another, better presented, case.
:You need to trim this down drastically to just the key evidence.
:*Rather than listing out a dozen IPs that haven't been used for months you could just write "This sockmaster has used VPNs to evade checkuser detection in the past"
:*Instead of writing massive long paragraphs of background information about how certain edits are POV pushing to inflate certain figures and how this is related to Sikh military accomplishments you could just point out that the edits are similar.
:*Instead of writing out massive bullet points where you describe every edit a sockmaster and suspected sockpuppet have made to a page you could just point out that this new account has returned to a page that they have edited in the past.
:*There is a ton of unnecessary "This is the nail in the coffin", "PS: Maplesyrupsushi is a legitimate and excellent editor/content creator, ..." "Keep in mind this is a small sample of edits, there are hundreds of more edits like this." type commentary that adds nothing to the case but severley bloats the wordcount.
:Looking through the page history it looks like you've had issues with wall of text reports in the past [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/HaughtonBrit&oldid=1212560602] and you were asked to cut your reports down to a more reasonable length 2 months ago [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/HaughtonBrit&diff=prev&oldid=1211534004]. Remember that SPI clerks and Checkusers have a lot of experience dealing with sock puppetry and don't need the basics explaining to them. [[Special:Contributions/86.23.109.101|86.23.109.101]] ([[User talk:86.23.109.101|talk]]) 19:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks for the advice, I've trimmed some of the details in the SPI. I think the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/HaughtonBrit current version] is much more digestible. [[User:Southasianhistorian8|Southasianhistorian8]] ([[User talk:Southasianhistorian8|talk]]) 08:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
:::Other editors have also been complaining about the POV pushing from SPAs listed in the SPI. As I've said before, the disruption that this sockmaster is creating is ridiculous. [[User:Southasianhistorian8|Southasianhistorian8]] ([[User talk:Southasianhistorian8|talk]]) 03:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
::::One of the SPAs even tried to illegitimately delete an AFD notice on an article-[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Ali_Masjid_(1839)&diff=prev&oldid=1222506521]. [[User:Southasianhistorian8|Southasianhistorian8]] ([[User talk:Southasianhistorian8|talk]]) 10:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


==RfC closure review request at [[:Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#RFC_on_current_consensus_#14]]==
Hi, I'm requesting that an uninvolved admin close the Rfc at [[WT:UP]] regerding userspace drafts and FAKEARTICLES, thanks, [[User:Access Denied|<font color="red">Access Denied</font>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Access Denied|<font color="black">[FATAL ERROR]</font>]]</sup> 05:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
:{{RfC closure review links|COVID-19 pandemic|rfc_close_page=Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#RFC_on_current_consensus_#14}} ([[User talk:Chetsford/Archive_41#An_odd_close|Discussion with closer]])


'''Closer''': {{userlinks|Chetsford}}
== [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2]] ==


'''Notified''': [[User_talk:Chetsford/Archive_41#Notice_of_noticeboard_discussion]]
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:


'''Reasoning''': The closure was not a reasonable summation of the discussion. #1 closer ignored roughconsenus pointing to "the discursive failures that occurred in this RfC." #2 the closer introduced new alleged concepts such as a lack of [[WP:RS]] in the RFC, without noticing a wikilink to a sub-article [[COVID-19 lab leak theory]] that contains hundreds of RS as well as an RS explicitly referred to [[Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#Discussion]] in which I stated ""Controversies about the origins of the virus, including the lab leak theory, heightened geopolitical divisions, notably between the United States and China.['''34''']" Note that no editor made an RS claim in the discussion on the oppose side, thus the closer seems to have improperly summarized the discussion and rather than summarizing instead pointing to his own view of lack of RS, MEDRS, and discursive failures (none of which were not discussed in the RFC). When I sought to discuss the close with the closer on their talk page, the closer instead failed to [[WP:AGF]] stating "I know it wouldn't be as personally satisfying" and going on to say "we may sometimes feel shorted if our comments aren't recognized." Note, I had not been asking the editor why my "comments aren't recognized", I instead asked the editor to justify their own novel claim that no RS were provided in the RFC. #3 eventually the closer goes on to contradict themselves apparently stating "As already noted in the close, the RfC should have been an easy consensus close to strike #14" as if some procedural failure in the RFC didnt gain such consensus, I suppose pointing the editors vague claim of "discursive failures," rather than the very succinct explanations of many of the editors that participated in the RFC. In summary, the closer has never made any policy, procedural, nor factual explanations in the close nor on their talk page to explain going against consensus, instead suggesting that the RFC be run again and explained "I've reviewed it and decline to reverse." The discussion with closer (and additional information) can be found [[User_talk:Chetsford/Archive_41#An_odd_close]]. I adding it here as something is amiss with the template link above, maybe due to the closer archiving their talk page recently.
*{{user|Stevertigo}} is banned from Wikipedia for one year. If Stevertigo wishes to return to editing Wikipedia, he must first work with the Arbitration Committee to an establish a set of probation criteria. He may do this no earlier than six months after the closure of the case, and no more than every six months thereafter.
Thanks! [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] ([[User talk:Jtbobwaysf|talk]]) 05:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
*Stevertigo is required to cite a published source for any material he adds to an article. Should he fail to do so, any editor may remove the material without prejudice. Should he cite a source that is subsequently determined not to support the material added, he may be blocked for a period of up to one week for each infraction.


===Uninvolved (COVID19)===
''On behalf of the Arbitration Committee'',<p>'''<font color="navy">[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)'' 20:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
This close was within the threshold of reasonable. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 14:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
* I don't recall ever editing that article so I think I'm uninvolved. Will strike if mistaken. The closure looks entirely reasonable to me. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 15:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


What does it even mean to "strike down" a consensus? In this case, that consensus is a documented statement that the lab leak theory shouldn't be mentioned. Does "striking it down" mean removing the consensus statement because it's used to preempt discussion/proposals? Or does it mean finding consensus to talk about the lab leak in the article? If the former, given the way documented past consensus serves to limit present discussion (for good reason, in many cases), I'd think we'd need affirmative consensus to retain it, and not just default to it with no consensus. If the latter, it's worded oddly and it's hard to see that RfC as yielding a clear result. &mdash; <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 15:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
:'''[[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2|Discuss this]]'''
: For what it's worth, my reading of the discussion would be that it's attempting the former. —[[User:Sirdog|<span style="color:#056300">'''Sirdog'''</span> ]]([[User talk:Sirdog|talk]]) 06:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)


I'd say any other editor in good standing reviewing that discussion could reasonably find the same result. I am unconvinced by the challenger that the close is fundamentally flawed. —[[User:Sirdog|<span style="color:#056300">'''Sirdog'''</span> ]]([[User talk:Sirdog|talk]]) 06:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
== Requests for permissions ==
*'''Overturn''' This seems to be a clear supervote and WAY outside what reliable sources state. At this point, any restriction on this viable theory is political in nature and feels very much like the last vestiges of clinging to "no, I can't possibly be wrong". [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 03:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


===Involved (COVID19)===
{{resolved|Cleared out. [[User:Looie496|Looie496]] ([[User talk:Looie496|talk]]) 02:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)}}
*'''Comment by Closer:''' While I personally would like to have seen the RfC close in favor of the RfC proposal , I ultimately closed it as "no consensus" (not as "a consensus against" as, I believe, the challenger thinks occurred).<br/>As I read it, the challenge seems to spin on four assertions advanced by the challenger which I summarize here to the best of my understanding:
There are currently requests over a week out at [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Confirmed]]. Could someone take a look there? [[User:Netalarm|<font color="#00AA11">'''Netalarm'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Netalarm|<font color="#FF9933">'''talk'''</font>]]</sup> 02:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
:*'''A belief that (a) ROUGHCONSENSUS is a synonym for Referendum, and, (b) consensus was achieved by process of majority vote.'''<br/>In [[User_talk:Chetsford/Archive_41#An_odd_close|their request for review on my Talk page]], the challenger invoked [[WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS]] to repeatedly demand the RfC be treated as a referendum or plebiscite and reversed on the apparent basis that the {{xt|"count"}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chetsford&diff=prev&oldid=1221842950] of {{xt|"votes"}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chetsford&diff=prev&oldid=1221842950] (6-4 in favor of the RfC - though challenger claimed it was 7-1 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chetsford&diff=prev&oldid=1221502592] somehow) favored the RfC proposal.<Br/>I repeatedly counseled challenger that this was [[WP:NOTAVOTE]], pointing to our [[WP:CONSENSUS]] policy which explicitly describes that a simple majority does not represent the ''"sense of the community"'' described by ROUGHCONENSUS in the absence of strength of policy-based argument. The challenger appeared non-plussed by this. Here, challenger goes on to again advance the false premise that {{xt|"the closer has never made any policy, procedural, nor factual explanations in the close nor on their talk page to explain going against consensus"}}, based on their insistent belief that consensus was achieved by a simple majority headcount.
:Done. [[User:Looie496|Looie496]] ([[User talk:Looie496|talk]]) 02:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
:*'''A belief that it's the closer's duty to engage in textual analysis of sources presented across the project and the zeitgeist, rather than arguments made in the RfC.'''<Br/>The challenger writes that {{Xt|"the closer introduced new alleged concepts such as a lack of WP:RS in the RFC, without noticing a wikilink to a sub-article COVID-19 lab leak theory that contains hundreds of RS as well as an RS explicitly referred"}}<br/>This, again, appears to be a severe misunderstanding of the close by the challenger. RS was mentioned merely as part of the closer's formulary recitation of facts and summary of arguments made which is a customary and perfunctory part of the close. Nothing involving "RS" was part of the close rationale. (Nor is it the responsibility of the closer to evaluate the alleged "hundreds" of RS. Closes occur based on strength of policy-based argument, not the closer's independent and original evaluation of source material.)
:*'''A belief that geopolitical factors must be taken into account in closing RfCs.'''<br>The challenger explained in the RfC, on my Talk page, and now here, that {{xt|"[c]ontroversies about the origins of the virus, including the lab leak theory, heightened geopolitical divisions, notably between the United States and China."}} as an example of an unrebutted argument, apparently in the belief that the lack of rebuttal to this assertion tips the scale in favor of the RfC. But the RfC is the place to argue the application of WP policy. The state of Sino-American relations is completely irrelevant to the application of WP policy.
:*'''A belief that an (alleged) lack of social grace afforded to an editor is cause to overturn a close.'''<Br/>The challenger explains {{xt|"the closer instead failed to WP:AGF"}} in his discussion with the challenger, nested as part of their appeal to overturn. Accepting, for sake of argument, that I did fail to AGF in a discussion on my Talk page with the challenger, failure to AGF in a Talk page discussion is not a rational cause to overturn a close. Closes are overturned due to some failure of the close itself, not as a sanction against the closer when we believe we were not treated with the deference we feel we deserve.
:As I repeatedly said, this should have been an easy RfC to pass. Policy (and, frankly, reality) favored it. But those policies were never argued by the participants. For the closer to invoke his independent awareness of policy would be a [[WP:SUPERVOTE]] and, moreover, completely unfair as it would deny the opposing side the opportunity to rebut. I suggested to the challenger that if they were to rerun the RfC and remedy the significant defects in their first attempt it would almost certainly pass. They appear to be disinterested in doing that. [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 09:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
::This response by the closer is further astray:
::*First the closer continues to refuse to provide a policy explanation to ignore consensus, see [[WP:NHC]].
::*Second the closer talks about a nonsensical duty to provide textual analysis of sources. This is laughable. The closer failed to notice there was an RS mentioned in the RFC (and ignored the sub-article as well) and stated these omissions in the close. The closer argued that a lack of RS in the RFC was a justification for the close, and failed to understand that #34 was an RS.
::*Third, in responding to this review the closer is confused of even the subject of the RFC. {{xt|"[c]ontroversies about the origins of the virus, including the lab leak theory, heightened geopolitical divisions, notably between the United States and China."}} is '''the exact text in the article at the time of the RFC''' that is being discussed in this RFC. I was discussing the text of the article, and even put it in quotes. I am confused if the closer even read the RFC at this point. I have never made an argument that any geopolitical blah blah must be taken in to account. Where is this coming from? You will find this exact text quoted verbatim [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_pandemic&oldid=1212111774 here] in the article at the time of the RFC.
::*Forth the AGF issues are simply me pointing out that the closer has chosen solely himself to paint this in some sort of personal issue, and continues to not understand the content that was being discussed (see #3). Note I have always been civil to this closer as well as everyone in the RFC, this argument is baseless, a strawman, and an odd response.
::*Fifth, RFC participants do not need to argue wikipedia policy nor RFC policy, it is the closer that applies the policy to the arguments offered by the participants. In this RFC we are simply discussing if the RS support the text in bold (that the closer seems to be confused is my words), if due weight should be given to wikilink (a link that is prohibited under consensus #14), and if the consensus #14 on the article was appropriate given the text in bold and the current state of RS.
::Seems the closer failed to grasp the RFC and still hasnt bothered to review it. Thanks! [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] ([[User talk:Jtbobwaysf|talk]]) 12:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
:::{{xt|"the closer continues to refuse to provide a policy explanation to ignore consensus"}} I'll just note again, here, that this is a furiously repeated statement based on a false premise. As I have explained many times, there was no consensus to ignore. That's why the RfC closed as ''"no consensus"'' (versus ''"consensus for"'' or ''"consensus against"''). I appreciate your view that your {{xt|"count"}} [sic] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chetsford&diff=prev&oldid=1221842950] of the {{xt|"vote"}} [sic] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chetsford&diff=prev&oldid=1221842950] led you to believe the 6 of 10 editors in favor of your RfC constituted a consensus, however, as detailed in our policy [[WP:CONSENSUS]], consensus is not determined by plebiscite and your RfC was not a referendum. I sincerely regret if you were under a different impression.<br/>{{xt|"RFC participants do not need to argue wikipedia policy"}} Sure, you aren't "required" to present policy-based argument, but by your decision not to do so, you ended up with the result you got here. Please see [[WP:NHC]]: ''"... after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue ... [if] discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it"''. [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 14:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
::::Which editors made arguments that you felt met this criteria "after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue" and why? Thanks! [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] ([[User talk:Jtbobwaysf|talk]]) 22:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
::What exactly do you mean by ''reality''? Can you explain what you meant by that? [[User:FailedMusician|FailedMusician]] ([[User talk:FailedMusician|talk]]) 23:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
:::[https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/26/us/politics/china-lab-leak-coronavirus-pandemic.html We could start here, but this is only a beginning...] [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 20:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
:::I mean it's very clear the actual state-of-the-world does not support a proscription such as #14 and this RfC should have resulted in a consensus to strike it, in my opinion (indeed, #14 should never have been put in place to begin with). And had I been a participant in the discussion, I would have sided with the strike camp. But I wasn't a participant, I was the closer, and for me to close this as "a consensus to strike" when only a bare majority of participants - advancing virtually no cogent policy arguments - supported that would constitute a SUPERVOTE and be out of compliance with our [[WP:CONSENSUS]] policy. Suppressing my innate knowledge of the external world beyond WP and deciding on no set of facts beyond what was contained in the RfC, it was clear there was no consensus (as undesirable of an outcome as that is). [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 10:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment by SmolBrane:''' In the close, you(Chetsford) stated that “First, several editors in the oppose camp note that consensus can't occur implicitly in this case (the opposite of what we usually observe in WP:EDITCON), since #14 established a clear consensus and the mere presence of content against consensus that may have gone unnoticed doesn't overturn it.”
:The presence of content against the formal RfC consensus '''for six months''' on a high traffic article (8k views per day!) SHOULD overturn the two year old RfC. That's the whole point of implicit consensus—not to mention that '''this was the long-standing stable state of the article'''. TarnishedPath made the same error “Arguing that the content has been in the article for a while is putting the cart before the horse.” Why would we undo a six-month old undisputed edit here? We should not presume that the bold edit went 'unnoticed'--this is not a valid exception w/r/t [[WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS]]. Implicit consensus has a great deal of weight on a contentious article with 2,200 watchers. The RfC establishing consensus #14 from '''May 2020''' is very old in COVID-terms, and this RfC only had three keep !votes, which means only three individuals wanted to revise the article to a retroactive state—a situation that should require more opposers to stray from the current stable and long-standing state.
:Aquillion made a similar error “Sometimes things fall through the cracks even on high-traffic articles”. Bold edits are not “falling through the cracks”, This is again a lack of understanding of policy, and the collaborative nature of the project. Those !votes(Aquillion and TarnishedPath) likely should have been discarded.
:Both Crossroads and IOHANNVSVERVS made strong arguments in favor of striking, based on new sourcing and [[WP:NOTCENSORED]] respectively. Ortizesp and Lights and Freedom also made strong cases in relation to coverage by sources.
:The closer evidently erred “since no actual examples of RS were presented by those making this argument”. As Jtbobwaysf points out, there were three inline citations supporting the sentence about the lab leak. The closer did not correctly assess the policy-based arguments made by the supporters, nor the RSes involved. The current stable state of the article should have had more deference by the closer in light of the comments that were provided. The closer also commented about WP:MEDRS which was mentioned in the May 2020 RfC, '''not this one''', so that stipulation was inappropriate. [[User:SmolBrane|SmolBrane]] ([[User talk:SmolBrane|talk]]) 17:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
::The "stable state" argument is laughable and HORRIBLE circular logic. The article is stable, therefore we shouldn't change our restrictions. But the reason it cannot be updated is BECAUSE of the restrictions. No restrictions like these should be enacted ''and'' held in place when they are demonstrably not in alignment with our [[WP:PILLAR|five pillars]], specifically, NPOV (and with that RS) + no firm rules. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 20:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
:::I agree with your last sentence and I think you misunderstand my position; the lab leak theory was mentioned and linked to for six months prior to this RfC, despite the consensus 14 not being formally overturned. [[User:SmolBrane|SmolBrane]] ([[User talk:SmolBrane|talk]]) 01:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


