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	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	Total
CfD	0	0	0	18	18
TfD	0	0	0	0	0
MfD	0	0	0	1	1
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	0	43	43
AfD	0	0	0	12	12

• 7 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 3 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 17 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 9 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 123 sockpuppet investigations
• 34 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 3 Fully protected edit requests
• 1 Candidates for history merging
• 36 requests for RD1 redaction
• 125 elapsed requested moves
• 4 Pages at move review
• 21 requested closures
• 103 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 20 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (39 out of 7647 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin User:Travism121212/Privacy law - Group D 2024-04-27 06:36 2024-05-04 06:36 move Stop moving this article around. Submit to WP:AFC for review Liz Travism121212/Privacy law 2024-04-26 22:17 2024-05-03 22:17 create Repeatedly recreated Liz Connecting Humanity 2024-04-26 19:45 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C Mirna El Helbawi 2024-04-26 19:45 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C User:Samory Loukakou/Erin Meyer 2024-04-26 18:29 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP BusterD 24 Oras 2024-04-26 18:25 2024-06-26 18:25 move Persistent vandalism; requested at WP:RfPP BusterD Nasimi Aghayev 2024-04-26 17:17 indefinite edit Community sanctions enforcement: sorry, WP:GS/AA, that is (so many AAs!) El C Atrocity propaganda 2024-04-26 17:09 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:GS/RUSUKR, WP:PIA and others, I'm sure El C Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (1 April 2024 – present) 2024-04-26 16:49 indefinite edit,move and it continues... Robertsky Beit Hanoun 2024-04-26 14:48 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:AELOG/2024#PIA Malinaccier Rangiya Municipal Board 2024-04-26 13:12 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated by sock of Rang HD Dennis Brown Siege of Chernihiv 2024-04-26 12:40 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/RUSUKR Filelakeshoe Acharya Satish Awasthi 2024-04-26 05:53 2024-05-03 05:53 move Moved during AFD discussion Liz Bed Bath & Beyond (online retailer) 2024-04-26 03:31 indefinite move Repeated article moves despite recent RM discussion Liz Carlos Handy 2024-04-26 00:14 2025-04-26 00:14 edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/BLP; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses in the United States 2024-04-25 22:17 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Israa University (Palestine) 2024-04-25 17:35 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Blu del Barrio 2024-04-25 17:14 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Daniel Case Gaza Strip mass graves 2024-04-25 17:03 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Red Phoenix User talk:YEGENC88 2024-04-25 06:59 indefinite move Repeated, incorrect page moves of User pages Liz User:YEGENC88 2024-04-25 06:58 indefinite move Repeated, incorrect page moves of User pages Liz Sial (tribe) 2024-04-24 20:07 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/IPA; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan 1945 college football season 2024-04-24 18:42 2024-07-23 06:19 edit,move Persistent block evasion Black Kite Mullen Automotive 2024-04-24 18:41 2024-10-24 18:41 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: Change to six months Cullen328 Reliance Global Corporate Security 2024-04-24 18:25 2027-04-24 18:25 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: requested at WP:RFPP Favonian Draft:Reliance Global Corporate Security 2024-04-24 18:14 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated UtherSRG April 2024 Israel–Hamas war protests on United States university campuses 2024-04-24 00:16 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C Nasser Hospital mass graves 2024-04-24 00:15 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C Grind Time Now 2024-04-23 20:52 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: previously at Grind Time Ymblanter Cheaper by the Dozen 3: The White House Wreck 2024-04-23 20:46 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP, recent consensus for salting Ganesha811 Bella Bathrooms (company) 2024-04-23 20:45 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP, recent consensus to salt Ganesha811 Aegis Limited (BPO) 2024-04-23 20:43 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP, recently found consensus Ganesha811 Deepak Narwal 2024-04-23 20:30 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ohnoitsjamie Wally Francis (CBSO) 2024-04-23 19:12 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Cabayi Over-the-top media services in India 2024-04-23 18:33 2024-10-23 18:33 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry Ponyo Ullu 2024-04-23 18:31 2026-06-26 06:28 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry Ponyo Palestina 2024-04-23 16:19 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish User talk:Leonidlednev 2024-04-23 15:14 2024-10-08 05:50 move Persistent vandalism Acroterion William John Titus Bishop 2024-04-23 14:32 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ohnoitsjamie

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)

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)

Nazism, really?

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

---

Userbox

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

---

This userbox seems wildly inappropriate, and could be easily used as an anti-Semitic dogwhistle, and very loud whistle at that. Especially during the rise of antisemitism during the Israel–Hamas war (not a political statement, by the way). The userbox was approved in Feb 2024. A KKK userbox would be immediately taken down. How was this approved? There are steps that take place to review each userbox, what was the process in this one being approved? And who approved it?

GThis user is a Grammar Nazi.

Source: User:KomradeKalashnikov/Userboxes/Grammar Nazi

TheSpacebook (talk) 03:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Userboxes aren't "approved", and anyone can create one. I'm not sure why you decided to bring this to AN - if you have problems with it, you can talk to the creator or take it to WP:MFD. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 03:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this should go through WP:MFD. I would encourage TheSpacebook to {{Atop}} this section and file an MFD. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

"if you have problems with it, you can talk to the creator" You want me to communicate and negotiate with someone who creates Nazi-like content? WP:NONAZIS. Plus, I’m not versed enough on the intricacies of anti-Semitism or Nazism to engage in a debate about something, but I can clearly recognise Nazi symbols. TheSpacebook (talk) 04:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

While "Grammar nazi" is a common term that is not associated with Nazism, I think that logo pushes the bounds a bit too much. Would be better to use something less suggestive like a book or pen. — Masem (t) 03:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• This appears to be precipitous, and very likely an overreaction. While in questionable taste, I am doubtful this is some kind of crypto-Nazi imagery and would certainly not support any administrator intervention at this point. I am somewhat disappointed by the OP's shoot first and ask questions later response to this. Perhaps they are unaware that the term nazi is often used as a synonym for a martinet or someone who is very strict in a particular subject area? I also note that there has been no notification as required of all reports at AN. No communication of any kind, no notification (required) and a likely unjustified failure to WP:AGF. You may color me unimpressed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• KomradeKalashnikov helps out at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Userboxes/Ideas, creating userboxes that other editors request. This particular one was requested by another editor at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Userboxes/Ideas/Archive 24#Request - February 9, 2024. I don't like the image either, but I'm guessing they just grabbed the first result on Commons when making it. Anyways, not seeing anything that MFD can't handle. DanCherek (talk) 04:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  MFD is not needed yet; just talk to the editor about it, I bet they'll be receptive to someone pointing out that the design is a bit too close to actual Nazi symbolism to be in good taste. They'll probably just redesign it to something more grammary and less Nazi. Levivich (talk) 05:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Is there a Soup Nazi userbox? Cullen328 (talk) 07:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• I don't see this as glorifying Nazism or Hitler, and it is a common term, "grammar nazi", so not sure what the big deal is. We're a big tent, not everyone has the same sense of humor, but I think we are better off spending time dealing with people who are actually trying to inject bad POV into articles, rather than worrying about userboxes with pop culture references in them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Discussion about the OP

