Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	31	0	31
TfD	0	0	5	0	5
MfD	0	0	24	0	24
FfD	0	0	3	0	3
RfD	0	0	96	0	96
AfD	0	0	2	0	2

• 11 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 2 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 5 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 7 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 123 sockpuppet investigations
• 14 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 5 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 0 requests for RD1 redaction
• 117 elapsed requested moves
• 4 Pages at move review
• 31 requested closures
• 110 requests for unblock
• 1 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 20 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (36 out of 7671 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin 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 Watermelon (Palestinian symbol) 2024-05-03 02:51 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Ze'ev Jabotinsky 2024-05-02 23:28 indefinite edit,move Yamla Khwaja Naksh 2024-05-02 19:21 2024-05-09 19:21 create Repeatedly recreated Liz Colombia–Israel relations 2024-05-02 19:14 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Template:R animal with possibilities 2024-05-02 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2524 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Malay name 2024-05-02 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2503 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Tiger Reth 2024-05-02 14:17 2025-05-02 14:17 create Repeatedly recreated GB fan Palestinian self-determination 2024-05-02 11:26 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Antisemitism in US higher education 2024-05-02 09:16 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Antisemitism in Columbia University 2024-05-02 09:15 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish

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

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

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

Notified: [1]

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

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

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

Uninvolved

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

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

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

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

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

  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)

Thank you for the clarity...I think... :-) Buffs (talk) 01:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• @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)

• I support amending the closure as there was insufficient discussion and consensus regarding the source's use in biographies of living people (BLPs). The current closure statement has already been misinterpreted, leading to potential misuse of Mondoweiss in BLPs, thus, clarifying or removing it would ensure consistent and appropriate sourcing practices. Addressing these concerns through amendment would uphold Wikipedia's integrity and prevent unintended consequences in the use of this source. FailedMusician (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Involved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 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)
• 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)

Edits from The Banner

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The Banner history of hounding and disruptive editing

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

• February 2023: Long-term pattern of hounding and disruptive editing by User:The Banner.
  The Banner went missing from February to June 2023 to avoid sanction after clear hounding of User:Another Believer and a return to the AFD problem.
• 2022: The Banner conduct
• 2020: The Banner, iBan
• 2016: The Banner
• 2015: WP:CIVIL, edit warring, and user talk page violations by The Banner.
• 2015: AFD Topic ban?

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)

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)

Now you have seen it and now you can respond to it. 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 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. The Banner talk 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 SusanLesch, faulty tagging of a most clearly notable article, and your history of generally disruptive editing. 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. Buffs (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Last chance to reply... 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. 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. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 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. 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. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

SPI

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? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 23:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Right, but wouldn't the endorsement of 2 admins be a suitable substitute for clerk endorsement? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 06:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Do the spi rules say that? I think it's supposed to be clerks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 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. 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 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)

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)

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)

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)

One of the SPAs even tried to illegitimately delete an AFD notice on an article-[4]. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 10:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Uncivil user across multiple articles with history of harassment and/or personal attacks

I tried to make an edit at 2024 Women's Six Nations Championship on 21 April 2024‎ and was reverted by User:Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel. I requested on the article talk page that they discuss the matter with me, 2024 Women's Six Nations Championship#Request for discussion, and left a talkback to that request on their user talk page here. When I hadn't heard from them in 7 days, I left another talkback. When they still had not responded in 3 days, I tried the edit again and they only responded after I said i would have to report them here if they kept being disruptive. The user left these edit's but became uncivil on the talk page and began bullying other users in the edit summaries. The user has also been like this on other pages and in deleted revisions on their talk page. I admit I probably could have handled the situation better but I am now wondering what I can do as I feel the other user is bullying others away from articles and claiming ownership. Thanks. LouisOrr27 (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I haven’t seen everything. But looking at a few diffs I do see some evidence of behavior falling into WP:UNCIVIL. Judging by [| this] it does look there is some kind of WP:OWNER behavior as well.CycoMa1 (talk) 07:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

So they got warned for their conduct in the past, then blocked, then unblocked with cautioning Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel to carefully avoid repeating the kind of behavior that led to the initial block and now you have edit wars with edit summaries like this and comments like this? WP:5P4 is not really something you can ignore. Nobody (talk) 07:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Another recent example of a recent edit (here) showing what I think is WP:OWNERSHIP behaviour and an unhelpful edit summary. Also WP:3RR broken. LouisOrr27 (talk) 18:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Unable to create user talk

Hello,

Whilst doing AFC patrol whilst rejecting and CSD taggong an article I went to alert the user on their talk page (or at least twinkle did) but I'm unable to create it due to a blacklist. The page in question is User talk:Ri DICKINSON.

CoconutOctopus talk 05:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

 Resolved It looks like Deb got that. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Brilliant, thanks. CoconutOctopus talk 17:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

Uninvolved (COVID19)

This close was within the threshold of reasonable. 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. 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. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Bad close: Despite numerical support for striking Consensus item #14, Chetsford's close emphasised the importance of quality arguments over quantity, yet discounted certain arguments made by editors there (as made also in the previous RFC [5]). Editors argued for overturning Consensus item #14 due to updated sources and the need for accuracy, the close did not adequately address these concerns. Instead, it maintained the status quo, despite acknowledging the potential for a sustainable argument to overturn it in the future. This is a discrepancy suggesting that the close may have not accurately reflected consensus, requiring this discussion. FailedMusician (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
• 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)

Involved (COVID19)

• 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" [6] of "votes" [7] (6-4 in favor of the RfC - though challenger claimed it was 7-1 [8] 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)

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)

"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] [9] of the "vote" [sic] [10] 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)

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)

What exactly do you mean by reality? Can you explain what you meant by that? FailedMusician (talk) 23:10, 4 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. SmolBrane (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• 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! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

   Fixed, I think. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

ANTAURO

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Editorial War Review

@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)

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)

Marketing-related draft essays

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:

• Draft:Sales Blunder
• User:Bhukya Gangadhar Naik/sandbox (Deleted under WP:U5)
• Draft:Understanding The Seller
• User:L N MANISH/sandbox (Deleted under WP:G12)
• Draft:A day in the life of a salesman/woman (Deleted under WP:G2)
• Draft:Science of Persuasion
• Draft:Traits of a Successful salesperson

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)

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)

Ban appeal of Billy Hathorn

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)

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)

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 [11] - 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)

Oppose per my statement and Extraordinary Writ. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

• 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 [12]. 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)
• Oppose per Extraordinary Writ.—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. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Statement shows a weak grasp of copyright, to say the least. Mackensen (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Writ and Mr. Fox. Queen of ♡ | Speak 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 Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 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.S Philbrick(Talk) 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. — cactuswriter ^(talk) 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 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)
• 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)

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

IP now in Algeria

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 [13] while adds their own [14]. The editor seems like they want to promote Telugu i. e. they add Telugu to non-Telugu actors films [15] and remove non-Telugu films from Telugu actors [16] [17]. 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)

 Courtesy link: Special:Contributions/105.99.197.187 LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)