===Discussion===
== [[User:Off2riorob]] ==
*Please note that the template link (above) "Discussion with closer" is linking to the user's mainspace talk page however the user recently archived their talk page, could another editor please assist to link to the correct archive link which is [[User_talk:Chetsford/Archive_41#An_odd_close]]. Thanks! [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] ([[User talk:Jtbobwaysf|talk]]) 05:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
*:{{Fixed}}, I think. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 18:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


== [[ANTAURO]] ==
{{cot|User has agreed to step away from CC for a few months. I'm hoping that can avoid yet another CC thread. Maybe some others need to voluntarily leave this issue alone for a while. Most of us uninvolved folk are now totally sick of it.--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac]] 13:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)}}
{{atop|Not an AN issue. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 09:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)}}
So in a deletion discussion, this got 3 keep votes, 1 redirect vote, and 1 delete vote, yet it was redirected anyways. I don't know much about the subject but I feel like the consensus should be on the voters and not on what the closer feels like doing. [[User:Okmrman|Okmrman]] ([[User talk:Okmrman|talk]]) 23:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
:[[Wikipedia:Deletion review]] will be the venue you are looking for. AN/ANI cannot overturn XfD closures. However, I'd recommend you discuss it with the closing editor first if possible. Thanks, [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 01:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
::[[WP:Not a vote]] might be a good read as well. &ndash; [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:80F7:2601:51B1:3B13:AB65:F77F|2804:F14:80F7:2601:51B1:3B13:AB65:F77F]] ([[User talk:2804:F14:80F7:2601:51B1:3B13:AB65:F77F|talk]]) 01:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
:::This AFD was closed three months ago. What is so important about this that you brought it to [[WP:AN]] which is a noticboard for important, urgent problems? Go to [[WP:DRV]] if you want to challenge the closure. Make sure you follow all of the instructions there. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 05:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Editorial War Review ==
A few hours ago I blocked [[::User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]]&nbsp;{{toolbar|separator=dot|[[::User talk:Off2riorob|talk]] | [[::Special:Contributions/Off2riorob|contribs]] }} for 24 hours in response to a 3RR violation [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Connolley&action=history]. Upon further investigation, I found a lengthy series of problematic edits (see below), previous blocks, and at least one attempt at editing restrictions. He was previously placed on a 5 week 1RR sanction, which he stated he might continue of his own volition [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=316987011]. The blocks since [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Off2riorob], including the present block, seem to indicate a continued problem.


@[[User:Shahin|Shahin]] Shahin user removes sourced content and editorial war in the article of [[Esteghlal F.C.|Esteghlal Football Club]]. This user also does not have an unbiased view and does not act based on logic in his edits. Please warn Shahin user not to edit Jang's article and not to delete source material. Thanks [[User:Apoel4|Apoel4]] ([[User talk:Apoel4|talk]]) 13:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
*In light of these, I wonder if there is community support for a permanent 1RR restriction for Off2riorob.
:I've blocked the OP for one week. Any administrator is free to increase the block to indefinite, which I was tempted to do from the get-go. {{U|Shahin}} has not been notified of this thread by the OP.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 15:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)


== Marketing-related draft essays ==
Some evidence of problematic edits:
* April 2009: ANI discussion which resulted in a block. [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive530#Disruption from two users at a GA-rated article|archived discussion]] The block was reduced when he showed remorse and an intent to improve [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Off2riorob&diff=prev&oldid=284262090].
* August 2009: He was again blocked for edit warring [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Off2riorob&diff=prev&oldid=309336892] and again promised to desist in the future [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Off2riorob&diff=prev&oldid=310028901]. His block was again reduced[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Off2riorob&diff=310028901&oldid=309998515].
* July 2010: Personal attacks [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:J_Milburn&diff=prev&oldid=371603015] (deleted edit), which resulted in a block.
* October 2010: Petty vandalism [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=390977845#Off2riorob_is_the_best] when questioned about recent reverts ([[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive644#Off2riorob|archived discussion]]).
* My block for 3RR on [[William Connelley]].


As of late we've been seeing a glut of drafts at [[WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk]] which, on a read, appear to be essays about some aspect of the sales process. A (very likely incomplete) list is:
Keeping in mind he is currently blocked, does anyone have thoughts or suggestions on this? --[[User:TeaDrinker|TeaDrinker]] ([[User talk:TeaDrinker|talk]]) 06:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
*[[Draft:Sales Blunder]]
:User [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Off2riorob&diff=prev&oldid=392550480 notified] --[[User:TeaDrinker|TeaDrinker]] ([[User talk:TeaDrinker|talk]]) 06:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
*[[User:Bhukya Gangadhar Naik/sandbox]] (Deleted under [[WP:U5]])
===Proposal: 1RR restriction===
*[[Draft:Understanding The Seller]]
*Regarding his most recent block, I didn't see a block notice that is customarily given when a block is issued. Did I miss it? Regarding the sanctions, I would '''support''' a 1RR sanction. In addition, Rob has been [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Connolley&action=historysubmit&diff=392483721&oldid=392483603 identifying as vandalism] content disputes and using Twinkle in an inappropriate manner. I would also '''support''' removing his Twinkle access for now. [[User:Basket of Puppies|<font color="brown" size="2" face="Constantia">'''Basket of Puppies'''</font>]] 06:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
*[[User:L N MANISH/sandbox]] (Deleted under [[WP:G12]])
**<small>See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOff2riorob&action=historysubmit&diff=392484527&oldid=392483929] for the block notice (plain text, not a fancy template - I suspect per [[WP:DNTTR]]).--[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 06:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)</small>
*[[Draft:A day in the life of a salesman/woman]] (Deleted under [[WP:G2]])
***<small>Oh there it is! Yeah, I just missed it. My eyes are much too tired. Off to sleep! [[User:Basket of Puppies|<font color="brown" size="2" face="Constantia">'''Basket of Puppies'''</font>]] 06:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC) </small>
*[[Draft:Science of Persuasion]]
*I agree with the proposal above by [[User:TeaDrinker|TeaDrinker]] and the comment by [[User:Basket of Puppies|Basket of Puppies]], and '''support''' a permanent 1RR sanction. (Note: Off2riorob was previously blocked for engaging in disruption at a GA-quality article that I wrote.) I would also '''support''' removing Off2riorob's access to Twinkle. -- '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 06:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
*[[Draft:Traits of a Successful salesperson]]
*'''Support''' both. <small>doesn't this belong on ANI?</small> [[User:Access Denied|<font color="red">Access Denied</font>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Access Denied|<font color="black">[FATAL ERROR]</font>]]</sup> 06:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Our best guess is that this is possibly a class on marketing which is being taught outside of WikiEd's purview, with the end result being the instructor is essentially setting his students up to fail. However, this is just speculation, and I'd rather first figure out if there are any more of these drafts out in the wild and then go from there. I'm not inclined to call for blocks or bans just yet - but if the scale of this is much bigger, there possibly needs to be a discussion on how to more easily ferret out rogue classes like this. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color: #228B22">v^&lowbar;^v</span>]] <sup><small>[[User:Jéské Couriano/AG|AE thread summaries]]</small></sup> 16:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' the proposed permanent 1RR restriction/sanction. Defer to others on Twinkle. I also note that in [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive580#Disruptive editing by Off2riorob after multiple extensions of good faith|this November 2009 AN/I]], the great bulk of his support was from ChildofMidnight, who has since been banned from Wikipedia for a year.--[[User:Epeefleche|Epeefleche]] ([[User talk:Epeefleche|talk]]) 06:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
**&hellip; which is both irrelevant and outdated. (We have an article on what the [[Institute for Propaganda Analysis]] called [[transfer (propaganda)|transfer]] explaining why ChildofMidnight's endorsement is not relevant to Off2riorob's actions.) One could equally try to call Off2riorob a single-purpose account based upon what Cirt said in the April 2009 AN/I discussion. That's clearly outdated now, too. If the compelling evidence for action here is discussions from 2009, then I suggest that people take a look at [[Special:Contributions/Off2riorob]]. Early 2009, late 2009, and 2010 are not the same animal. We should not institutionalize hanging onto grudges like this. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] ([[User talk:Uncle G|talk]]) 13:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
*I'm not in principle opposed to a restriction, but what's wrong with the standard method of escalating blocks? If he doesn't comply with 3RR, he's not much more likely to comply with 1RR. If a restriction is to be imposed, somebody would need to spell out what exactly is being proposed here (one revert per page per 24 hours, I suppose?). Also, since the current edit war is in the climate change topic area, discretionary sanctions are also a possibility. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</font>]]</span></small> 06:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
*One revert per page per 24 hours seems most reasonable. -- '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 06:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
**Agree that 1-revert-per-pg per-24-hours seems appropriate. <p>As to escalating blocks, I note that Off2 was blocked for '''24 hours''' (March 2009), '''72 reduced to 48 hours''' (April 2009), '''72 hours''' (April 2009), '''1 week''' (April 2009), '''24 hours reduced to time served''' (July 2009), '''2 weeks''' (July 2009), '''3 weeks''' (''reduced on promise to desist edit warring in the future''; August 2009), '''31 hours''' (July 2010). All prior to this 24-hour block. Per our standard method of escalating blocks, which Sandstein refers to, it strikes me that the current 24-hour block is too low — it would have been appropriate for a first-time offender, but this editor has been blocked numerous times in the past year and a half, up to 3 weeks.--[[User:Epeefleche|Epeefleche]] ([[User talk:Epeefleche|talk]]) 07:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I agree with the 1RR restriction. Off2riorob has also got into lengthy arguments and edit wars on the [[British National Party]] and other articles about the British far right, which he thought were written from an anti-BNP bias. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 13:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' And the BNP argument holds no weight with me. Too much sounds like "let's get even" with a valued editor. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 13:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