• @Dennis Brown I agree. I've often seen the term used and have no problem with it. For me it doesn't imply that the person is actually anything like a Nazi. I do have a problem with the OP though as they've deleted their talk page which now reads "Not to be confused withThe Space Book" with two innocuous userboxes. As User:Acalamari said in the declined Arbitration request here., this user shows up at the drama boards to often. Comments there included suggestions that they were trolling and that a ban might be appropriate. It's ok to remove all the warnings etc from a user's talk page, but making it look like a user page just seems to be another example of the problems I and others have seen with this editor. Doug Weller talk 08:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  You prodded me to go look at this: [2], which shows 10% of his edits are to articles. 53% are to WP: and WP Talk: I'm not sure what s/he is here for but it doesn't seem to be to edit articles or build an encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  If someone's actions are brought to WP areas, it's likely that they will spend a lot of time there. There's also the fact that many big issues are discussed and resolved just so ONE edit can happen. Others contribute in WP in order to enable others to edit. I wouldn't look that much into WP vs mainspace percentages. Buffs (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  To clarify, the post was about the image, which clearly displays Nazi symbolism, NOT the phrase "grammar Nazi". The ‘not to be confused with’ on my talk page is a clearly a joke, no? And my user boxes are also satire (which is where I came across the userbox), I’m just trying to WP:ENJOY myself. Lots of editors have userboxes on their talk page and I haven’t made a user page as I want one place for everything, people can still leave comments. And the comments were removed as I’ve reflected and had a fresh start. How can anyone have an issue with this as per WP:DRC. What is the problem here? I’m here to build an encyclopedia, if you look at my recent proposal User:TheSpacebook/lifeline, clearly a lot of work has gone into it to make Wikipedia better and solve an issue that keeps popping up. 53% of my edits being backend shows I’m personally more skilled with suggesting and building improvements. And I used the correct avenue to suggest it (village pump). But I do have some drafts on my computer which I’m meticulously fact-checking each cite for mainspace articles too.TheSpacebook (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  To add to the above. My issue was that Nazi symbolism is being used a humorous manner, NOT the phrase "grammar Nazi". And I’m not versed enough on the intricacies of Nazism and anti-Semitism to debate anyone on it, but I can clearly recognise Nazi symbolism. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  And I’ll also just add my extensive edits on the Where is Kate? article to keep it reliably sourced and free from targeting her and propagating conspiracies (the other editors I was working with to do this also thanked me for helping in the effort) has now been deleted from public view. TheSpacebook (talk) 14:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Update: I’ve placed all the relevant items on my talk page into a 'talk page banner' (something I just discovered). It looks less like a userpage now. I just want to manage as little amount of pages as possible, to keep it compact. TheSpacebook (talk) 12:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  @TheSpacebook Of course you are free to remove comments. No one should leave comments on your userpage, that should be yours alone to manage. You might want to read WP:ARCHHIVE and set up one for your talk page. Doug Weller talk 12:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Amazing! Thank you for telling me about that. I can see that bots can do this automatically, which saves a lot of time. I thought every user cut-and-pasted the comments into their archive. I’ll get one set up then, thank you! TheSpacebook (talk) 12:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  TheSpacebook, please stop modifying your comments after people have responded to them. --Yamla (talk) 12:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry! Currently travelling and I don't have Grammarly on my phone. Just thought the topic was a bit more serious (Nazism and anti-Semitism) that I shouldn’t be misrepresented on. TheSpacebook (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  You have been told not to do this often enough that you should have learned your lesson. Don't modify if they've been replied to, just reply saying something like "What I meant to say was...". Doug Weller talk 13:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  The OP is clearly taking the piss. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 13:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  By notifying that Nazi symbolism is being used in a humorous manner (my issue wasn’t about the phrase)? Or that I suggested and programmed a solution to the issue of the inclusion of suicide helplines, which often gets raised, in a manner which is more subtle than a banner or disclaimer (User:TheSpacebook/lifeline)? I have now reverted my comments to the pre-reply state and followed the advice, by replying. It’s just a serious topic. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Community ban

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

---

• Propose community ban. I'm sorry to do this and I hope I don't take too much flak for it. I find TheSpacebook immensely tiring. Many editors have made suggestions to them, including myself. Occasionally, TheSpacebook will agree to those suggestions and then rampantly ignore them. They cause an utterly disproportionate amount of wikidrama and rarely contribute constructively to building an encyclopedia. I'm sorry to say, I think Wikipedia is simply better off without them. --Yamla (talk) 14:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest if you are tired of the poster, you skip over his material. I would also advise him, presuming he is reading, to get off this page ASAP. Carrite (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

(I put this comment in the wrong place, but won’t delete to avoid edit conflicts) The pie chart is inaccurate as the Where is Kate? edits have been deleted. Me, along with other editors worked tirelessly to keep it free from targeting her and propagating conspiracies, whilst it was going through the deletion procedures. It can be found here: https://web.archive.org/web/20240327121008/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where_is_Kate%3F TheSpacebook (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Consider making this sanctions proposal in its own subsection, or it may get too messy to close. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Since no else has, I have done so. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

• (ec) When I saw the OP's contribution pie chart, combined with nearly a week of radio silence over the Easter holiday, I was concerned that this might be a troll account intent upon creating mayhem for the sake of mayhem and NOTHERE. A respected Wikipedian made the good argument in a thread about him at WPO that pie charts for newbies venturing into controversial areas are apt to be unconventional — particularly when comments on project pages are edited and re-edited, as the OP is wont to do.

OP explained he was on vacation with his family over Easter and has engaged meaningfully, if critically, off-Wiki. My worst suspicions have been set aside, I believe this is a newcomer intent on addressing problems or engaging in quality control of content at WP, particularly in the area of BLP. I've advised him to do some conventional editing here to build some social capital before wading into the next content swamp, but that doesn't seem to have appealed to him. I would advise that people treat this account as a well-intended newbie, however, as I believe that is the case here. —tim /// Carrite (talk) 14:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

The pie chart is inaccurate as the Where is Kate? edits have been deleted. Me, along with other editors worked tirelessly to keep it free from targeting her and propagating conspiracies, whilst it was going through the deletion procedures. It can be found here: https://web.archive.org/web/20240327121008/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where_is_Kate%3F TheSpacebook (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

This comment wasn't a reply to you by the way, but I’m not going to delete it as per the edit-conflict-ice I’m skating on being razor thin. TheSpacebook (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

But thank you for this comment, I believe it accurately reflects my intentions, in a way that if came from me would sound suspicious. TheSpacebook (talk) 15:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• And the comments were removed as I’ve reflected and had a fresh start. Does not look like it at all. For me, every single watchlist update from AN today has been this editor making minor edits. It's annoying just seeing it in the watchlist. I can only imagine how disruptive it must be to actual attempts to edit the page. I am starting to think they need a ban from editing highly watched, highly edited pages at a minimum. I don't think I'd support a community ban just yet because there have been some good things, I think. Lesser remedies should be tried to encourage the good, and keep the bad in check until they start doing better. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  This was about edit-warring, contentious topics, and canvassing off-wiki (which I haven’t done for any of my new suggestions) etc. Off-wiki, I have worked to pool opinions on topics, so I’m better informed should I bring it on-wiki. My suggestions were taken to the right place: BLP talk page, village pump etc. I bought this humorous use of Nazi symbolism straight to the Admin noticeboard due to how serious the issue is, and I’m not educated enough on Nazism and anti-Semitism to engage in a debate about it, if I was to put it up for deletion. Admittedly the comment editing is a place I need to work on; to note, I was on a train and some of my comment edits were sent when there wasn’t a reply, but weren’t received by the Wiki servers as trains in the UK are known to be intermittent with the connection as they pass through areas like the countryside. TheSpacebook (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  So what we are looking for is you acknowledge the concerns raised. Moxy🍁 15:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  I said "Admittedly the comment editing is a place I need to work on" in the comment you just replied to. And I notified this noticeboard about the humorous use of Nazi symbolism (not the phrase 'grammar Nazi') as this issue is way above my pay grade to engage in a deletion debate about. I fail to see how I’m not acting in good faith.TheSpacebook (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Neither I nor Moxy questioned your good faith, but you're not making it easy. You brought your good faith up, then went on to make 20+ more edits, which included appending an unsigned note to Sandstein's close with some interesting edit summaries. I am assuming Carrite did not say lightly that they're convinced you're a good faith newb, and not a troll as it increasingly looks like you are. Good faith or not, you need to stop or be stopped. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  That's my best guess anyway. The WPO thread is worth peering at, YMMV. Mark me down as opposed to a C-Ban and Good Block tossing him from here for a day for failure to listen to pretty much anyone... Will he figure it out? Betting heavily against but we shall see... Carrite (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• I’ll just make one more comment, me taking this straight to AN was reactionary. But in hindsight, I should’ve taken it to MFD. Thank you to those who made me aware of this process. I was just shocked to see a userbox humorously displaying Nazi symbolism (again not the phrase ’grammar Nazi’, rather the image of the userbox), and thought it required immediate attention. I also should’ve made absolutely clear that my issue wasn't the phrase 'grammar Nazi' too (a phrase I was already aware of). If you look at my specific actions (and look past me being unaware of certain procedures and policies) I hope that editors can see that my intentions and the issues I raise are well meaning and in good faith. Thank you for telling me about MFD and the talk page archiving bot too. My talk page is always open to drop a link to policy if I go against it, and it will be always well received. TheSpacebook (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Before Doug tagged me above, I'd already seen TheSpacebook appear yet again in my watchlist on this dramaboard. While I actually agree with TheSpacebook that the image of the userbox was inappropriate (and the userbox itself is questionable, as it can be read as anti-Semitic and / or making light of the Holocaust), the manner in which this was handled suggests that it was meant to cause as much drama as possible. Besides the abysmally low percentage of mainspace edits, the user doesn't take on board feedback, as evidenced by being told yet again not to modify their comments after people have already replied. Support Yamla's proposal for an indefinite block and community ban, with the rationale WP:NOTHERE. Acalamari 17:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  I said my previous comment would be my last, but I must respond to this. Me bringing this straight to AN was to quickly get the userbox taken down if deemed inappropriate. If I took it to any deletion request (such as MFD), or even WPO, it would’ve caused way more drama than having admins (which is a small group) quickly take action on what I deemed to be a serious matter. There are wider implications of opening discussions about Nazism and anti-Semtism, and with the current climate, it’s best not to open up such discussions due to how nasty they get. The discussion about whether the userbox was anti-Semitic or not would’ve turned sour extremely quickly if a large group of editors got involved, it’s best left to the experienced admins. I’m glad we agree the image in the userbox was inappropriate and could read as anti-Semitic. TheSpacebook (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  I’ll add again, that the low percent of mainspace edits currently doesn’t take into account the deleted article Where is Kate? Myself and other editors worked tirelessly to keep it reliably sourced and free from promoting conspiracies: https://web.archive.org/web/20240327121008/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where_is_Kate%3F TheSpacebook (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Spacebook, you've made eight edits to this page in the last 15 minutes despite multiple editors saying this is a problem. Either stop posting or learn to use the preview screen -- ideally both. You are literally digging a hole for yourself at this point. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  The problem raised in this discussion was that the comments that had be replied to but admittedly editing comments in general is something I need to work on. With the discussion being directed at me, it’s important that I’m not misrepresented, so I’m trying to get the responses posted as quickly as possible. TheSpacebook (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Spacebook, the problem is that: No. No edits need to be replied to. That's you [erroneous] thinking. I'm telling you this: if—instead of rep[lying to all those comments that just needed to be replied to—you ha had said something like, "well I'd like to reply, but I recognise that's not the best response, so I'll step away for the rest of the day", then I could almost guarantee that Yamla's proposal would rapidly lose traction. Because for the first bloody time since you first edited—in between all the noticeboards and requests for arbitration (!!!)—you would have shown a degree of restraint and self-reflection that people want to see. But. ——Serial Number 54129 18:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked TheSpacebook from this page for 24 hours for disruptive editing, bludgeoning, still not using preview or making sure their statement ready to publish, and throwing dirt all over the place. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. But I’m not going to put any money on them learning their lesson. Doug Weller talk 18:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Good block. We don't need unnecessary drama, and TSB seems to have a track record in that department. I would strongly advise them to devote more of their energy to building an encyclopedia and less to starting or throwing gasoline on dumpster fires. All of which said, I respectfully oppose a C-Ban at this time as premature. Let's see if they take any of this onboard. But yeah, there needs to be some changes going forward. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Oh I agree a C-Ban would be premature. They should be given another chance. Doug Weller talk 19:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Good block, too lenient if anything.

  Star Mississippi 01:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• How many times are we going to have to ask TheSpacebook to preview their edits before submitting? This is a very basic thing to figure out, and their refusal to get it is emblematic of their broader inability to learn from their mistakes. They either can't or won't listen, and at this point the community has expended more than a reasonable amount of time and effort trying to help them. Two pblocks from this noticeboard in a span of less than three weeks is flat-out ridiculous. I realize that several editors whom I respect have stated above that a cban would be premature, but I'm not so sure I agree. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• oppose C-Ban We're going to block someone and not allow them to respond with a defense? "How many times are we going to have to ask TheSpacebook to preview their edits before submitting?" Really? Just wait until he's done. Give it a couple of hours and reply. Is it really so bad that he makes corrections/better states his point? Yes, he shouldn't refactor it AFTER someone replies. I'm not seeing DE, bludgeoning, etc warranting of a block. If someone advocates blocking someone and they vigorously defend themselves, I think that's reasonable. If you're in a trial, you get to have a chance to say your thoughts and respond to EVERYTHING people say. The idea that a person's reputation can be besmirched and people think "Well, he's responded to 5 comments, anything more is too much!" *clutches pearls* is a bit unreasonable IMHO. Let him say what he wants. If he's got a point, let him make it. If he doesn't, then he won't and he'll look like jerk doing it. If he's not defaming anyone or doing anything else illegal, just let it roll. Are we being charged by the byte now? Buffs (talk) 21:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  This is a public noticeboard. It is nonsensical to suggest that we should give an editor a couple of hours to finish editing their comments before we respond. Nobody here is that important. Asking an editor to use the preview button is a reasonable request. Yes, we all make mistakes and need to fix our posts on occasion, but The Spacebook has demonstrated a well-documented failure to improve in this regard despite repeated requests from other editors. But undoubtedly in the future they will quote your ill-considered remarks above as if they negate the concerns expressed by everyone else, so thanks for that. The Spacebook made 80 edits to this page within a span of 15 hours, so the notion that they were not allowed to defend themselves is preposterous. Buffs, the only thing your rant accomplished was that it demonstrated that it is not possible to reasonably defend The Spacebook's behavior. In light of the fact that the only defense that has been mustered so far is incoherent and devoid of substance, let the record show that I support a community ban at this time, just as I will likely support it again when we end up back here in a few weeks. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Point is well taken, I think, that it's not really........ kosher, ethical, what have you ........ to run a c-ban mob here when the accused is unable to respond. I would like to think those who have supported it realize that there won't be a consensus coming out of this particular incident and that we can just put down the executioner's axe for a week or two to see how things play out. If Spacebook is acting in good faith, he will quickly correct course. More shenanigans will be received most unkindly, it should be clear to him. He's been posted on what he needs to do and warned about what he needs to not do, let's see how he responds in action rather than blabber. —tim //// Carrite (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see a mob. Besides, the prospect of a community ban was first mentioned several hours before TheSpacebook talked their way into a pblock. I don't believe that we should stop discussing a proposed sanction because the editor in question earned themselves a separate sanction. Given that TheSpacebook has not corrected course on issues that were previously raised the last time they were in the community's crosshairs, I see no reason to kick the can further down the road. YMMV, LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  A similar issue came up at ANI and I find it fairly bizarre. Even if the block was for the same issue, it's been pretty much standard practice for at least 10 years and I think much more, that a block does not end discussion on sanction of the editor unless it's felt that the block is sufficient to resolve the issue. I mean in some cases it is, but in other cases here may be discussion of a longer block, ban or other restriction be it a site one or a more limited one. Some admins even say (as happened at the ANI) that I'm blocking but not intending to end the discussion on wider sanction. And of course blocks and site bans under discussion, including appeals, generally take place when the editor cannot edit the relevant notice boards. I mean even if we put those aside and only take cases where an editor has just been blocked but there's a suggestion for a wider sanction; I suspect there's at least one case a month where this happens. So I don't understand why there's suddenly a suggestion we cannot do this as editors need to be able to directly participate in the AN//I. I'd note that personally I've advocated that in all such cases including appeals, editors should be unblocked with the proviso they only participate about them provided we can trust them to obey such a condition and they don't do something which makes their editing untenable. (This would likely have worked in the ANI I mentioned.) However this has never gotten community support so standard practice is the editor can post on their talk page and someone copies it over. Also even if we did do that, this seems to be one of the cases where it would not work since the block was largely because of their behaviour here in this AN. Nil Einne (talk) 10:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  My point is in response to process. I resent your implication that my response was a "rant" (especially when your response was longer than mine). "undoubtedly in the future they will quote your ill-considered remarks above as if they negate the concerns expressed by everyone else, so thanks for that." Well I guess that all dissenting points of view must bow down to your inherent wisdom and all opposition will lead to "future crime". Are you serious? Geez. I posted my DISSENT with his opinion above. My opinion is my own. If he misquotes me as if to say the entire community believes as I do, you can correct him and an administrator would be well within his purview and capable enough to dismiss such a claim.