:New one just popped up at AfC/HD: [[User:Sravanthi chekka/sandbox]]. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color: #228B22">v^&lowbar;^v</span>]] <sup><small>[[User:Jéské Couriano/AG|AE thread summaries]]</small></sup> 06:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
===Proposal: Climate change topic ban===
*Overall 1RR may be fine for Off2riorob, but one revert per day is '''too lenient'' for a CC articles. One revert per week is more in line with the type of editing restriction needed to get CC articles to have stability. Otherwise, the result will be tag team edit warring that would be supported by the editing restrictions. I suggest Off2riorob be put on a stricter restriction for the CC articles. [[User:FloNight|FloNight]][[User talk:FloNight|&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;]] 10:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
**Completely stepping away from the CC topic (and any other areas where Off2riorob gets heated and loses control) is a better restriction than a blanket 1RR which allow too many problematic edits on controversial topics and perhaps too few where otherwise needed. If there are overall problems beyond reverting then that needs to be determined (maybe with a RFC or ArbCom case) and further editing restrictions or bans can be imposed. So, I '''support a complete CC topic ban''' for now. [[User:FloNight|FloNight]][[User talk:FloNight|&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;]] 13:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
* I think now would be a good time to ask Off2riorob to step away from the climate change topic entirely. For technical reasons it is not possible at this stage to propose a topic ban at [[WP:AE]], but the conclusion seems reasonable. He is by all accounts a very productive editor elsewhere, but as he admits himself he has a bee in his bonnet about William M. Connolley. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 12:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
*<s>'''Oppose''' A 1r restriction on an editor who mostly works BLP`s and the BLP noticeboard would hamstring him from the productive work he does. Everyone make`s mistakes, he ought not be overly punished for this one. [[User:Marknutley|mark ]] ([[User talk:Marknutley|talk]]) 12:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)</s><small>This editor is topic banned from processes related to climate change, broadly construed. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 12:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)</small>
**Making multiple reverts shouldn't be required in BLPs any more than anywhere else; remember that removing contentious, unsourced information about living persons is one of the exceptions to 3RR and by extension to an imposed 1RR. <span id="sig" style="background:#FFFFC0">'''[[User:Giftiger wunsch|<font face="Verdana" color="#900000">Giftiger<font color="#FF0000">Wunsch</font></font>]]''' [[User talk:Giftiger wunsch|<font face="Tahoma" color="#0060A0">[TALK]</font>]]</span> 12:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
***<s>Yes but there`s the rub, what if it is sourced but not written in a NPOV manner? Or as an attack piece? We see such on BLP`s all the time, if he is restricted to 1r he will quite simply be unable to work the BLP noticeboard. Why not a simple restriction of 1r on this one article? I think that would be more suitable given the nature of this offence [[User:Marknutley|mark ]] ([[User talk:Marknutley|talk]]) 12:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)</s><small>This editor is topic banned from processes related to climate change, broadly construed. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 12:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)</small>
*I agree with Tony Sidaway, and I suggest that people look away from AN/I to all of the work that Off2riorob does at the [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard]]. The slice of history presented here purports to cover a year's worth of editing but is very limited and one-sided, and really isn't the whole picture by any means. It reflects, I suspect, the area where Off2riorob is influenced to err by (a) xyr perception of climate change POV-pushing and (b) the proximity of a subject to Wikipedia itself.<p>Contrast that to xyr work at (to pick just one BLPN example) [[Ed Miliband]] where xyr work has been edits like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=390140616&oldid=390138835 this one] and efforts to stop our article from labelling Miliband (who [http://telegraph.co.uk./news/newstopics/politics/ed-miliband/8032163/Ed-Miliband-I-dont-believe-in-God.html has stated for the record] that xe does not believe in God) as "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ed_Miliband&diff=391797508&oldid=391791879 the Jewish leader of the Labour Party]" and having <tt>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=391845825&oldid=391844559 religion=Jewish]</tt> in an infobox. When the biography is not climate-change related or close to Wikipedia, there's a rather different Off2riorob here. There's also a significantly different Off2riorob ''now'' to the one that Cirt characterized in April 2009, the discussion of whom is being used as evidence for action here. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] ([[User talk:Uncle G|talk]]) 13:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
::I agree that in considering Off2riorob's editing history we must look at this work at BLPN - I'd be sorry to lose his help there. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 13:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
* Would a community topic ban from Climate Change articles, following the wording of those recently applied to various editors by ArbCom, and a permanent ban from the William Connolley article suffice? [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 13:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
**Yes, I think a full topic ban for CC is best for now. [[User:FloNight|FloNight]][[User talk:FloNight|&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;]] 13:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''(ec) Off2 was ''not'' mentioned in any CC arbcom discussions, and imposing a topicban is absurd over-reaction. He is a valued editor, and all of this is simply going to be a matter of "let's remove anyone we disagree with" type rationale. In other words -- why not openly say "anyone with any position on CC whatever is to be topic-banned ''ab initio''" as the easiest way to deal with the topic? Nope. Draconian solutions generally do ''not'' work, and all this will do is make that more abundantly clear than ever. Meanwhile the BNP is so far rremoved from any reasonable argument on this as to be quite nicely irrelevant - we ought not have personal disagreements with anyone dictate banning a good editor who, as I noted, was never even mentioned at the arbcom discussions on CC. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 13:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
*: It's not about opinion, it's about behavior. He edit warred on a BLP in a topic area that was under arbcom-imposed sanctions. The only reason he isn't being topic banned at [[WP:AE]] is that arbcom sanctions require prior formal notification. The community has the opportunity to say "enough is enough." --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 13:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
*:The entire point of discretionary sanctions is to allow for editing restrictions for users not named in the ArbCom case. So, this editing restriction is perfectly reasonable given his edit warring on a CC related article within days of the case ending. I see no problem with discussing this here since this is where the discussion started. [[User:FloNight|FloNight]][[User talk:FloNight|&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;]] 13:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


== Ban appeal of [[User:Billy Hathorn|Billy Hathorn]] ==
'''Questions'''
{{atop|result=I'm closing this as procedurally invalid-- Checkuser indicates this is not Billy appealing and that his account has been compromised. This tracks with what happened [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ABHathorn to his account on Conservapedia] at the beginning of this year, and the appeal [https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/BHathorn2 is contradicted by the editing of Billy's new account on Conservapedia]. [[User:Moneytrees|Moneytrees🏝️]][[User talk:Moneytrees|(Talk)]] 22:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)}}
# Can each user please state their level of involvement (if any)? [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 13:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
# Why can't ArbCom discretionary sanctions deal with the CC related matters? Why does the Community need to relitigate this aspect here at [[WP:AN]] rather than [[WP:AE]]? [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 13:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
The following is the appeal of Billy Hathorn, who is seeking removal of their community ban. I bring this as a courtesy, and make no endorsement in doing so. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 18:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
===Metadiscussion===


I have been completely inactive on Wikipedia for 9 years now, only uploading pictures of mine on Wikimedia Commons, following a ban by members of this community for copyright violations. Since this event, I have spent time thinking about how to improve myself as a person and how to fix my behavior. My actions came at a time of which, while being my own fault, were encouraged by those around me in the space of conservatives. I was wrong in my belief to trust such a group of people, and my view in part of copyright was as a result of practices on another website, Conservapedia, of which I have been actively editing on until recently. This does not mean that I take no responsibility for my actions, however, as I completely understand that what I did was wrong and not good of any editor to do.
*'''Question''' Why was the above discussion archived? I understand that Rob has agreed to modify his editing, but the consensus ''seemed'' to be in favor of a 1RR restriction and, possibly, revokation of Twinkle. [[User:Basket of Puppies|<font color="brown" size="2" face="Constantia">'''Basket of Puppies'''</font>]] 16:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
**Because it seems more urgent to de-escalate the CC fiasco, than to worry too much about the rest of it. Besides, after Rob had agreed to step away from the immediate flashpoint, nothing else needed urgent admin action. If you want to pursue more general complaints, then I suggest a user RFC is the normal way.--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac]] 16:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


Recently, Conservapedia has banned my account without explanation. This came after I sent an email to one of the site's administrator's questioning their approach to LGBTQ issues. They now say I vandalized the site, but I did not. I use a unique password for Conservapedia, so I can only assume that this allegation is retaliation for my polite questioning of the site's prevailing doctrine, either lying about me or falsifying revisions, I do not know because I cannot see the edits they claim I made and I am not an expert on how WikiMediaWiki works. Such obvious corruption from someone claiming to know all the answers and toxicity from the leader of that same website who are now completely ignoring me for attempting to get in to my account has led to me reconsidering my role as a Republican and my beliefs that I gained from years on Conservapedia... I will no longer cater to those such as Andrew Schlafly and other site administrators who have enrolled me in a conspiracy to discredit my work due to my attempt of questioning of their beliefs.
: It's been closed because the issue was resolved and, as Doc has correctly stated, the community is sick and tired of the subject. [[User talk:Tasty monster|Tasty monster]] (=[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] ) 16:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


Due to this incident with Conservapedia, I have denounced my conservative views in favor of a more liberal stance on society. After evaluating some of the things that I have been harsh on others for, I have found solace in the furry community, one of which welcomed me with open arms. Such practices have also led me into the act of cross-dressing, which I have been recently experimenting with. I find my new better self to be better than my previous toxic self that did not think straight, and I think I have made major improvements.I have taken great pains in fixing my behavior towards others and I hope to repair some of my broken relationships with other editors that I may have hurt. I am hoping that I can show this with the help of the community.
::I am only confused as to why this discussion was closed, seemingly out of process. Isn't it against consensus to close a discussion where a consensus has nearly been reached? The underlying issue of Rob's behavior isn't much of a concern to me as the issue of prematurely closing a discussion. [[User:Basket of Puppies|<font color="brown" size="2" face="Constantia">'''Basket of Puppies'''</font>]] 16:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
:::And doesn't this belong on [[/Incidents]] anyway? [[User:Access Denied|<font color="red">Access Denied</font>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Access Denied|<font color="black">[FATAL ERROR]</font>]]</sup> 16:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
::::*Shrug* [[User:Basket of Puppies|<font color="brown" size="2" face="Constantia">'''Basket of Puppies'''</font>]] 17:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
It is in the interests of this project to allow issues associated with CC to cool. Rob has seen that, and we should thank him for it and drop this. Sanctions are always a piss-poor substitute for getting agreement and peace. The technicalities of which board and broken process are worthy casualties of drama-ending. Now, walk away. This has ended as well (indeed a lot better) than any other possible ending. And I, for one, don't wish to waste any more time on CC and those who can't let it go.--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac]] 16:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
:That was unnecessarily dramatic. [[User:Basket of Puppies|<font color="brown" size="2" face="Constantia">'''Basket of Puppies'''</font>]] 17:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
*I disagree with the closing of the thread. Way too early. And there is no reason to roll it up, other than to conceal its contents from future searches. I don't believe Scott's action in in line with the sentiment of the community on this page. And I don't think his and editor Tasty (who is "sick and tired of the subject" after under 1,000 edits) are reflecting the sentiment on this page in suggesting that we should sweep it under the rug because of their sense that the community prefers that. Rob has made agreements before, which triggered sanction reductions -- and which he has just violated with his edit warring here. --[[User:Epeefleche|Epeefleche]] ([[User talk:Epeefleche|talk]]) 18:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
**Have you discussed your concerns with Rob? If so, unless there's need for urgent admin action, I'd suggest that a user RFC is the place to take ongoing concerns. (For your info Tasy = [[User:Tony Sidaway]], not that the edit count should really matter).--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac]] 19:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
*Let's be clear here. [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOff2riorob&action=historysubmit&diff=392587317&oldid=392582590 This] was [[quid pro quo]]. Scott Mac did exactly what he promised, shut down discussion, on the basis of Rob's consent. My personal opinion is that's entirely OK and within the scope of administrator discretion to "talk someone down" like that, but I think that Scott should have been a bit more open here about the deal he offered and concluded. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 20:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
{{cob}}
*'''Question''' Why was this thread again archived when the discussion is ongoing? [[User:Basket of Puppies|<font color="brown" size="2" face="Constantia">'''Basket of Puppies'''</font>]] 21:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
:Not sure. However, the user that hatted the thread, noted he did not read it at all: ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Off2riorob&diff=392587219&oldid=392582590 "discussion of whatever it is that they are discussing on AN, and which I am not even going to bother looking at."]'' Most inappropriate to archive and declare something as closed, which one has not even bothered to read. -- '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 21:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
* This constant hatting of discussion without notification or warning is leaving multiple users (myself included, and i'm not even involved in the discussion) with a sense of bad faith toward the hatters. <font color="silver">[[User:Silver seren|Silver]]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:Silver seren|seren]]</font><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 22:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


I understand that Copyright infringement is the use or production of copyright-protected material without the permission of the copyright holder. Copyright infringement means that the rights afforded to the copyright holder, such as the exclusive use of a work for a set period of time, are being breached by a third party. Music and movies are two of the most well-known forms of entertainment that suffer from significant amounts of copyright infringement. Infringement cases may lead to contingent liabilities, which are amounts set aside in case of a possible lawsuit.
== [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/review]] and [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tiamut/Palestine]] ==