  My concern is procedural and focused on the precedent it sets. People should be able to voice their concerns (even inartfully) and make corrections to make their point. While it should be done in a clearer manner than TSB has done, opposing views have still made their points. His changes only hurt his case, not help it. Let it go and this will resolve itself. Buffs (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  Well I guess that all dissenting points of view must bow down to your inherent wisdom and all opposition will lead to "future crime". Are you serious? Geez. I posted my DISSENT with his opinion above. The ranting continues to not be helpful. You seem to have decided that you have the moral high-ground because you are defending an editor under fire, but unfortunately your comments have failed to engage with reality. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• I'd support a temporary ban from project space. Let them show they can contribute to the wiki before a cban. Pinguinn 🐧 21:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose a community ban at this time, but
  • • User:TheSpacebook - In the past few weeks, there have been three editors who have made real nuisances of themselves, among other things seeking to Right Small Wrongs. We have a guideline that Wikipedia is not intended as a place to Right Great Wrongs, but I found it necessary to write an essay about editors whose efforts to Right Small Wrongs hit them like a boomerang. Two of those three editors filed stupid Requests for Arbitration that were dismissed. Two of those editors have been indefinitely blocked. As you can see, some editors think that you should join them. For now, I disagree. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support: At the since-declined arbitration request, I said I had no further plans to interact with this user, so I do not wish to go into excessive detail here, but this user has continued to do all of the same stuff that everyone has told them is a terrible idea that will waste time and cause giant amounts of drama, including the guy on Wikipediocracy who doxes people, in one of the several new threads Spacebook has created on there since the last AN thread about them. jp×g🗯️ 08:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as an overreaction at this point. They've been here four months and fucked up a few times. Who hasn't. Bloody hell, we've got long-term editors fucking up all the time. If they carry on fucking up, then they've fucked up. And not just up, but right up. But that'll be for then; right now, they should be given a chance to adjust literally the single main thing that has drawn the broadest ire: their keyboard diarrhoea. If they can manage that (and yes, not running to ANI, arb com at the drop of a hat would be an added bonus!) and do some basic spadework in article space, then we got a win. And if we are being trolled, frankly, to fuck, then he won't be able to resist coming back for a bit more—the Lokian lust for commotion reveals itself—and we say goodbye. No messing, end of. ——Serial Number 54129 12:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support CBAN. Four blocks and an ArbCom case request all inside in three weeks is too much, and the issues that led to those blocks (disruptive editing x3 and alleged canvassing) are not the kinds of things that are solved with a TBAN. I said at ARC that their behavior was indistinguishable from trolling; the fact we're back at AN again is not doing much to change that. Giraffer (talk) 13:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose on principle. I'm not comfortable with the idea of boomeranging an editor that came to a noticeboard to report their concerns about nazi imagery, even if there's some other underlying issues with their behaviour. I don't like the possibility that this might have a chilling effect on other editors with good faith concerns. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think jumping straight to a CBAN is the answer here. Furthermore, I agree with the thoughts by Clovermoss. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Proposal 2: Project Space Ban

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

---

I propose that User:TheSpacebook be banned from posting to project space and project talk space, with the sole exception of responding to complaints against them. They have shown that they don't know either how to post to noticeboards, because they edit their posts repeatedly after posting, and that they don't know when to post to noticeboards.

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support, particularly after their reply to Yamla "I would suggest if you are tired of the poster, you skip over his material.". Absolutely clueless. Honestly, I would prefer an indef block, but recognize that might be a little harsh. This project space ban would cut their current output by over 50% and would be a good start, and the lesser of the available "evil" solutions. A reasonable compromise. We do not need this person in WP: space, at all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Dennis, point of order: Carrite posted that, not TheSpacebook. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I stand corrected, but I still maintain that they are clueless or they wouldn't spend over half their time in WP space doing these things. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support. A time-sink who is here to drama-monger, not improve the project. We've already lost one good admin over this user, it's time to put an end to the nonsense. Since they seem unwilling/able to stop, a forced one is needed. Note, I would also support a larger block. Star Mississippi 01:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  What admin did we lose over this user? Levivich (talk) 03:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  GeneralNotability didn't technically turn in their bit but ceased editing after resigning OS and from ArbComm after their block of this user was taken to task. It is just my opinion but the loss of their work is significantly more than Space's. Star Mississippi 03:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe you know something I don't know, but I don't know that GN's absence has had anything to do with anything related to Wikipedia (as opposed to RL), and even if it does even partly have to do with the poor way GN was treated by some over that block, you can hardly blame the editor who was blocked for that. I'm not even saying Space hasn't been disruptive or shouldn't be sanctioned, but it seems massively unfair to saddle them with GN's absence. Levivich (talk) 04:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  You don't think it was related to being doxed earlier in that same day? jp×g🗯️ 08:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  I think GN's absence probably has multiple reasons and maybe that was one of them, maybe it wasn't, I don't presume to know, and I won't assume it (and it's none of my business anyway).

  More importantly, it doesn't matter for purposes of this discussion because Space didn't dox anyone and isn't responsible for those who did.

  If we want to hold editors responsible for that, I could post a list of names. If we want to hold editors responsible for choosing to associate with it, I could post a list of names for that, too. Space at least disavowed it clearly, as have others, but not everyone, including not everyone participating in this discussion.

  If we want to sanction people for harassing GN, I'm all for it and could post a list of names, but Space wouldn't be on it. Let's not blame this person for it while allowing more culpable people to continue editing without blame. Sanction people because of what they do, not what others do. Levivich (talk) 15:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support as better than nothing, but still not enough IMO. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• I would suggest an exception be made for the teahouse (but not other help desks). I was also thinking AFDs but I think they can appeal for that carve out after a few months of writing articles. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I would disagree with any exceptions. They can partial appeal as needed, when it is appropriate. If you carve out an exception for Teahouse, we are likely to be back here in a month seeking to add it back. Cut the head off the snake, let them actually edit articles, and grow up a bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking they may need help if they start to make significant mainspace contributions; WPO is their preferred help desk currently. But I don't have strong feelings, since user talk space would remain available to them. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with any exception for XFD. XFD is a quarrelsome arena. We have had three ArbCom cases about conduct in XFD in six years. I do not have a strong opinion about a single exception for the Teahouse, but they would be likely to annoy the friendly regulars by editing their typos as the regulars respond to them. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I'm just voicing an opinion here but I don't think a Project space block would be effective as that covers everything from RFDs to AE to AN to to RSN to AFDs to Teahouse to Policy pages. I think if there is a support for this block, it should be a partial block from particular noticeboards where disruption has occurred and it should be limited to, say, 3 months. But after reading through this discussion, I think a specific page block would be better than a namespace block. If an editor starts to game a partial block, that would also be immediately apparent in case the editor doesn't get a clue and there needs to be follow-up. I wasn't aware of the situation with GN but I hope that withdrawal isn't due to conflict over a block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I get what you are saying, but to me, they need to be removed from the entire administrative portion of the website and limited to actually editing articles. If anything, the restriction should be MORE restrictive, not less. If they can do that successfully for 6 months, they have a basis for a partial appeal. Otherwise, I would support an indef block for NOTHERE. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I think I agree. They are claiming the block is punishment, I've told them it gives them a chance to edit articles and develop their editing skills. Doug Weller talk 08:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Realistically, do we really want them editing articles? Does it not seem highly likely that they'll just start wikilawyering over article content and talking other editors to death until those editors simply walk away from the articles in question? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Better to just give some metaphorical rope anyway, and see if they do. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 11:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I realize that this is the conventional approach, but I'm not sure I understand why. When someone repeatedly drains community time and demonstrates a battleground mentality, why don't we simply believe that they are what their conduct says they are? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

In this case at least, their behaviour has only been limited to project space. Jumping to a CBAN/indef would be premature, as it is better to exhaust all possibility of them contributing constructively before considering CBANs and indefs. There are many editors with TBANs that still contribute constructively, would you say "ban all editors with TBANs as they have a battleground mentality and have exhausted the community patience"? That would clearly be at the detriment to the project. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 18:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

No, I think you'll find that I'm saying we should ban this specific editor because they have a battleground mentality and because they have become a drain on the community's time. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@Matrix: Unless you're an admin, you may be unaware that they made extensive edits to the now deleted Where is Kate?, which may or may not have been disruptive, and made an extremely ill-advised move of another article. In their case, partly because they're still relatively new, visible edits don't give a representative picture of their activity. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

That does change the equation quite a bit, but a full indef/CBAN is still a bit too early IMO. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 07:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe a 6 month block would be more helpful, though the judge, jury and hangman seem to have already decided TheSpacebook's fate. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 15:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

That's a very strange way of describing our normal consensus-based process. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't mean it like the process is flawed. I just meant that the discussion is basically over at this point, and TheSpacebook is probably getting TBANned unless a bunch of opposes come out of the shadows (which is unlikely but not impossible). —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 17:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

From the looks of it the Wikipedia namespace block is more likely to be implemented than the cban proposal. It's still possible for you to scroll up and voice your opinion on the cban proposal if you wish to. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support, per my comment in the above section. jp×g🗯️ 08:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support, also per my comment above. Pinguinn 🐧 09:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support per my comment above. If they don't want to work on articles, then perhaps they don't belong on Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 10:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support but I very strongly feel this won't be enough. I proposed the site ban above and still prefer that option, though some entirely reasonable people disagree. --Yamla (talk) 11:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Pretty much per my reasoning above. ——Serial Number 54129 12:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Like Yamla, I'm not convinced this will solve the issue, but it's definitely worth a shot. Giraffer (talk) 13:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support I think the only way they can continue to edit here is if they are forced to concentrate on articles. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support I have avoided getting involved with any previous discussions, but I do read the drama boards every now and then. I have seen how much of a timesink this editor seems to be in project space, and this would give them a good chance to actually try and improve the encyclopedia instead of seemingly trolling the noticeboards. DrowssapSMM 15:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, I support this, too, and the community ban, as I stated above. Acalamari 15:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - Not sure if this is a case of obtuse or intentionally obtuse, but it's pretty clear where this train is headed. Carrite (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per below. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 11:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support as a WP:TIMESINK. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support I think this is reasonable and gives a chance to this editor to find other places on the wiki where they can edit constructively. I mostly agree with the points raised by the supporters above. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Unnecessary and an overreaction. They have just gotten a short block which was justified. This is starting to look like a pile on. Let's wait and see if they take what has transpired onboard. If not, then it's a lot easier to just indef them and move on. Why make things more complicated than necessary? Beyond which, I am not a fan of banning editors from noticeboards. As insane as it may sound, sometimes there are legitimate reasons why an editor needs to make a report. That said, if there is not a marked improvement in their conduct on the project, an indefinite block is probably not far off. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support with reluctance as the best option available to guide the editor into contributing to building and improving the encyclopedia before they talk their way into a ban. If the topic ban is implemented, the rules should be very clearly explained on their talk page, including what to do if a noticeboard discussion concerns them directly: how to post there a request to participate in a discussion or to have an argument copied over. The editor has a track record of not understanding or not fully reading advice and guidelines, and I want to give them every chance to avoid further blocks. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose on procedural grounds. Ad O above sums up my thoughts. This should not be construed as an endorsement/opposition of his actions. People need a place to report things. It's simple enough to say "no" and close it. Buffs (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  People have spent WAY more effort on this than was expended starting it. It should have been a simple "no" and we left it alone. Buffs (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Time to close? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Proposal 3: Project Space Ban from starting threads

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

---

I think a better proposal than the one above would be a ban from starting threads in project space. This way they can still contribute to places such as XFD and VP constructively but they don't end up starting new threads on righting great/small wrongs or whatever. Clearly they have an interest in contributing to project space, and maybe this would be better for the project.

• Support as proposer —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 11:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

@JDiala uses two quotes that I believe to be a userpage violation.

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

---

The quotes used are by Yahya Sinwar (considered to be one of the masterminds behind the Oct. 7 attack), and (at the very least in context of the other quote) seems to be justifying or condoning violence.

In addition, I believe that it meets and exceeds the bar for offensive content: I would consider it offensive and inappropriate for the same reasons that we should not use quotes from mass shooters or serial killers (particularly of the contemporary kind) on our user pages, both out of respect for the victims and for the benefit of maintaining a cohesive and productive environment.

While I believe that the quotes themselves already are offensive content, I also believe that the quotes together are justifying and legitimising violence.

Therefore, I would like them to remove the content.

Other attempt at resolution made: After reaching out to them, they (understandably) did not remove the quotes, stating that they would address the issue if “asked to remove any particular material on my user page by an administrator.” The administrator I reached out to directed me here. FortunateSons (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I assume this is being objected to on the grounds that two of the quotes are from a representative of Hamas.

The quotes are that representative's justification for their actions, whether anyone agrees with them or not.

By putting them on their user page, the editor I assume expresses a certain sympathy with them but that does not in my view mean that either the quotes themselves are offensive and/or incitement, or that the editor is inciting anyone themselves. Selfstudier (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Not to cast judgement on the quotes themselves or either user's conduct, but

The quotes are that representative's justification for their actions, whether anyone agrees with them or not. By putting them on their user page, the editor I assume expresses a certain sympathy with them but that does not in my view mean that either the quotes themselves are offensive and/or incitement, or that the editor is inciting anyone themselves.

In theory, couldn't this precedent be used to justify the presence of virtually any quote on a userpage that does not directly incite/call for violence? The Kip 19:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The guideline says "but does not include mere statements of support for controversial groups or regimes that some may interpret as an encouragement of violence."

The mere quotes do not themselves constitute a statement of support and as the guide says, "some may interpret", for myself I do not. Selfstudier (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The mere quotes do not themselves constitute a statement of support

As you yourself said in your first comment, I assume one who puts those sorts of quotes on a userpage implicitly approves of/sympathizes with said quote sources, but I suppose we can agree to disagree; IMO, the larger question here is where exactly the official WP line stands between mere support for controversial groups or regimes and violating WP:HID, which may be worthy of a larger debate. The "some may interpret" part covers user subjectivity (perhaps including this section), but what's the actual point at which admins intervene? The Kip 19:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The quotes being from Sinwar (the leader of Hamas) definitely contributes to the offensiveness, yes. Would you say that using a quote from a confederate general, a nazi politician, an Isis commander, or a comparable individual would be appropriate in a similar context?

I believe that the implicit approval of Hamas and it’s leader already meets the relevant bar regarding offensiveness here, but this is quite clearly also (directly or indirectly may be disputable) condones violent action and goes beyond support for the organisation, it’s not a quote about gardening or music, it’s about the use of violence: https://electronicintifada.net/content/its-time-change-liberal-discourse-about-hamas/33376 (bad source, but problematic in the other direction, so probably fine here). At least with the benefit of posterity, it’s quite clear that this quote justifies a shift from less violent to more violent methods. Edit: relevant footnote: Treatment such as excusing, trivializing, or normalizing these issues as tolerable or of little importance (for example, by explaining support of vandalism as being 'humor' or edit warring as being valid for resolving content issues) will generally be seen as having the same effect as condoning the behavior, and may also be removed.FortunateSons (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I am the user in question. I was aware that these quotes may trouble some editors when I decided to include, but I believe I have the right to respectfully share political views (within reason) on a user page, even controversial ones. It is my belief that there is a genocide happening in Gaza, and I support those who resist genocide as a matter of principle. I discuss several points below.