To simplify efforts to find the copyright violations I perpetrated, I hereby revoke the license to use anything I have written on or uploaded to Wikipedia or Commons to-date. Now these pages can be deleted in their entirely without fear of violating my right to have my edits displayed. I promise if I am unbanned to no longer commit copyright violations of this or any nature and I am content with any restrictions that may be applied on me. If unblocked, I don't have a full goal for editing however I will likely go to writing articles again, as well as working on improving other articles but I will do so without violating copyright policies or violating any other policies.Thank you.[[User:Billy Hathorn|Billy Hathorn]] ([[User talk:Billy Hathorn#top|talk]]) 21:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 18:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
{{Resolved|I got one, and [[User:Horologium]] closed the other. --[[User:RL0919|RL0919]] ([[User talk:RL0919|talk]]) 13:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)}}
Would an admin (or admins) close [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/review]] and [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tiamut/Palestine]]? Thanks, [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 06:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
:I closed the first one, but I had a personal opinion on the second, so I commented instead. --[[User:RL0919|RL0919]] ([[User talk:RL0919|talk]]) 13:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


:In the first line seems contradictory - his user page shows him as being a potential sockmaster, with the last entry for the investigation being in 2021 [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Billy_Hathorn] - yet I don't that being commented on here. It also is in contrast to him being 'completely inactive on Wikipedia for nine years'. [[User:Fantastic Mr. Fox|Fantastic Mr. Fox]] ([[User talk:Fantastic Mr. Fox|talk]]) 18:58, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
== BLPs and maintenance tags ==
::'''Oppose''' per my statement and Extraordinary Writ. [[User:Fantastic Mr. Fox|Fantastic Mr. Fox]] ([[User talk:Fantastic Mr. Fox|talk]]) 19:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
*{{tq|Copyright infringement is the use or production of copyright-protected material without the permission of the copyright holder. Copyright infringement means that the rights afforded to the copyright holder, such as the exclusive use of a work for a set period of time, are being breached by a third party. Music and movies are two of the most well-known forms of entertainment that suffer from significant amounts of copyright infringement. Infringement cases may lead to contingent liabilities, which are amounts set aside in case of a possible lawsuit.}} is quite literally a ''copyright violation'', taken word-for-word from [https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/copyright-infringement.asp]. Ordinarily that might be amusing, but in the context of someone whose copyright violations created [[Special:PermaLink/1118802333|a truly tremendous amount of work for other editors]], it's not funny in the least. '''Strong oppose'''. [[User:Extraordinary Writ|Extraordinary Writ]] ([[User talk:Extraordinary Writ|talk]]) 18:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Extraordinary Writ.—[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 19:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
* I was writing a comment only to find my points have already been covered by Fantastic Mr. Fox and Extraordinary Writ, '''Oppose'''. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 19:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. Statement shows a weak grasp of copyright, to say the least. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 19:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' per Writ and Mr. Fox. [[User:Queen of Hearts|<span style="color:#8B4513;font-variant:small-caps;">Queen of &#x2661;</span>]] &#124; [[User talk:Queen of Hearts|<span style="color:#8B4513;font-variant:small-caps;">Speak</span>]] 20:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I don't think I ever heard of this person before just now. I honestly don't believe their narrative that they went from a full-on right winger to a crossdressing furry, but that doesn't really matter because it has absolutely nothing to do with the reasons for the ban. That they used copyrighted material in their appeal of a ban for copyright violations and completely failed to address what appears to be CU-confirmed socking is a total dealbreraker. This looks more like trolling than a legitimate unban appeal [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|<sup>from this world ..... today</sup>]] 20:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' I have heard of this person before, in connection with CCI. The number of hours expended by volunteers cleaning up just this CCI alone is enormous. The statement does not persuade me that inviting this editor back would be a good idea.[[User:Sphilbrick|<span style="color:#000E2F;padding:0 4px;font-family: Copperplate Gothic Light">S Philbrick</span>]][[User talk:Sphilbrick|<span style=";padding:0 4px;color:# 000;font-family: Copperplate Gothic Light">(Talk)</span>]] 20:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' Too many hours over several years were spent by myself and many others in addressing the numerous copyvio and POV issues created by Billy Hathorn to ever trust their account again. The continuing problems raised here by Mr. Fox and Extraordinary Writ (as well as the uneasy sense That this unban request is just more trolling) solidify my opposition. <span style="font-family: tahoma;"> — [[User:CactusWriter|<span style="color:#008000">cactus</span><span style="color:#CC5500">writer </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:CactusWriter|(talk)]]</sup></span> 21:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
* '''Strong oppose'''. This user first repeatedly, insistently, violated our copyright policy and then, when blocked, resorted to sockpuppetry to continue doing the same, culminating in one of the largest [[WP:CCI|CCI]]s in the history of this project – please see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=691379709#Unblock_of_Billy_Hathorn_in_2013 this ANI discussion] (which I initiated). If any consensus for an unblock were to develop (which so far does not seem likely), it should be with a pre-condition that before the account can be unblocked, '''all''' sock accounts be listed by the user and '''all''' copyvio edits made by those accounts be clearly identified on his user talk-page. [[User:Justlettersandnumbers|Justlettersandnumbers]] ([[User talk:Justlettersandnumbers|talk]]) 21:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
* The first two sentences of the last paragraph ({{tq|To simplify efforts to find the copyright violations I perpetrated, I hereby revoke the license to use anything I have written on or uploaded to Wikipedia or Commons to-date. Now these pages can be deleted in their entirely without fear of violating my right to have my edits displayed.}}) betray a fundamental lack of understanding of copyright and how Wikipedia works. You ''cannot'' revoke the license you granted to your contributions when you made them; the terms displayed each and every time you make an edit says: {{tq|By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you '''irrevocably''' agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and the GFDL.}} (emphasis mine). And even if you could, that would have absolutely nothing to do with simplifying efforts to find copyright violations, for a few reasons. If they were copyright violations, then ''you did not have the right'' to release them under any kind of license, so any "revocation" of licenses you did not have the ability to grant would be meaningless. Furthermore, you ''do not have'' any "right to have [your] edits displayed", so there was never any fear of violating that non-existent right. The difficulty with cleaning up copyright infringements involves the grunt work of combing through a user's edits and actually identifying what is a copyright infringement and what isn't, not violating any of the user in question's rights. [[User:Writ Keeper|Writ&nbsp;Keeper]]&nbsp;[[User Talk: Writ Keeper|&#9863;]][[Special:Contributions/Writ_Keeper|&#9812;]] 22:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== IP now in Algeria ==
I invite participation at a discussion here: [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Maintenance tags]]. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 14:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


The IP is now behaving with the same behavior as the [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1148#IP%20from%20France]]. I will list out my concerns.
== Banned users and their userpages ==


The editor removes other editors' original research [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taraka_Ramudu&diff=prev&oldid=1221661190] while adds their own [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vennira_Aadai_Moorthy&diff=prev&oldid=1221670358]. The editor seems like they want to promote Telugu i. e. they add Telugu to non-Telugu actors films [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poornam_Viswanathan&diff=prev&oldid=1221681067] and remove non-Telugu films from Telugu actors [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=L._B._Sriram&diff=prev&oldid=1221665415] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brahmanandam_filmography&diff=prev&oldid=1221664161]. I'm having a feeling that this person does not speak English and is good with French after one of the French IPs used début instead of debut.
At [[Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Stevertigo|this deletion discussion]], an issue has arisen concerning a banned user and whether his User page should have the "banned" template while his User Talk has the same template.


The editor seems to have an ocean of knowledge in regard to older films without articles and adding missing films. If the problematic edits were not done, this editor is doing a fairly good job. If only you guys could find a way to make them communicate. [[User:DareshMohan|DareshMohan]] ([[User talk:DareshMohan|talk]]) 04:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
I seem to remember that banned users do not always have a "banned" template placed on their user page, such as when they have retired. I'm also sure there have been instances where a banned editors user page has been blanked for the duration of the ban. Does anyone know of more details or the circumstances? <small>Or is my memory failing me? :(</small> [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 18:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
:If someone is commenting on this, it may be better to comment [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2/Proposed decision|here]], so the discussion doesn't fork off in three ways (it's also happening at the MfD). <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/[[User:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">ƒETCH</span>]][[User talk:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">COMMS</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">/</span>]]'''</span> 21:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


:{{courtesy link|Special:Contributions/105.99.197.187}} '''''[[User:LilianaUwU|<span style="font-family:default;color:#246BCE;">Liliana</span><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#FF1493;">UwU</span>]]''''' <sup>([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contributions]])</sup> 04:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
== Rich Farmbrough's persistent disregard for community norms and (semi-)automated editing guidelines ==


== [[Ecotechnics]] and [[Ecotechnology]] ==
{{seealso|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rich Farmbrough/January 2009-September 2010}}
{{seealso|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rich Farmbrough/October 2010}}
:{{usercheck|Rich Farmbrough}}
:{{botlinks|SmackBot}}
Earlier today, I advised {{user|Rich Farmbrough}} that I would request both he and his bot be blocked if he continued making trivial and unnecessary changes that have proved controversial without first obtaining consensus for these changes [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough&oldid=392665704#There_is_no_consensus_for_.22ucfirst.22_as_a_standard_for_template_calls].


Sorry if I'm posting this in the wrong place, but [[Ecotechnics]] and [[Ecotechnology]] appear to be two articles about the same thing. I could be wrong because I have trouble understanding exactly what the ecotechnics article is about. The ecotechnology article is easier to understand, but it is almost entirely copied from [https://web.archive.org/web/20061019022958/http://www.mps.si/ips/echo.htm here]. Perhaps someone who understands this subject could have a look? [[User:Counterfeit Purses|Counterfeit Purses]] ([[User talk:Counterfeit Purses|talk]]) 17:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Rather than cease making the changes, he simply went on ahead with them on both his bot account ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Made_(TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=392664065] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Condor_of_Bermuda&diff=prev&oldid=392663976] - unnecessary capitalization changes), and his main account ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Päevaleht_(1905)&diff=prev&oldid=392648699] changes spacing around header for no reason; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=El_oficinista&diff=prev&oldid=392647951] capitalizes template for no reason).


:The Ecotechnics article is about a philosophical idea, so it's a separate thing from the Ecotechnology article. Someone with better skills for handling copyright issue should look at [[Ecotechnology]], the original version[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ecotechnology&oldid=42155560] was a direct copy of the link mentioned.[https://web.archive.org/web/20061019022958/http://www.mps.si/ips/echo.htm] However the current article has been substantially changed, with only a small amount of copied material remaining.[https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Ecotechnology&oldid=&use_engine=0&use_links=0&turnitin=0&action=compare&url=https%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20061019022958%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.mps.si%2Fips%2Fecho.htm] -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 20:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
It is perfectly reasonable to hold the view that all templates should be ucfirst, it is perfectly reasonable to hold the view that headers should have no spacing around them. However, it is unreasonable to push these views on the community without first obtaining consensus for them. The edits today display a shocking disregard for the collaborative editing model and indicate that Rich feels that he does not have to operate within the consensus model.


== Please undelete incorrectly speedily deleted article (now at AfD): [[Kalloor]] ==
This is unacceptable behaviour for a bot operator and administrator and I request he be blocked pending the decision of the proposed restriction below, which has been copied here from the ANI subpage for greater visibility. –[[user:xeno|<font face="verdana" color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]][[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 22:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
{{resolved}}
See [[Wikipedia_talk:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia#Kalloor]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalloor]]. The article was at AfD when it was speedily deleted, something that the deleting admin politely apologized for not noticing while also saying they are too busy to undelete right now (errr.... shrug). It is a technicality, I believe we have a rough consensus to not speedy delete but delete through regular AfD. I hope someone here can click the right button instead bureaucratically directing me to another forum, TIA. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]&#124;[[User talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</span>]]</sub> 00:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
: Done. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 02:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
::Might need to undelete the talk page too, the last edit on the article is referencing it. &ndash; [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:80B2:ED01:19B2:48CF:F504:23F5|2804:F14:80B2:ED01:19B2:48CF:F504:23F5]] ([[User talk:2804:F14:80B2:ED01:19B2:48CF:F504:23F5|talk]]) 03:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
:::Good idea. Thanks @[[User:Zero0000|Zero0000]] - can you click the undelete button once more? TIA, <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]&#124;[[User talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</span>]]</sub> 03:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
:::: Done. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 06:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


== Please review my block [[User:Blaze The Movie Fan]] ==
===Proposed editing restriction: Rich Farmbrough===
:''This is an alternative proposal to more strict proposal [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rich Farmbrough/October 2010#Edit restriction proposal for Rich Farmbrough|here]], which generated a fair amount of support for a complete ban on non-manual editing''
Regardless of the editing method (i.e. manual, semi-automatic, or automatic; from any account), {{user|Rich Farmbrough}} is indefinitely prohibited from making cosmetic changes to wikicode that have no effect on the rendered page (excepting those changes that are built-in to stock [[WP:AWB|AWB]] or those that have demonstrable consensus or BAG approval). This includes but is not limited to: changing templates to template redirects, changing template redirects to templates (see [[WP:AWB/TR|here]] for AWB stock changes on this item, with the understanding that bypassing template redirects will only be done when there is a substantive edit being done), changing the spacing around headers and ordered lists (except to make an aberration consistent with the rest of the page), and changing the capitalization of templates. Furthermore, prior to orphaning/emptying and deleting categories or templates, the appropriate processes ([[WP:CFD]]/[[WP:TFD]]) should be engaged.


I don't think there is any issue with the block, which was the unfortunate yet inevitable conclusion to an editor having stress issues they could not resolve. Let's leave it at that. As they may themselves ask for review, given their latest posts about "abusive admins", I figure it is better to simply put it out here and let others opine as to whether my actions were appropriate or not. It's not the usual circumstance, and was done as a last resort to prevent further disruption, but in the interest of transparency, I ask for review. I won't post diffs, a look at their contribs should be sufficient when combined with their talk page. As always, any admin is free to modify my actions without my prior permission if they feel I've made a mistake. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2&cent;</b>]] 07:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Thoughts? –[[user:xeno|<font face="verdana" color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]][[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 15:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
:What about emptying and deleting categories? This is what happened in the immediate incident. --''[[User:Philosopher|Philosopher]]''&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Philosopher|Let us reason together.]]</sup> 15:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' {{user|Blaze The Movie Fan}} A block is the only way to draw the problems to a close. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 08:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' Wikipedia is not a group therapy session. Editors with mental health issues are welcome to edit productively which may be therapeutic in some cases, but are not permitted to act out disruptively. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 08:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
::Added a sentence, though that is expected of any editor already. –[[user:xeno|<font face="verdana" color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]][[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 15:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' (surely non-admins can endorse too?) Very reasonable reaction to a likely coming [[WP:SBA]]. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 10:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
:Unless a guideline directs such a change. There's always the potential for future guidelines on the matter. Otherwise, it seems a fine proposal to me. --[[User:Bsherr|Bsherr]] ([[User talk:Bsherr|talk]]) 15:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
::<small>Yes, anyone can give their opinion, endorse or oppose. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2&cent;</b>]] 10:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)</small>
::That's covered by 'demonstrable consensus'. –[[user:xeno|<font face="verdana" color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]][[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 15:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' I'm actually one to champion that Wikipedia can be therapeutic, even the criticism one receives, but that is not without limits and is no excuse to be disruptive. Dennis, your action was done with care and concern for protecting the encyclopedia, the community, and the editor. I appreciate your efforts. --[[User:ARoseWolf|<span style="color:#b76e79">'''A'''</span><span style="color:#be4f60">'''Rose'''</span>]][[User talk:ARoseWolf|<span style="color:#b87333">'''Wolf'''</span>]] 10:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
:::Indeed. Good enough. --[[User:Bsherr|Bsherr]] ([[User talk:Bsherr|talk]]) 15:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
*<del>'''Support'''</del> --[[User:Bsherr|Bsherr]] ([[User talk:Bsherr|talk]]) 16:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' [[WP:NOTTHERAPY]] applies here. [[User:RickinBaltimore|RickinBaltimore]] ([[User talk:RickinBaltimore|talk]]) 13:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' again. Blocks are preventative not punitive - there to protect the project and to give editors some time out to reflect when they need it. That's exactly what you've done here. Good block. [[User:Waggers|<b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b style="color:#728">s</b>]][[User talk:Waggers|<small style="color:#080">''TALK''</small>]] 13:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
**I think this has become stale now, but I'll revisit if that seems to change. --[[User:Bsherr|Bsherr]] ([[User talk:Bsherr|talk]]) 19:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
* I think this is agreeable, this has my '''support'''. Rich, I hope you will do an effort in checking the diffs before you save, and not save them if they are mere changes of capitalisation, etc. Real mistakes, well, we all make them (as do our bots), I do hope your fellow editors will treat them for what they are. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 15:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
*'''Endorse'''. I'll paraphrase a hard lesson I've learned very, very, recently: If you find Wikipedia hurting your mental health and/or your ability to communicate, it would be for the best to disengage for a long while so that you don't fuck up and find yourself dragged here or elsewhere. Or if you cannot disengage for some sort of reason, it would be better to say or do as little as possible so that you don't dig yourself into a hole. You can try to come back once you start feeling better. [[User:The Night Watch|<span style="color:black;"><span style="font-size:110%">''The Night Watch''</span></span>]] [[User talk:The Night Watch|<span style="color:brown;"><span style="font-size:85%;">(talk)</span></span>]] 13:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
*Now that's a whole lot better, being a lot less disruptive and punitive. But how about [[WP:DISCUSS|discussing]] with Rich about the categories' name changes and moving, instead of immediately reaching out for punishment? --[[User:Ohconfucius|<span style="color:Black;font:bold 8pt kristen itc;text-shadow:cyan 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Ohconfucius</span>]] [[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>¡digame!</sup>]] 15:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
**Discussion doesn't help if he ignores objections and continues full-steam ahead without stopping to gather consensus for his changes. –[[user:xeno|<font face="verdana" color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]][[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 22:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. This proposal is more about setting a bot policy rather than addressing or remedying the allegations. Bot policy should be debated elsewhere. [[User:Glrx|Glrx]] ([[User talk:Glrx|talk]]) 17:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
*:Policy already exists to prohibit these changes ([[WP:AWB#Rules of use]] #3/4), this is more of a compliance issue. –[[user:xeno|<font face="verdana" color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]][[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 19:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
*We're prohibiting him from something that's already prohibited (using a bot or script to make cosmetic changes) and telling him to use the processes that he's already supposed to be using (CFD/TFD). Is there any substantial difference here from doing nothing and hoping the problem resolves itself? <span style="font-family:Broadway">[[User:Mr.Z-man|Mr.]][[User talk:Mr.Z-man|'''''Z-'''man'']]</span> 21:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
**I suppose there's also the prohibition of using even manual methods to make those cosmetic changes, and it looks like even if those cosmetic changes are made at the same time as another edit they would still be disallowed (without bot approval, which I suppose ''is'' already bot policy). To my mind this is just because it's difficult at times to tell if Rich is making manual, semi-automated or fully automated edits from his account (because, as you know, in violation of the bot policy he appears to make all three from his main account, without using proper edit summaries). Personally I think we should be stopping this problem there. With enforcing the bot policy and stopping him from making ''any'' bot like edits from his account, as proposed above. But would also '''support''' this alternative proposal after the original one. - [[User:Kingpin13|Kingpin]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Kingpin13|13]]</sup> ([[User talk:Kingpin13|talk]]) 21:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
**The restriction would make it clear that these changes lack consensus and he may be blocked if he continues making them prior to gathering consensus. –[[user:xeno|<font face="verdana" color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]][[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 22:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:05, 7 May 2024

    Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

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

    Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

    Open tasks[edit]

    XFD backlog
    V Feb Mar Apr May Total
    CfD 0 0 38 0 38
    TfD 0 0 6 0 6
    MfD 0 0 24 0 24
    FfD 0 0 2 0 2
    RfD 0 0 48 0 48
    AfD 0 0 0 0 0


    Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection[edit]

    Report
    Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (78 out of 7719 total) (Purge)
    Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
    Sophie Anderson (actress) 2024-05-07 13:21 2024-11-07 13:21 edit,move Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan
    Draft:Karintak operation 2024-05-07 12:48 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/AA enforcement Firefangledfeathers
    Reactions to the Israel–Hamas war 2024-05-07 06:54 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Robertsky
    Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Connormah 2 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates/Archived/Archive 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Lesser General Public License 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Grawp 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/AntonioMartin 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Dmcdevit 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements/FayssalF/Questions for the candidate 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    User:Halibutt/Archive 15 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Proposed decision 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Charles Matthews 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/White Cat 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar/Proposed decision 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elaragirl 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll/Year-linking responses 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012/Option 2 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Filiocht 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/BillMasen 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Wizardman 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby campaign 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Vassyana 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Candidate statements/AGK/Questions for the candidate 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia talk:Flagged revisions/Trial/Votes 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Blankfaze 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Merovingian 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/February 2009 election/Oversight/Lar 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Snowspinner 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Dbiv 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Hemlock Martinis 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Kmweber 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Coren 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Rlevse 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Alexia Death 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Privatemusings 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Shell Kinney 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Dream Focus 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Fish and karate 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/WJBscribe 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jvolkblum 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Everyking 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Wizardman 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Lifebaka 2024-05-07 06:26 indefinite edit lower protection to allow for WP:LINT fixes Primefac
    User talk:Leonidlednev 2024-05-07 03:26 2024-10-08 05:50 move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP Daniel Case
    Yusufzai 2024-05-07 02:34 indefinite edit make ECP indef Daniel Case
    Islamic Resistance in Iraq 2024-05-07 02:15 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Palestinian political violence 2024-05-07 02:12 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: restore previous indef ECP Daniel Case
    Battle of Beit Hanoun 2024-05-06 22:14 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish
    A-1 Auto Transport 2024-05-06 21:06 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated ToBeFree
    Killing of Sidra Hassouna 2024-05-06 19:17 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/A-I ToBeFree
    China 2024-05-06 08:12 indefinite edit Persistent disruptive editing: upgrade to WP:ECP due to long term and sustained disruption from multiple confirmed accounts El C
    User talk:AgentKaren 2024-05-05 23:52 2024-05-08 23:52 move Editor moving user pages to try to change their username Liz
    User:AgentKaren 2024-05-05 23:52 2024-05-08 23:52 move Editor moving user pages to try to change their username Liz
    Module:Chart/Default colors 2024-05-05 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2583 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Module:Chart 2024-05-05 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2578 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Draft:Cheese 2024-05-05 17:41 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Pppery
    Revisionist Zionism 2024-05-05 12:54 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/A-I -- requested at WP:RFPP Favonian
    Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2024 2024-05-05 12:22 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish
    Universities and antisemitism 2024-05-05 07:00 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: inextricably tied to WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C
    User:Zee Saheb 2024-05-05 06:19 2024-06-05 06:19 create Repeatedly moving drafts to User space Liz
    User talk:Fathia Yusuf 2024-05-05 06:03 indefinite edit,move Foolishly moving a User talk page Liz
    Battle of Krasnohorivka 2024-05-05 04:30 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:GS/RUSUKR El C
    Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure 2024-05-05 03:40 indefinite edit,move This does not need to be indefinitely fully-protected Pppery
    Ruben Vardanyan (politician) 2024-05-04 22:43 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/AA Daniel Case
    List of pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses in 2024 2024-05-04 22:07 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Fertile Crescent 2024-05-04 21:27 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Al-Aqsa 2024-05-04 21:18 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Kundali Bhagya 2024-05-04 21:07 2025-05-04 21:07 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case
    Drake (musician) 2024-05-04 05:55 2024-05-11 05:55 edit Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts Moneytrees
    Uttar Pradesh 2024-05-04 04:45 indefinite edit,move raise to indef ECP per request at RFPP and review of protection history Daniel Case
    StoneToss 2024-05-04 04:12 2024-08-04 04:12 edit Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: per request at RFPP; going longer this time Daniel Case
    Palestinian key 2024-05-04 04:08 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    List of national symbols of Palestine 2024-05-04 04:05 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Disinvestment from Israel 2024-05-04 03:59 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    List of characters in Yeh Rishta Kya Kehlata Hai 2024-05-03 18:04 2024-05-12 05:38 edit,move raised to ECP as one disruptive user is autoconfirmed Daniel Case
    Shakespeare authorship question 2024-05-03 14:22 indefinite edit Article name was changed without consensus SouthernNights

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

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

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

    Notified: [1]

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

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

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

    Uninvolved[edit]

    • Endorse close Amend While the specifics of BLPs weren't addressed in-depth, it's a reasonable addendum for clarity. They can be used but people should be careful with each individual article...not sure why that's not a blanket statement for every source on Wikipedia. For example, the NYT has published some egregious "journalism", but that doesn't mean it's always wrong on the basic facts. Every source should be evaluated for accuracy on its merits. If I say "Person AB said in an op-ed '<insert quote here'" and then cite it, there's very little reason to doubt that statement is true, but quoting it for purposes of establishing it as something that's true is inappropriate without additional verification. Buffs (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Amended: This sounds like a WPian hearing what they want to hear. There isn't a need to add additional steps beyond what we normally do if people are going to abuse that to exclude the contributions of others. I'd prefer to keep it as-is, but I certainly can see that point. Buffs (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Wow...the EXACT reason I said it SHOULD be included was used...#clairvoyance Buffs (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amend Remove the BLP clarification: 1) Regardless of the sources' reliability, we always them with great caution for biographies of living people. 2) No valid reason was given for why Mondoweiss should be treated differently from the other RS. 3) Such an unneeded clarification can easily be misconstrued to mean that Mondoweiss shouldn't be used for BLP. Just this week, one of the RfC participants used the close statement to claim that we should avoid using Mondoweiss for BLP. Obviously, it ended up in RSN again. M.Bitton (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amend to remove the statement about BLPs. If only two editors made an unsupported assertion and nobody else discussed it, then it isn't a valid part of the consensus. I'm all for interpreting arguments to try and pull a consensus out of the flames where it isn't obvious, but "divining within the greater context" in this manner is a left-field supervote and should be removed. The rest of the closure is reasonable. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amend per M.Bitton and Wordsmith. We already treat BLP with caution, and this issue was not discussed enough to reach consensus. If needed, a new discussion on how to use MW with regard to BLP can be made. Meanwhile, I’m wary of using the ‘average’ value of 2.6 to conclude that option 3 should be reached. Note that since option 2 is essentially the middle ground, option 1 and 3 have the same weight, but option 4 has twice the weight of option 1 when skewing option 2. This doesn’t seem very fair, and then rounding 2.6 to 3 because of this is increasing the unfairness, leading to essentially 13 editors overruling 21 editors. starship.paint (RUN) 03:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      A-men Buffs (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Two minor points of clarification: I have zero problem with amending per above and, while I can't -- objectively -- read the RfC that way, I would personally be glad to see this outcome.
      That said, I am concerned that some editors are reading the aggressive and misinformed arguments of two relatively new editors on the "anti-" MW side who have attempted, very poorly, to summarize my close and assuming those summaries accurately represent the close. The only closing statements I wrote are this one and this explanatory comment, both of which are much more modest than the way in which two editors are summarizing them to make sweeping changes across multiple articles. To avoid the further spread of this misinformation, I would ask, as a personal favor, that editors attempting to describe my close (regardless of where you land on it) reflect only on the source material, and not the apocrypha it's spawned. To wit:
    • "I’m wary of using the ‘average’ value of 2.6" The "average" of 2.6 was never used for anything (and, yes, I realize the incidental appearance of this meaningless number in the close has been fixated upon by the aforementioned editors to make major changes to articles). As per the text of the close rationale, the number 2.6 was simply noted as "indicative but not definitive as per WP:NOTAVOTE" and then immediately discarded as "not clearly learning toward either option" before the narrative analysis began.
    • "to conclude that option 3 should be reached" The RfC close reached no such conclusion in any dimension of time or space; in this reality or any parallel reality that the mind of man can conceive or imagine. It stated that no "consensus as to its underlying reliability" emerged which, if anything at all, was a "2" close (but, actually, no consensus).
    To summarize, this was a "no consensus" close with a relatively modest (and not proscriptive) BLP corollary described by Buffs in this first (now stricken) comment. The fact my loquacious reasoning, intended to promote transparency, instead provided an opening to wedge in battleground behavior is beyond both my control and mandate (RfC closers are not RfC enforcers). Chetsford (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the clarity...I think... :-) Buffs (talk) 01:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Chetsford: - perhaps there has been a misunderstanding, you quoted from me, but I was not referring to your RfC close. I was referring to the below analysis by FortunateSons. I apologise for my vagueness having caused confusion. starship.paint (RUN) 08:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Involved[edit]