1. The quotes do not violate policy. @FortunateSons claims that the quotes "[condone] violence." However, WP:UP clearly indicates that "statements of support for controversial groups or regimes that some may interpret as an encouragement of violence" are acceptable. The quotes fall squarely into this category.
2. My views are not fringe. Hamas is an elected political party in Palestine and enjoys widespread support among the Palestinian people. Many consider it a legitimate resistance group. It is not recognized as a "terrorist organization" by the vast majority of the countries of the world, including major regional powers like China, India and Russia. Support for the Palestinian resistance is a mainstream political view which has been condoned by numerous heads of state, even Western allies like Erdogan, and is also a fairly mainstream viewpoint in American academia, endorsed by e.g., tenured professors at prestigious American universities.
3. An order of exclusion here will endorse a tacit double standard. I doubt that users would be sanctioned for having Israeli flags or American flags on their user pages, despite the fact that these states are perpetrating an ongoing genocide in Gaza, and these states have been either perpetrators of or accomplices to other genocidal atrocities far worse than anything Hamas may have done in e.g., Lebanon, Cambodia, East Timor, Vietnam, Iraq, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Chile, Hiroshima.
4. While some Hamas members did likely commit atrocities on 7 October, it is not clear that these atrocities were ordered by Sinwar or other Hamas leadership. They have in fact explicitly denied this. As our own article discusses, Hamas claims the high civilian death toll was "due to the rapid collapse of the Israeli security and military system, and the chaos caused along the border areas with Gaza" and that "[if] there was any case of targeting civilians it happened accidentally." There is not, to my knowledge, any evidence that Hamas leadership ordered the killing of civilians. It is also crucial to distinguish between jus ad bellum and jus in bello. That there are war crimes or atrocities in a war does not imply that the war itself is illegitimate per se. JDiala (talk) 00:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

   1. Just for the sake of clarification: it is your view that you (and the quotes) support Hamas and Sinwar, but you do not believe that this meets the relevant bar for the incitement of violence, correct?
   2. I have no policy-based objection to your support for Palestinian liberation or any non-violent political solution (note my lack of objection to the flag, per your 3.). I also have no objection to your expression of support for political ideologies which I don't share, as long as it is neither offensive nor violent. Regarding the quotes by the academics, I believe that many of those would definitely violate our policies if included on a userpage. Just on an off-topic note, fringe is not generally a relevant factor for userpages, you're under no obligation to be mainstream on your userpage.
   3. Regarding your 4: There is almost no war without atrocities, and I/P isn't an exception, so far I agree. While Sinwar may or may not have tacitly endorsed any specific violation of jus in bello during Oct. 7, it's quite clear that he himself is accepting of and willing to use violence against civilians, at least to the degree that makes it an almost indisputable violation of the Geneva convention (use of unguided rockets, the taking of civilian hostages, etc.). I believe that this sort of use already meets the bar for offensive (in line with the old Hezbollah-Userbox-decision), but even if it doesn't:
   4. Those quotes are pretty clearly support for "resistance" in the sense of violence (in case of Hamas: targeted attacks against civilians, rocket attacks, the taking of hostages, etc.), though I of course cannot know if you intend to have them interpret as such; however, per the cited footnote above, the bar is relatively low. I would kindly ask you to consider non-offensive content which still expresses your political views without explicitly or implicitly supporting violence: I believe that there are anti-zionist and pro-liberation userboxes that should cover what you intend to communicate.

   FortunateSons (talk) 08:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The quotes I have posted only indicate a support for armed resistance in principle. The quotes do not imply a blanket endorsement of all of Sinwar's actions or beliefs. I think the key problem is that we have a Western-centric bias. There would be no objection to quotes from Obama, Bush, Churchill, Kissinger etc. which express support for Western military conduct, despite Western military conduct being far worse than anything Hamas has ever done with respect to following the Geneva conventions, among other things. On my mention of fringeness, I brought that up because one of the key principles on WP:UP is that we prefer not to have material which could "bring the project into disrepute" on the user pages. If I can show that support for armed Palestinian resistance is within the "Overton window" of academia and global geopolitics, then this greatly undermines the claim that the quotes bring the project into disrepute or are otherwise egregiously offensive. JDiala (talk) 09:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification.

I believe that the support for "armed resistance" (likely in principle, definitely in this case) is covered by Statements or pages that seem to advocate, encourage, or condone these behaviors: vandalism, copyright violation, edit warring, harassment, privacy breach, defamation, and acts of violence. ("Acts of violence" includes all forms of violence but does not include mere statements of support for controversial groups or regimes that some may interpret as an encouragement of violence.)(clarified as including: Treatment such as excusing, trivializing, or normalizing these issues as tolerable or of little importance). You yourself have stated that it includes armed resistance, which is generally covered by acts of violence, even if one believes that it is justified. Armed resistance (as in: resisting with armed force) is definitionally violent. FortunateSons (talk) 09:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Time to start looking up userboxes about the American Revolution then! Parabolist (talk) 09:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Your reading of "condoning violence" simply seems too broad to me. By your definition, taking any side in an ongoing armed hostilities would constitute "condoning violence." This would effectively preclude all wartime political advocacy except absolute pacificism. It would also preclude supportings things like the American Revolution, as pointed out by Parabolist above. Anyways, the main concern I have is that, whatever standard one has, this standard is applied universally. Are quotes from American or British war hawks like Henry Kissinger, Winston Churchill or Elliot Abrams also a violation of policy? JDiala (talk) 09:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't write the policy, and am not opposed to some Sherman-Posting myself, if it is off-wiki. If I had written the policy, I would have gone for "recognised as a terrorist organisation" and some variety of "rogue state"/authoritarian, but the letter and spirit of the policy is quite clear about where the line is, and @JDiala is over it.

Obviously, you can put any statement at absurdum. For a more practical comparison, I think we can all agree that some of quotes from or about Lehi (militant group) to be a policy violation, such as: Neither Jewish ethics nor Jewish tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat. We are very far from having any moral qualms as far as our national war goes. We have before us the command of the Torah, whose morality surpasses that of any other body of laws in the world: "Ye shall blot them out to the last man." But first and foremost, terrorism is for us a part of the political battle being conducted under the present circumstances, and it has a great part to play: speaking in a clear voice to the whole world, as well as to our wretched brethren outside this land, it proclaims our war against the occupier. We are particularly far from this sort of hesitation in regard to an enemy whose moral perversion is admitted by all. Regarding americans, I would also say that this quote by Trump or almost everything by [3] would not be appropriate for a userpage. FortunateSons (talk) 09:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The existence of a "line" being "clear", as you write, is ultimately a subjective judgement. My discussion of the fringeness was precisely to elucidate that this line is, in fact, not clear, in the case of Hamas. Note that in some cases, like ISIS or the KKK or the Los Zetas or Ted Bundy, there would be no dispute. Those would be clearly over the line. There is a dispute here, and the question of the legitimacy of the armed Palestinian resistance is an ongoing and lively political debate, just as there was lively debate on the conduct of the Black Panthers or the uMkhonto we Sizwe. Considering that this is ultimately a subjective judgement at this point, I have no further comment, and I await a response by an administrator. JDiala (talk) 10:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, lets wait for admin/community feedback. FortunateSons (talk) 10:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• I don't think Wikipedia user pages are the right place for political statements (at least ones that have nothing to do with Wikipedia), but for better or worse we have allowed editors to use them that way, within reason. The sentiment of the quotes seem within reasonable bounds to me, and I don't think anyone would bat an eyelid if they were expressed in the context of a less topical anticolonial struggle (South Africa, for example). If the concern is with who the second two quotes are attributed to, I think we should be aware that equating politicians with "mass shooters or serial killers" because they also have blood on their hands is a slippery slope that would very quickly encompass every major Western politician in modern history – not to mention the opposite numbers in this particular conflict. – Joe (talk) 10:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  The issue with Yahya Sinwar in particular is that he is both a politican/leader of an armed group generally considered a terrorist organisation in the West, and a person who has directly killed/executed multiple people (and likely a lot more that we don't know about). He isn't merely a political figure directing military conduct, but he often is quite 'hands-on'. FortunateSons (talk) 10:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Mandela was also classified as a terrorist for a long time. JDiala (talk) 10:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

And the IRA, look at them now. Selfstudier (talk) 10:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