    • I've archived my discussion with Voorts here for ease of review (versus diffs). For what it's worth, considering the contentious topic area involved, I am in full agreement with Voorts that review of the close is appropriate. Chetsford (talk) 07:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amend close to read "and that it should either not be used at all — or used with great caution for biographies of living people." I don't think that the relative silence on the issue should have been construed as agreement with the two editors raising that specific, there was a lot else going on in the discussion besides that, especially since one of those editors appears to have construed the close as a license to remove citations for BLPs. Selfstudier (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amend close to 3 (Gunrel), optionally clarify the statement about BLP requirements per the qualifiers suggested by Chetsford per the arguments made by @Chess and @BilledMammal, which were not sufficiently addressed; also using the votes as an indicator. Acknowledging that I advanced the BLP arguments poorly (and thanking @Chetsford for his generally accurate deciphering of what I meant), I would suggest the following, in the spirit of his comment made here, @Bobfrombrockley here and as a compromise: used with great caution for biographies of living (and recently deceased) people, and not to be used in cases of (a) for statements that, if proved false, would be legally defamatory; (b) for extraordinary claims (c) for analytical statements about the person; (d) for quotes and facts the accuracy of which is contested by RS or the subject him/herself. In addition and as a partial clarification, perhaps e) should be content marked as activism and similar would be appropriate. FortunateSons (talk) 08:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You're going to need to bolster your opinion more than "we should do what I want", when support for #2 had ~6.5:1 support over yours. This is not the place to relitigate this RfC, IMHO. Buffs (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I‘m pretty sure you’re off on the math, as I voted 4 (which obviously endorses 3 over 2). That option obviously does not have consensus (and just for the sake of clarity, removal of problematic BLP uses is not backdoor deprecation, the overwhelming majority of MW uses are non-BLP or unproblematic). The straight vote count (as stated by Chetsford) has the average at 2.6, and of the counted votes, 14 votes included at least 3 (including 2 or 3), while 21 did not, of which an overwhelming amount were 3 or lower (please check my math).
      I was unaware that we are not supposed to reference specific points when requesting a reassessment of the outcome, and have struck that part, except in context of the phrasing to avoid (light) plagiarism. Thanks for making me aware, this is one of my first contributions to such a noticeboard :) FortunateSons (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      When giving a list of options (1. Action A 2. Action B 3. Action C 4. Action D and 5. Action E), saying "the average is 2.6 so we should choose option 3" is a horrible misunderstanding of statistics. You are heavily weighting all other actions other than #1 (Example, 20 people !vote 1, 2 people !vote 2, and 3 people !vote 5, the "average" is 2 despite an overwhelming preponderance of people !voting 1...in other words, a 5 is worth 5x a 1). Rounding up only further exacerbates the issue. Buffs (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Second attempt at a more policy-compliant argument, please correct me if this one is also wrong:
      The relevant arguments regarding BLP usage were not addressed, and similar arguments where not fully rebuffed in general; therefore, the section regarding BLP should remain as is, or be alternatively clarified while remaining in the spirit of discussion and close.
      Regarding the status of the entire source, I believe that the arguments made by those voting for „higher than 2“ should have led to a close of 3, and respectfully request that it is amended (as well). FortunateSons (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      "The relevant arguments regarding BLP usage were not addressed" They were addressed. You just didn't agree. Buffs (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amend per The Wordsmith. My own views on the source aside, the issue of BLP use was barely discussed - there was no consensus on it one way or another, so to assert one in the closure seems odd. The Kip 19:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't object to the amendment that is being proposed here, because I think it goes without saying that any source where there are serious reliability concerns should be used with extreme caution in BLPs, especially where content is potentially defamatory. While no consensus was reached, given that 15 out of 36 !votes (I think) were for an option higher than 2 and only one editor considered option 1, this is obviously a source with serious reliability concerns. My only worry is that editors will take this amendment as permission not to use extreme caution with the source on BLPs or, worse, that this source has somehow been cleared for use in BLPs, so I hope that editors supporting this amendment will be vigilant in ensuring that we do not use this poor source inappropriately in BLPs. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion[edit]

    • Could we get an admin to close and amend this. Consensus seems quite clear. Buffs (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Edits from The Banner[edit]

    I would like to request another perspective on edits made by TheBanner. I am uncertain about their intentions, as they seem to be consistently reverting many edits, often citing WP:CIR, I know my edits are not perfet however I have seen problems. For instance, my addition of a military service module on Chuck Norris's page—similar to those on Morgan Freeman and Elvis Presley—was removed with the rationale that Norris is "not known for his military service." Although this is true, the inclusion of such a module can be informative. Furthermore, there have been issues regarding WP:Civility; TheBanner has described my edits as "cringe" and made sarcastic remarks, asserting that competence supersedes civility. This focus on my contributions has been puzzling, and I would appreciate an external review. My editing history is publicly accessible, and I anticipate that TheBanner might respond to this discussion. I am simply seeking additional opinions on this matter. LuxembourgLover (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    In fact, I have a severe concern about the competency of User:LuxembourgLover to edit wikipedia. The main problem is his failure to judge the due weight of many items, resulting in him writing articles about tiny events. I just point to Talk:Luxembourg rebellions, Talk:Morrisite War, Draft:Battle of Amalienborg and USCG Auxiliary Flotilla 6-9 (and related Talk:United States Coast Guard Auxiliary). The Banner talk 00:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Banner, that response would have been so much better if you'd but the first sentence and a half. You're probably right in suggesting (?) (the diff above must be off) that competence supersedes civility, but that doesn't mean that a lack of civility isn't problematic. I don't think the comments here rise to a blockable level or I wouldn't be commenting, I'd just block, but I wish you'd think twice before pushing "Publish changes". Drmies (talk) 00:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even advice to use a spell checker (done by multiple people) is ignored. AfC-drafts turned down within a couple of hours. Copyvio. I have even requested a third party to take up some coaching (what he agreed to). But see also Talk:Morrisite War and Talk:San Elizario Salt War#Info box. The Banner talk 09:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note I have two well done drafts waiting review. Draft:Latter-day Saints Militias and Military Units and Draft:Hector C. Haight. LuxembourgLover (talk) 00:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm with Drmies on this one. Tempers have clearly run a bit high (or patience has run out) but I'm not seeing any need for admin action this time around.
    Regarding long term behaviour in the section below, it's worth remarking that the "February 2023" thread actually relates to activity in December 2022; the other threads listed are obviously from even further back. While it's sometimes important to examine long term behaviour patterns, we really don't need to drag up old threads every time a new one is created. I appreciate that it wasn't resolved to everyone's satisfaction as The Banner was cut some slack due to his computer issues, but some kind of statute of limitations seems appropriate.
    One final thing for me to say here is that The Banner and I come from opposite sides of the Irish Sea and both edit in the often-controversial British Isles area. That means we encounter points of disagreement semi-frequently, yet I've always found The Banner to be civil, polite and patient, abiding by consensus and policy in those discussions. Obviously that's just my own experience but I felt it was worth adding some balance to this thread. WaggersTALK 13:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The Banner history of hounding and disruptive editing[edit]

    The Banner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has more than several blocks for disruptive editing

    There's more. Why are we still here ? Drmies, my friend, it's time to stop defending this editor, who is a bully. It's time for a site ban. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me correct you on your first bullet: I had a computer crash. It took me months to recover from that. I had never seen that discussion before I came back. The Banner talk 13:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Now you have seen it and now you can respond to it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "I had never seen that discussion before I came back." To be blunt, SG has more AGF than I do. You were clearly informed about it and had an opportunity to respond. If you are going to archive everything so quickly, you need to go back and check your archives. Regardless of others' behavior, yours continues unabated. I side with SG here Buffs (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The case was closed before I came back. And as said, the break was not because of my own free will but due to a broken hard disk. The Banner talk 12:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's here now, and with two responses, you aren't addressing the long-term issues: hounding of Another Believer and SusanLesch, faulty tagging of a most clearly notable article, and your history of generally disruptive editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And, yet, you still have not responded, despite being back online for almost a year + being informed of this issue for 4+ days now. You've found the time to make 100+ edits. Buffs (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Last chance to reply... Buffs (talk) 03:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have tried to ignore this user for nearly twelve years, since he made an edit in support of the sockpuppets at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salty Fingers (plant). I'm rather surprised that the editor is still allowed to edit, given the long-term disruption shown. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless it is your contention that The Banner actually knew he was supporting sockpuppets, I'm afraid I don't see how that discussion from almost a dozen years ago is relevant. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe this is an attempt to show a long-term pattern of disruptive behavior. Beyond that, I would concur it's irrelevant. Admins, can take the input and assess what it's worth. Buffs (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see what's inherently disruptive about voting keep in an AfD. I'm sure that the case against The Banner can be made without dredging up grudges from more than a decade ago. Heck, I'm pretty sure I've had a beef or two with him, although the specifics are lost to my memory. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    SPI[edit]

    I hate doing this because I know there's a backlog at SPI but seeing this sock-master being so militantly aggressive in steamrolling their POV to the point where it's unsettling, using numerous burner accounts, openly making a mockery out of Wikipedia and manipulating people, time and time again deceiving or attempting to deceive admins in which he nearly succeeded multiple times, and him taking advantage of the long time it takes for SPI reports against him to be looked at, has me extremely concerned. I want to proceed with dealing with some of his more active, disruptive accounts but for that I'd need to deal with the current accounts in his SPI as it would establish precedence and bolster future cases. If possible, can this SPI be dealt with soon? It's been languishing for over a month now. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 23:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    3 others, including 2 admins, have expressed concerns that the first account Historian2325 is a SPA, by the way. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Has anyone thought of making the following change to Wikipedia:CheckUser to see whether it works.
    OLD - "The CheckUser tool is used by a small group of trusted Wikipedia users (called checkusers)."
    NEW - "The CheckUser tool is used by a very large group of trusted Wikipedia users (called checkusers)."
    Sean.hoyland (talk) 02:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not entirely sure if there's a double meaning behind your comment, but the reason I'm so concerned is because this sockmaster is currently operating an account which is creating an extreme amount of disruption and illegitimately subverting Wikipedia's processes by brazenly vote stacking. He's so incredibly relentless that it's unnerving and to see him time and time again evade accountability is nauseating. It'll become more clear once I file the report. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 02:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In my perfect world we would all be checkusers, or there would be a very large number of them. Socking in Wikipedia is, for me, maybe one of most important unsolved issues here. Wikipedia's rules-based system breaks down when there are 2 sets of editors, one set that has to follow the rules and the other that does not because they effectively have unlimited number of lives. Using deception as a tool is pretty common in Wikipedia, especially in contentious topic areas, and the resources allocated to deal with it don't seem to match up with its corrosive effects. As you say, important processes that sample community views like RSN, RfC, AfD etc. are particular susceptible to the negative effects of deception. On the other hand, it's quite funny that we are training generative models using content that is partly the product of dedicated pathological liars. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we can make that wording change to the policy. A more actionable idea might be asking some admins with spi experience to apply to be checkusers, to help with the backlog. Although in this case, the delay is actually clerk endorsement, which doesn't require a checkuser. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, but wouldn't the endorsement of 2 admins be a suitable substitute for clerk endorsement? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 06:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do the spi rules say that? I think it's supposed to be clerks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest removing the IP addresses as a checkuser will not link IP addresses to accounts plus most have been inactive for sometime, between one and six months, and no action is likely to be taken because any disruption by these IPs is neither recent nor ongoing. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't put the IPs/proxies because I wanted them to be blocked but rather because the sockmaster has many different proxies at his disposal which helped his other accounts like Finmas and Dazzem evade CUs. The former was found "Unrelated" and then "Inconclusive" by CUs. It was later revealed that the Finmas account was exclusively using VPNs, which is what I had originally suspected. I figured that listing some of his proxies that I've dealt with before might help CUs establish a technical connection. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 07:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem here isn't a lack of CUs, the problem is that you've written a 20,000 byte wall of text that is going to be a major slog for someone to read through. If you want people to read and action an SPI case you need to present the information as concisely as possible. CUs and admins are volunteers and SPI is chronically backlogged - most SPI regulars coming across that case are just going say "TLDR", pass over it and go deal with another, better presented, case.
    You need to trim this down drastically to just the key evidence.
    • Rather than listing out a dozen IPs that haven't been used for months you could just write "This sockmaster has used VPNs to evade checkuser detection in the past"
    • Instead of writing massive long paragraphs of background information about how certain edits are POV pushing to inflate certain figures and how this is related to Sikh military accomplishments you could just point out that the edits are similar.
    • Instead of writing out massive bullet points where you describe every edit a sockmaster and suspected sockpuppet have made to a page you could just point out that this new account has returned to a page that they have edited in the past.
    • There is a ton of unnecessary "This is the nail in the coffin", "PS: Maplesyrupsushi is a legitimate and excellent editor/content creator, ..." "Keep in mind this is a small sample of edits, there are hundreds of more edits like this." type commentary that adds nothing to the case but severley bloats the wordcount.
    Looking through the page history it looks like you've had issues with wall of text reports in the past [2] and you were asked to cut your reports down to a more reasonable length 2 months ago [3]. Remember that SPI clerks and Checkusers have a lot of experience dealing with sock puppetry and don't need the basics explaining to them. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the advice, I've trimmed some of the details in the SPI. I think the current version is much more digestible. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 08:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Other editors have also been complaining about the POV pushing from SPAs listed in the SPI. As I've said before, the disruption that this sockmaster is creating is ridiculous. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 03:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the SPAs even tried to illegitimately delete an AFD notice on an article-[4]. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 10:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC closure review request at Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#RFC_on_current_consensus_#14[edit]

    COVID-19 pandemic (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RfC closure in question) (Discussion with closer)

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

    Notified: User_talk:Chetsford/Archive_41#Notice_of_noticeboard_discussion

    Reasoning: The closure was not a reasonable summation of the discussion. #1 closer ignored roughconsenus pointing to "the discursive failures that occurred in this RfC." #2 the closer introduced new alleged concepts such as a lack of WP:RS in the RFC, without noticing a wikilink to a sub-article COVID-19 lab leak theory that contains hundreds of RS as well as an RS explicitly referred to Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#Discussion in which I stated ""Controversies about the origins of the virus, including the lab leak theory, heightened geopolitical divisions, notably between the United States and China.[34]" Note that no editor made an RS claim in the discussion on the oppose side, thus the closer seems to have improperly summarized the discussion and rather than summarizing instead pointing to his own view of lack of RS, MEDRS, and discursive failures (none of which were not discussed in the RFC). When I sought to discuss the close with the closer on their talk page, the closer instead failed to WP:AGF stating "I know it wouldn't be as personally satisfying" and going on to say "we may sometimes feel shorted if our comments aren't recognized." Note, I had not been asking the editor why my "comments aren't recognized", I instead asked the editor to justify their own novel claim that no RS were provided in the RFC. #3 eventually the closer goes on to contradict themselves apparently stating "As already noted in the close, the RfC should have been an easy consensus close to strike #14" as if some procedural failure in the RFC didnt gain such consensus, I suppose pointing the editors vague claim of "discursive failures," rather than the very succinct explanations of many of the editors that participated in the RFC. In summary, the closer has never made any policy, procedural, nor factual explanations in the close nor on their talk page to explain going against consensus, instead suggesting that the RFC be run again and explained "I've reviewed it and decline to reverse." The discussion with closer (and additional information) can be found User_talk:Chetsford/Archive_41#An_odd_close. I adding it here as something is amiss with the template link above, maybe due to the closer archiving their talk page recently. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Uninvolved (COVID19)[edit]

    This close was within the threshold of reasonable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't recall ever editing that article so I think I'm uninvolved. Will strike if mistaken. The closure looks entirely reasonable to me. Simonm223 (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    What does it even mean to "strike down" a consensus? In this case, that consensus is a documented statement that the lab leak theory shouldn't be mentioned. Does "striking it down" mean removing the consensus statement because it's used to preempt discussion/proposals? Or does it mean finding consensus to talk about the lab leak in the article? If the former, given the way documented past consensus serves to limit present discussion (for good reason, in many cases), I'd think we'd need affirmative consensus to retain it, and not just default to it with no consensus. If the latter, it's worded oddly and it's hard to see that RfC as yielding a clear result. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    For what it's worth, my reading of the discussion would be that it's attempting the former. —Sirdog (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd say any other editor in good standing reviewing that discussion could reasonably find the same result. I am unconvinced by the challenger that the close is fundamentally flawed. —Sirdog (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Overturn This seems to be a clear supervote and WAY outside what reliable sources state. At this point, any restriction on this viable theory is political in nature and feels very much like the last vestiges of clinging to "no, I can't possibly be wrong". Buffs (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Involved (COVID19)[edit]

    • Comment by Closer: While I personally would like to have seen the RfC close in favor of the RfC proposal , I ultimately closed it as "no consensus" (not as "a consensus against" as, I believe, the challenger thinks occurred).
      As I read it, the challenge seems to spin on four assertions advanced by the challenger which I summarize here to the best of my understanding:
    • A belief that (a) ROUGHCONSENSUS is a synonym for Referendum, and, (b) consensus was achieved by process of majority vote.
      In their request for review on my Talk page, the challenger invoked WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS to repeatedly demand the RfC be treated as a referendum or plebiscite and reversed on the apparent basis that the "count" [5] of "votes" [6] (6-4 in favor of the RfC - though challenger claimed it was 7-1 [7] somehow) favored the RfC proposal.
      I repeatedly counseled challenger that this was WP:NOTAVOTE, pointing to our WP:CONSENSUS policy which explicitly describes that a simple majority does not represent the "sense of the community" described by ROUGHCONENSUS in the absence of strength of policy-based argument. The challenger appeared non-plussed by this. Here, challenger goes on to again advance the false premise that "the closer has never made any policy, procedural, nor factual explanations in the close nor on their talk page to explain going against consensus", based on their insistent belief that consensus was achieved by a simple majority headcount.
    • A belief that it's the closer's duty to engage in textual analysis of sources presented across the project and the zeitgeist, rather than arguments made in the RfC.
      The challenger writes that "the closer introduced new alleged concepts such as a lack of WP:RS in the RFC, without noticing a wikilink to a sub-article COVID-19 lab leak theory that contains hundreds of RS as well as an RS explicitly referred"
      This, again, appears to be a severe misunderstanding of the close by the challenger. RS was mentioned merely as part of the closer's formulary recitation of facts and summary of arguments made which is a customary and perfunctory part of the close. Nothing involving "RS" was part of the close rationale. (Nor is it the responsibility of the closer to evaluate the alleged "hundreds" of RS. Closes occur based on strength of policy-based argument, not the closer's independent and original evaluation of source material.)
    • A belief that geopolitical factors must be taken into account in closing RfCs.
      The challenger explained in the RfC, on my Talk page, and now here, that "[c]ontroversies about the origins of the virus, including the lab leak theory, heightened geopolitical divisions, notably between the United States and China." as an example of an unrebutted argument, apparently in the belief that the lack of rebuttal to this assertion tips the scale in favor of the RfC. But the RfC is the place to argue the application of WP policy. The state of Sino-American relations is completely irrelevant to the application of WP policy.
    • A belief that an (alleged) lack of social grace afforded to an editor is cause to overturn a close.
      The challenger explains "the closer instead failed to WP:AGF" in his discussion with the challenger, nested as part of their appeal to overturn. Accepting, for sake of argument, that I did fail to AGF in a discussion on my Talk page with the challenger, failure to AGF in a Talk page discussion is not a rational cause to overturn a close. Closes are overturned due to some failure of the close itself, not as a sanction against the closer when we believe we were not treated with the deference we feel we deserve.
    As I repeatedly said, this should have been an easy RfC to pass. Policy (and, frankly, reality) favored it. But those policies were never argued by the participants. For the closer to invoke his independent awareness of policy would be a WP:SUPERVOTE and, moreover, completely unfair as it would deny the opposing side the opportunity to rebut. I suggested to the challenger that if they were to rerun the RfC and remedy the significant defects in their first attempt it would almost certainly pass. They appear to be disinterested in doing that. Chetsford (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This response by the closer is further astray:
    • First the closer continues to refuse to provide a policy explanation to ignore consensus, see WP:NHC.
    • Second the closer talks about a nonsensical duty to provide textual analysis of sources. This is laughable. The closer failed to notice there was an RS mentioned in the RFC (and ignored the sub-article as well) and stated these omissions in the close. The closer argued that a lack of RS in the RFC was a justification for the close, and failed to understand that #34 was an RS.
    • Third, in responding to this review the closer is confused of even the subject of the RFC. "[c]ontroversies about the origins of the virus, including the lab leak theory, heightened geopolitical divisions, notably between the United States and China." is the exact text in the article at the time of the RFC that is being discussed in this RFC. I was discussing the text of the article, and even put it in quotes. I am confused if the closer even read the RFC at this point. I have never made an argument that any geopolitical blah blah must be taken in to account. Where is this coming from? You will find this exact text quoted verbatim here in the article at the time of the RFC.
    • Forth the AGF issues are simply me pointing out that the closer has chosen solely himself to paint this in some sort of personal issue, and continues to not understand the content that was being discussed (see #3). Note I have always been civil to this closer as well as everyone in the RFC, this argument is baseless, a strawman, and an odd response.
    • Fifth, RFC participants do not need to argue wikipedia policy nor RFC policy, it is the closer that applies the policy to the arguments offered by the participants. In this RFC we are simply discussing if the RS support the text in bold (that the closer seems to be confused is my words), if due weight should be given to wikilink (a link that is prohibited under consensus #14), and if the consensus #14 on the article was appropriate given the text in bold and the current state of RS.
    Seems the closer failed to grasp the RFC and still hasnt bothered to review it. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "the closer continues to refuse to provide a policy explanation to ignore consensus" I'll just note again, here, that this is a furiously repeated statement based on a false premise. As I have explained many times, there was no consensus to ignore. That's why the RfC closed as "no consensus" (versus "consensus for" or "consensus against"). I appreciate your view that your "count" [sic] [8] of the "vote" [sic] [9] led you to believe the 6 of 10 editors in favor of your RfC constituted a consensus, however, as detailed in our policy WP:CONSENSUS, consensus is not determined by plebiscite and your RfC was not a referendum. I sincerely regret if you were under a different impression.
    "RFC participants do not need to argue wikipedia policy" Sure, you aren't "required" to present policy-based argument, but by your decision not to do so, you ended up with the result you got here. Please see WP:NHC: "... after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue ... [if] discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it". Chetsford (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which editors made arguments that you felt met this criteria "after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue" and why? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly do you mean by reality? Can you explain what you meant by that? FailedMusician (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We could start here, but this is only a beginning... Buffs (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean it's very clear the actual state-of-the-world does not support a proscription such as #14 and this RfC should have resulted in a consensus to strike it, in my opinion (indeed, #14 should never have been put in place to begin with). And had I been a participant in the discussion, I would have sided with the strike camp. But I wasn't a participant, I was the closer, and for me to close this as "a consensus to strike" when only a bare majority of participants - advancing virtually no cogent policy arguments - supported that would constitute a SUPERVOTE and be out of compliance with our WP:CONSENSUS policy. Suppressing my innate knowledge of the external world beyond WP and deciding on no set of facts beyond what was contained in the RfC, it was clear there was no consensus (as undesirable of an outcome as that is). Chetsford (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment by SmolBrane: In the close, you(Chetsford) stated that “First, several editors in the oppose camp note that consensus can't occur implicitly in this case (the opposite of what we usually observe in WP:EDITCON), since #14 established a clear consensus and the mere presence of content against consensus that may have gone unnoticed doesn't overturn it.”
    The presence of content against the formal RfC consensus for six months on a high traffic article (8k views per day!) SHOULD overturn the two year old RfC. That's the whole point of implicit consensus—not to mention that this was the long-standing stable state of the article. TarnishedPath made the same error “Arguing that the content has been in the article for a while is putting the cart before the horse.” Why would we undo a six-month old undisputed edit here? We should not presume that the bold edit went 'unnoticed'--this is not a valid exception w/r/t WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. Implicit consensus has a great deal of weight on a contentious article with 2,200 watchers. The RfC establishing consensus #14 from May 2020 is very old in COVID-terms, and this RfC only had three keep !votes, which means only three individuals wanted to revise the article to a retroactive state—a situation that should require more opposers to stray from the current stable and long-standing state.
    Aquillion made a similar error “Sometimes things fall through the cracks even on high-traffic articles”. Bold edits are not “falling through the cracks”, This is again a lack of understanding of policy, and the collaborative nature of the project. Those !votes(Aquillion and TarnishedPath) likely should have been discarded.
    Both Crossroads and IOHANNVSVERVS made strong arguments in favor of striking, based on new sourcing and WP:NOTCENSORED respectively. Ortizesp and Lights and Freedom also made strong cases in relation to coverage by sources.
    The closer evidently erred “since no actual examples of RS were presented by those making this argument”. As Jtbobwaysf points out, there were three inline citations supporting the sentence about the lab leak. The closer did not correctly assess the policy-based arguments made by the supporters, nor the RSes involved. The current stable state of the article should have had more deference by the closer in light of the comments that were provided. The closer also commented about WP:MEDRS which was mentioned in the May 2020 RfC, not this one, so that stipulation was inappropriate. SmolBrane (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The "stable state" argument is laughable and HORRIBLE circular logic. The article is stable, therefore we shouldn't change our restrictions. But the reason it cannot be updated is BECAUSE of the restrictions. No restrictions like these should be enacted and held in place when they are demonstrably not in alignment with our five pillars, specifically, NPOV (and with that RS) + no firm rules. Buffs (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with your last sentence and I think you misunderstand my position; the lab leak theory was mentioned and linked to for six months prior to this RfC, despite the consensus 14 not being formally overturned. SmolBrane (talk) 01:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion[edit]