This conversation does kind of remind me of seeing Gerry Adams speaking on TV with a funny voice when I was a kid. – Joe (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• The first quote talks about murdering Jews. I think this crosses a line and would encourage its removal. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  That quote is by an Israeli journalist, who is Jewish, and who has been covering Israel/Palestine for over thirty years. It is slightly disingenuous to boil that quote down to being about "murdering Jews". It is an analysis of the situation, not some random call for violence. Parabolist (talk) 11:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  +1 Selfstudier (talk) 11:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  To be honest, a controversial Israeli journalist. It doesn't change the fact that this quote indeed mentions murdering Jews, and seems to justify it. I can't see how that is legitimate. Galamore (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  Doubtless, all journalists with a POV different to your own are "controversial", just as I think she is right on point. Selfstudier (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  No, that's simply untrue. Please don't misrepresent my words. She is considered fringe even among the left in Israel and is known for stirring great controversy with her views and style. Anyway, it isn't relevant. She may express her opinions freely, but allowing quotes that rationalize violence against Jews, especially in this time, totally undermines this whole project. Galamore (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  That isn’t what she’s saying at all, she is saying it isn’t violence against Jews, it is violence against their oppressors. Maybe try understanding the point instead of waving it off. nableezy - 18:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• I don't get editors who dedicate their entire userpages to their personal politics. What's the point? Who comes across a random editor's quotedump and thinks "Hmm, pretty convincing, I support Hamas now"? It just makes the editor come across as a fanatic out to push their pet cause. – Teratix ₵ 12:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  I never even knew about it until this complaint was made, I would have thought most editors ordinarily don't bother scanning other editors userpages. Why would they? Selfstudier (talk) 12:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  Without commenting on the merits of this issue, user pages are for the named user to tell about themselves as a Wikipedia editor or user- other editors look at them to learn more about other editors, such as their views, their goals, preferred topic areas, etc. 331dot (talk) 12:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  This is an absurd attempt at censoring another user's talk page. With that said I'd be open to banning all state-flags from user pages. Israel, USA, Russia, Ukraine, whatever, let's take them all down. It'd be a more reasonable reaction than... this. Simonm223 (talk) 12:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  While I think that your suggestion regarding flags could be a worthy addition to the userpage guideline, I would like to clarify that my original request does not include the flag. FortunateSons (talk) 12:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• The internet is going to be filled with people who have ideas you dont like. Trying to censor only views that some group of editors dislikes might be acceptable in some places, but last I checked Wikipedia was not one of those places. You dont like what somebody has on their user page? Dont read it. nableezy - 13:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
• Clear violation of policy: The quotes are by person who is a designated a terrorist by the United States government, and is a senior leader in an organization that has also been designated terrorist organisations by the United States, the European Union and other countries. Based on WP:UPNOT you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense ... Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor. This is no different than quoting other terrorists and violent extremists such as Osama Bin Laden or Baruch Goldstein - this is NOT what user pages are for. I respectfully ask administrators to intervene against this content, which may cause other editors to feel attacked and unsafe. Marokwitz (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  This isn't USApedia, it's Wikipedia and has a global audience. Why should we rely on the US definition of terrorism? 331dot (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  +1. Couldn't have said it better myself. Philipnelson99 (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  It's not just the US, it is the EU, the UK, Argentina, Paraguay, Canada, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. This organization is responsible for a huge number of suicide bombings, targeting civilians in clubs, restaurants and hotels. Its founding charter has called directly for the murder of Jews as part of a religious end of times vision. Galamore (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  So what, the quotes do not constitute a userpage vio, end of. Selfstudier (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  A. Sinwar is not a "designated terrorist", Hamas is a designated terrorist organization. B. Wikipedia isn't an arm of the United States government. We have a userpage that features an Israeli armored bulldozer, something that has been destroying Palestinian homes for decades. Is anybody asking that to be removed for threatening or making others feel attacked? If somebody wants to propose getting rid of all statements of support for any group or state then do that. But there is no difference between the users with Ukrainian flags supporting attacks against Russia compared to statements like those on this userpage. nableezy - 14:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  I've seen quite a few user pages embracing various nationalisms. I don't see why it's important to single this specific page out because it displays these quotes. Philipnelson99 (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  US terrorism designations have no significance or weight in Wikipedia policy. Nor should they. Simonm223 (talk) 14:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  He is a designated terrorist, [4] and his organization is considered a terrorist organization not only by the US but by many countries including Argentina, Australia, Canada, European Union, Israel, New Zealand, Paraguay, and the United Kingdom. Wikipedia is not the place for calls for violence. Marokwitz (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, I was mistaken on the designation, however the point stands that this is not an arm of the US or any other government. And there is no call for violence in those quotes, that is a straightforward misrepresentation. nableezy - 16:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  In addition to the excellent comments by the users above, note I have responded to some of these arguments earlier in my discussion with OP. The opinion of the US is not all that matters, especially since it's not a neutral party in the conflict, and doesn't exactly have the best record in terms of its terrorist designations (the US called Mandela a terrorist too). I do not believe it's an opinion which would bring the project to disrepute since support for the Palestinian resistance enjoys widespread support across the globe, including among reputable academics (in the West and otherwise) and several countries like Iran and Turkey which have praised the resistance. I think it's deeply unhealthy for Wikipedia to consider the viewpoints of the Global South illegitimate. JDiala (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  Aside from my point below which you are going to address, I don't have any opinion as to what you should be made to do- but at least some people see "support for Palestinian resistance" to be support for the attack that led to the current state of the conflict, and/or support for Hamas's goal to destroy the Israeli state- and whether that's what you intend or not, it's going to generate controversy that won't end regardless of when this specific matter is resolved/otherwise ended. I do think that you should consider carefully if controversy is what you want to bring to Wikipedia and if you want to spend time dealing with it rather than working to improve this project. Again, though, I have no other opinion as to what you should be asked or made to do. 331dot (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• I would note that the only purpose of the userpage at issue seems to be to make these statements- it's not part of a more extensive user page where the user tells about themselves. I'm not seeing how these statements are relevant to the project, regardless of whom they are expressing support for. WP:USERPAGE states that "A small and proportionate amount of suitable unrelated material" is permitted on user pages, but not that the entire page be of such material. 331dot (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you that "the entire page [being] of such material" may be a problem in my case. I will fix that by adding in more stuff e.g., biographic details. This will be done as soon as I have reasonable time. Thank you for informing me of this. JDiala (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree with you on this specific point. Although, if JDiala adds more content to the page, then the issue would be eliminated. Philipnelson99 (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. 331dot (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• Unacceptable. So, you guys are telling me that Wikipedia is okay with explicit praise for a leader of a radical Islamist organization, designated as a terrorist group by a large number of western countries, that have sent suicide bombers to kill innocent people in clubs, restaurants and more, have celebrated their deaths as martyrs for God for doing so, and included calls for killing Jews in its founding charter and public statements?

Yahya Sinwar, the person who is quoted here, started his career by murdering a few Palestinians in his own hands. He is believed to be the mastermind of the October 7 attacks, including the killings of hundreds of party-goers at the Nova festival massacre and hundreds of civilians in their homes.

The edit summary indicates the editor's intention to praise Sinwar. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AJDiala&diff=1199038800&oldid=1197157650

Someone have to say this. It is definitely okay to support the Palestinians, but no, support for Hamas, and Sinwar himself, cannot be acceptable. In my opinion, a red line has been crossed here. Galamore (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

support for Hamas, and Sinwar himself, cannot be acceptable according to whom? M.Bitton (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:NONAZIS Arkon (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Can just as easily apply those tenets to those supporting Israel and its army. nableezy - 19:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

That sounds familiar...hmm what could it be:

That Jews are the true perpetrators of Nazism, or hold an ideology that is worse or morally equivalent. Arkon (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I dont believe I used the word Jews, or made the absurd claim that the That Jews are the true perpetrators of Nazism, or pretended that Jews as a people hold some ideology besides Judaism, which very obviously is not worse or morally equivalent to Nazism. Kindly dont make shit up, thanks in advance. nableezy - 19:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Awful misinterpretation, Arkon. If your NONAZIS threshold includes Hamas, then there is a good argument to be made that the mistreatment, ethnic cleansing, and killing of Palestinian civilians by the state and army of Israel would qualify for NONAZIS as well. If it wasn’t clear, I have no issue with Judaism, it is just another religion. starship.paint (RUN) 23:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I need more than a link to an irrelevant essay. Feel free to elaborate. M.Bitton (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I try to stay away from this subject altogether. It is extremely charged at the moment and there are a lot irrationalities on both sides.

In the end this is an encyclopedia and we are charged to remain as dispassionate as possible about any subject. That's extremely difficult given every human being I have ever encountered is biased, somewhat ignorant of many things, and not well informed because of the nature of life, self included. Do I think these quotes should be removed? No, they are factual in the sense they were said by the individual attributed. I find it troubling that these quotes are referred to as "bangers" by someone I should consider a colleague and may have to engage in collaboration with at some point. But I think one should be allowed to have their opinion and points of view on subjects and to some extent express those views.