    ANTAURO[edit]

    Not an AN issue. Primefac (talk) 09:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    So in a deletion discussion, this got 3 keep votes, 1 redirect vote, and 1 delete vote, yet it was redirected anyways. I don't know much about the subject but I feel like the consensus should be on the voters and not on what the closer feels like doing. Okmrman (talk) 23:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Deletion review will be the venue you are looking for. AN/ANI cannot overturn XfD closures. However, I'd recommend you discuss it with the closing editor first if possible. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Not a vote might be a good read as well. – 2804:F14:80F7:2601:51B1:3B13:AB65:F77F (talk) 01:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This AFD was closed three months ago. What is so important about this that you brought it to WP:AN which is a noticboard for important, urgent problems? Go to WP:DRV if you want to challenge the closure. Make sure you follow all of the instructions there. Liz Read! Talk! 05:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Editorial War Review[edit]

    @Shahin Shahin user removes sourced content and editorial war in the article of Esteghlal Football Club. This user also does not have an unbiased view and does not act based on logic in his edits. Please warn Shahin user not to edit Jang's article and not to delete source material. Thanks Apoel4 (talk) 13:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked the OP for one week. Any administrator is free to increase the block to indefinite, which I was tempted to do from the get-go. Shahin has not been notified of this thread by the OP.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Marketing-related draft essays[edit]

    As of late we've been seeing a glut of drafts at WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk which, on a read, appear to be essays about some aspect of the sales process. A (very likely incomplete) list is:

    Our best guess is that this is possibly a class on marketing which is being taught outside of WikiEd's purview, with the end result being the instructor is essentially setting his students up to fail. However, this is just speculation, and I'd rather first figure out if there are any more of these drafts out in the wild and then go from there. I'm not inclined to call for blocks or bans just yet - but if the scale of this is much bigger, there possibly needs to be a discussion on how to more easily ferret out rogue classes like this. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 16:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    New one just popped up at AfC/HD: User:Sravanthi chekka/sandbox. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 06:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ban appeal of Billy Hathorn[edit]

    I'm closing this as procedurally invalid-- Checkuser indicates this is not Billy appealing and that his account has been compromised. This tracks with what happened to his account on Conservapedia at the beginning of this year, and the appeal is contradicted by the editing of Billy's new account on Conservapedia. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The following is the appeal of Billy Hathorn, who is seeking removal of their community ban. I bring this as a courtesy, and make no endorsement in doing so. 331dot (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have been completely inactive on Wikipedia for 9 years now, only uploading pictures of mine on Wikimedia Commons, following a ban by members of this community for copyright violations. Since this event, I have spent time thinking about how to improve myself as a person and how to fix my behavior. My actions came at a time of which, while being my own fault, were encouraged by those around me in the space of conservatives. I was wrong in my belief to trust such a group of people, and my view in part of copyright was as a result of practices on another website, Conservapedia, of which I have been actively editing on until recently. This does not mean that I take no responsibility for my actions, however, as I completely understand that what I did was wrong and not good of any editor to do.

    Recently, Conservapedia has banned my account without explanation. This came after I sent an email to one of the site's administrator's questioning their approach to LGBTQ issues. They now say I vandalized the site, but I did not. I use a unique password for Conservapedia, so I can only assume that this allegation is retaliation for my polite questioning of the site's prevailing doctrine, either lying about me or falsifying revisions, I do not know because I cannot see the edits they claim I made and I am not an expert on how WikiMediaWiki works. Such obvious corruption from someone claiming to know all the answers and toxicity from the leader of that same website who are now completely ignoring me for attempting to get in to my account has led to me reconsidering my role as a Republican and my beliefs that I gained from years on Conservapedia... I will no longer cater to those such as Andrew Schlafly and other site administrators who have enrolled me in a conspiracy to discredit my work due to my attempt of questioning of their beliefs.

    Due to this incident with Conservapedia, I have denounced my conservative views in favor of a more liberal stance on society. After evaluating some of the things that I have been harsh on others for, I have found solace in the furry community, one of which welcomed me with open arms. Such practices have also led me into the act of cross-dressing, which I have been recently experimenting with. I find my new better self to be better than my previous toxic self that did not think straight, and I think I have made major improvements.I have taken great pains in fixing my behavior towards others and I hope to repair some of my broken relationships with other editors that I may have hurt. I am hoping that I can show this with the help of the community.

    I understand that Copyright infringement is the use or production of copyright-protected material without the permission of the copyright holder. Copyright infringement means that the rights afforded to the copyright holder, such as the exclusive use of a work for a set period of time, are being breached by a third party. Music and movies are two of the most well-known forms of entertainment that suffer from significant amounts of copyright infringement. Infringement cases may lead to contingent liabilities, which are amounts set aside in case of a possible lawsuit.

    To simplify efforts to find the copyright violations I perpetrated, I hereby revoke the license to use anything I have written on or uploaded to Wikipedia or Commons to-date. Now these pages can be deleted in their entirely without fear of violating my right to have my edits displayed. I promise if I am unbanned to no longer commit copyright violations of this or any nature and I am content with any restrictions that may be applied on me. If unblocked, I don't have a full goal for editing however I will likely go to writing articles again, as well as working on improving other articles but I will do so without violating copyright policies or violating any other policies.Thank you.Billy Hathorn (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC) 331dot (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    In the first line seems contradictory - his user page shows him as being a potential sockmaster, with the last entry for the investigation being in 2021 [10] - yet I don't that being commented on here. It also is in contrast to him being 'completely inactive on Wikipedia for nine years'. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per my statement and Extraordinary Writ. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Copyright infringement is the use or production of copyright-protected material without the permission of the copyright holder. Copyright infringement means that the rights afforded to the copyright holder, such as the exclusive use of a work for a set period of time, are being breached by a third party. Music and movies are two of the most well-known forms of entertainment that suffer from significant amounts of copyright infringement. Infringement cases may lead to contingent liabilities, which are amounts set aside in case of a possible lawsuit. is quite literally a copyright violation, taken word-for-word from [11]. Ordinarily that might be amusing, but in the context of someone whose copyright violations created a truly tremendous amount of work for other editors, it's not funny in the least. Strong oppose. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Extraordinary Writ.—Alalch E. 19:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was writing a comment only to find my points have already been covered by Fantastic Mr. Fox and Extraordinary Writ, Oppose. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Statement shows a weak grasp of copyright, to say the least. Mackensen (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Writ and Mr. Fox. Queen of ♡ | Speak 20:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I don't think I ever heard of this person before just now. I honestly don't believe their narrative that they went from a full-on right winger to a crossdressing furry, but that doesn't really matter because it has absolutely nothing to do with the reasons for the ban. That they used copyrighted material in their appeal of a ban for copyright violations and completely failed to address what appears to be CU-confirmed socking is a total dealbreraker. This looks more like trolling than a legitimate unban appeal Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I have heard of this person before, in connection with CCI. The number of hours expended by volunteers cleaning up just this CCI alone is enormous. The statement does not persuade me that inviting this editor back would be a good idea.S Philbrick(Talk) 20:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Too many hours over several years were spent by myself and many others in addressing the numerous copyvio and POV issues created by Billy Hathorn to ever trust their account again. The continuing problems raised here by Mr. Fox and Extraordinary Writ (as well as the uneasy sense That this unban request is just more trolling) solidify my opposition. — cactuswriter (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong oppose. This user first repeatedly, insistently, violated our copyright policy and then, when blocked, resorted to sockpuppetry to continue doing the same, culminating in one of the largest CCIs in the history of this project – please see this ANI discussion (which I initiated). If any consensus for an unblock were to develop (which so far does not seem likely), it should be with a pre-condition that before the account can be unblocked, all sock accounts be listed by the user and all copyvio edits made by those accounts be clearly identified on his user talk-page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first two sentences of the last paragraph (To simplify efforts to find the copyright violations I perpetrated, I hereby revoke the license to use anything I have written on or uploaded to Wikipedia or Commons to-date. Now these pages can be deleted in their entirely without fear of violating my right to have my edits displayed.) betray a fundamental lack of understanding of copyright and how Wikipedia works. You cannot revoke the license you granted to your contributions when you made them; the terms displayed each and every time you make an edit says: By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and the GFDL. (emphasis mine). And even if you could, that would have absolutely nothing to do with simplifying efforts to find copyright violations, for a few reasons. If they were copyright violations, then you did not have the right to release them under any kind of license, so any "revocation" of licenses you did not have the ability to grant would be meaningless. Furthermore, you do not have any "right to have [your] edits displayed", so there was never any fear of violating that non-existent right. The difficulty with cleaning up copyright infringements involves the grunt work of combing through a user's edits and actually identifying what is a copyright infringement and what isn't, not violating any of the user in question's rights. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    IP now in Algeria[edit]

    The IP is now behaving with the same behavior as the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1148#IP from France. I will list out my concerns.

    The editor removes other editors' original research [12] while adds their own [13]. The editor seems like they want to promote Telugu i. e. they add Telugu to non-Telugu actors films [14] and remove non-Telugu films from Telugu actors [15] [16]. I'm having a feeling that this person does not speak English and is good with French after one of the French IPs used début instead of debut.

    The editor seems to have an ocean of knowledge in regard to older films without articles and adding missing films. If the problematic edits were not done, this editor is doing a fairly good job. If only you guys could find a way to make them communicate. DareshMohan (talk) 04:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Courtesy link: Special:Contributions/105.99.197.187 LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 04:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ecotechnics and Ecotechnology[edit]

    Sorry if I'm posting this in the wrong place, but Ecotechnics and Ecotechnology appear to be two articles about the same thing. I could be wrong because I have trouble understanding exactly what the ecotechnics article is about. The ecotechnology article is easier to understand, but it is almost entirely copied from here. Perhaps someone who understands this subject could have a look? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The Ecotechnics article is about a philosophical idea, so it's a separate thing from the Ecotechnology article. Someone with better skills for handling copyright issue should look at Ecotechnology, the original version[17] was a direct copy of the link mentioned.[18] However the current article has been substantially changed, with only a small amount of copied material remaining.[19] -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Please undelete incorrectly speedily deleted article (now at AfD): Kalloor[edit]

    Resolved

    See Wikipedia_talk:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia#Kalloor and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalloor. The article was at AfD when it was speedily deleted, something that the deleting admin politely apologized for not noticing while also saying they are too busy to undelete right now (errr.... shrug). It is a technicality, I believe we have a rough consensus to not speedy delete but delete through regular AfD. I hope someone here can click the right button instead bureaucratically directing me to another forum, TIA. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. Zerotalk 02:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Might need to undelete the talk page too, the last edit on the article is referencing it. – 2804:F14:80B2:ED01:19B2:48CF:F504:23F5 (talk) 03:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good idea. Thanks @Zero0000 - can you click the undelete button once more? TIA, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Zerotalk 06:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Please review my block User:Blaze The Movie Fan[edit]

    I don't think there is any issue with the block, which was the unfortunate yet inevitable conclusion to an editor having stress issues they could not resolve. Let's leave it at that. As they may themselves ask for review, given their latest posts about "abusive admins", I figure it is better to simply put it out here and let others opine as to whether my actions were appropriate or not. It's not the usual circumstance, and was done as a last resort to prevent further disruption, but in the interest of transparency, I ask for review. I won't post diffs, a look at their contribs should be sufficient when combined with their talk page. As always, any admin is free to modify my actions without my prior permission if they feel I've made a mistake. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Endorse Blaze The Movie Fan (talk · contribs) A block is the only way to draw the problems to a close. Johnuniq (talk) 08:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse Wikipedia is not a group therapy session. Editors with mental health issues are welcome to edit productively which may be therapeutic in some cases, but are not permitted to act out disruptively. Cullen328 (talk) 08:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse (surely non-admins can endorse too?) Very reasonable reaction to a likely coming WP:SBA. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, anyone can give their opinion, endorse or oppose. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse I'm actually one to champion that Wikipedia can be therapeutic, even the criticism one receives, but that is not without limits and is no excuse to be disruptive. Dennis, your action was done with care and concern for protecting the encyclopedia, the community, and the editor. I appreciate your efforts. --ARoseWolf 10:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse WP:NOTTHERAPY applies here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse again. Blocks are preventative not punitive - there to protect the project and to give editors some time out to reflect when they need it. That's exactly what you've done here. Good block. WaggersTALK 13:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse. I'll paraphrase a hard lesson I've learned very, very, recently: If you find Wikipedia hurting your mental health and/or your ability to communicate, it would be for the best to disengage for a long while so that you don't fuck up and find yourself dragged here or elsewhere. Or if you cannot disengage for some sort of reason, it would be better to say or do as little as possible so that you don't dig yourself into a hole. You can try to come back once you start feeling better. The Night Watch (talk) 13:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1222720068"