In my opinion the edit summary was poor judgement. But we all have been there before. In the end, like 331dot, I would just caution the editor the think about their purpose on Wikipedia and if they are willing to invite controversy which is inevitable given Wikipedia has a multinational/multiethnic editorship. I think it's good for all of us to have some inflection on that point. --ARoseWolf 17:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

How about anyone who's made more than three comments in this section leave it at that so perhaps some other members of the community will provide some input. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• The Streisand effect was the first thing that sprang to mind. M.Bitton (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I would like to add what harm do these quotes make. we are over doing our selves. IMO these quotes do not promote violence of any kind we should not be censoring users all i see is two users who have different point of views and one users is making a fuss over someone else’s pov I don’t see a good reason for this to even go to AN. Not to be that person but. I see this as someone being butt hurt •Cyberwolf•talk? 17:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

All I see here is that these quotes are perceived by some to be encouraging violence, per nableezy above this is not unusual for a user page. Many people display beliefs they resonate with on their user page and these quotes do not explicitly say "I want to kill Jews" or "You should kill Jews". I agree with 331dot that the user should consider if they want to invite controversy. I don't think the quotes should be removed as part of an administrative action if the user page is edited to make the quotes a small portion of the content as doing so sets a precedent to censor whatever content users dislike. If the user page solely consists of the quotes, that violates the spirit of WP:USERPAGE. Philipnelson99 (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• At least they aren't expressing a personal belief about marriage. Shiver. Arkon (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
• This would all go away if we stopped trying to be a social media site and did away with user pages. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  We are not a social media site nor trying to be one your comments are not helpful nor constructive •Cyberwolf•talk? 18:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  You are welcome to disagree with me, but not to say that I shouldn't post my comments. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• If we remove these, what’s next? Quotes of Itamar Ben-Gvir, Bezalel Smotrich, Benjamin Netanyahu, Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un, Ali Khamenei, George W. Bush, Henry Kissinger, Mao Zedong? starship.paint (RUN) 00:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I’m not familiar enough with all of them to endorse that uncritically, but insofar as they call for, excuse or justify violence, I believe we should, yes, (see also my Lehi (militant group) and Trump Quote above). FortunateSons (talk) 00:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

That seems like a deep rabbit hole. Then there should be no support for the Israel-Hamas War on either side. There should be no support for the Russia-Ukraine War on either side too, and so on… No justification of violence anywhere on Wikipedia. starship.paint (RUN) 00:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

One can (in general, barring offensive content, which is the secondary issue) include content that isn’t in some way positively related to violence. I made the gardening example above, but a quote by Kissinger saying something along the lines of “let’s do more Cambodia”, would be an unacceptable use, while a comment on domestic policy is not in violation of the rules regarding violent content per se. FortunateSons (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

None of the quotes call for violence. nableezy - 01:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

That should go without saying. Picking sides in national and ethnic conflicts has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. It's purely disruptive. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I mean... yeah, I wouldn't be opposed to doing so (especially for the first six on that list). The Kip 22:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

You should remove it JDiala. Is Sinwar really the man you want to quote? Is that the example of Palestinian leadership you want to trumpet to the world? The man leads a group that committed massacres just six months ago. He is responsible for war crimes under his command regardless of whether he gave the order. He is responsible for the holding of over 100 hostages to this day. He is a violent person who is responsible for violence against innocent civilians, even children. I would not quote him. There are many, many, far greater (and more eloquent) Palestinians who have quotable quotes about Palestinian rights, including Palestinian right to resistance, even violent resistance. But there is a difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist. And it's possible to violently resist occupation without raping anyone (or allowing people under your command to do so), without taking civilians hostages, without killing children. Pick someone better than the leader of Hamas to quote. And for very similar reasons, I wouldn't quote a lot of political and military leaders, including the current and several former Israeli prime ministers, or Putin. There are better Israelis to quote than Netanyahu, better Russians than Putin, and better Palestinians than Sinwar. I don't think it's sanctionable to quote such people but I also don't think it's in good taste or effective advocacy. Levivich (talk) 06:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@JDiala: - I endorse Levivich's comment and request that you reconsider in this regard. starship.paint (RUN) 08:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• I agree with the sentiments of Levivich and SP. While technically not policy violations, replacing the Sinwar quotations would defuse the situation. The Hass quotation is fine. JDiala, using someone like Sinwar as your source is a gift to those who wish to attack you for it. Quoting someone else instead would be to your own advantage. Zero^talk 08:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  I would too, but I wouldn’t be ok with being forced to do so. nableezy - 10:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  One can easily envision some observers of Wikipedia scrutinizing for anti-Israel bias, and simply declaring How Hamas supporters are influencing Wikipedia. starship.paint (RUN) 13:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  They do that anyway. Selfstudier (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  Eh those asshats don’t matter they just need a target •Cyberwolf•talk? 13:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  JDiala will be perceived as a Hamas supporter with or without those quotes. There is no utility in trying to appease those kinds of Israel supporters. None of that off-wiki noise matters. What matters is that JDiala does not use deception, that they are not a ban evading sockpuppet, that they are in the same class as other editors who do not use deception and must therefore follow the rules or lose their ability to edit. Claiming anti-Israel bias is one of the devices used to justify deceptive and dishonest behavior prohibited by Wikipedia policy. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  Is this debate still going on? Everybody should just go edit a Wikipedia page. Simonm223 (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• In this thread, as far as I can see, are a bunch of people taking moral and WP:RGW-adjacent positions, and no-one referring to the relevant userpage guideline, which states that userpages can contain only "A small and proportionate amount of suitable unrelated material" (emphasis not mine). JDiala's userpage is entirely dedicated to unrelated material, and so per the guideline it should be altered. Of course, many admins don't follow this guideline themselves, so I don't think anyone will be willing to enforce it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  This was addressed above by a few editors, and JDiala says they'll be adding to their userpage soon. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  This was already discussed above. Philipnelson99 (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  This has been discussed, and I plan to renovate my user page so that it is more than just political commentary. I will do this once this discussion is concluded (either by someone closing it, or if it's dormant for a while). JDiala (talk) 09:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• Putting polemic or contentious content on one's userpage is divisive and harmful to the community. This discussion is proof enough of that. It is a net negative, and it is disruptive. I will support sanctions against any and all editors who abuse their user pages to violate WP:SOAPBOX. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
• I'd prefer we didn't have statements about political, social, or other issues on userpages at all, really. But since as a project we've decided to allow them, I don't see any grounds in policy to force the removal of these quotes or sanction the user for them. I'll echo what a few others have said, and suggest that JDala might want to consider voluntarily removing them since controversial statements like that often get brought up during conflicts. While it would be wrong to dismiss an argument based on the opinions or userpage of the person making that argument, we all know it probably will happen. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
• Scary and dangerous, To be honest, the whole discussion is extremely frightening. Not just the quotes on JDiala's page, but many of the opinions presented here! The issue is not about Israel and Palestine. I'm totally fine with people here showing more support for Israelis or Palestinians, but this is about something totally different - whether it's acceptable to praise the leader of a terrorist organization here or not.

Just to remind everyone: Hamas is a designated terrorist organization by most liberal, Western countries for a reason—they've carried out horrific attacks, sending teenagers to explode themselves in crowded places, targeting civilians in dozens of suicide bombings, murdering teenagers dancing in a discotechque, families celebrating Passover Eve, people on buses going to shopping, and gamers while playing in game-clubs, and these are just a few examples. The recent October 7 attacks, which saw Hamas massacring almost entire families in their beds, raping people and burning their homes, as well as killing hundreds of young people in a trance festival, is the latest event in a long series of attacks against innocent people. Hamas' founding charter holds Jews collectively responsible for various global issues, including the two world wars, and calls for a religious war of extermination war in the end of times.

Yahya Sinwar himself became known when he murdered a few Palestinians in his own hands. The comparison some editors made here between him and Nelson Mandela is really really chilling. Today he is maybe the person who's behind the worst outburst of violence in the history of the conflict, and possibly the fourth largest terrorist act in history. In this context, the usage of Sinwar quotes, alongside the Amira Hass quote that seems to justify the killing of Jews by Palestinians, is just... mesmerizing...

I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia rules yet, but to me, this is a really red line. It's shaking what I believe should be the foundations of this project. ElLuzDelSur (talk) 10:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• Just to remind everyone: Hamas is a designated terrorist organization by most liberal, Western countries for a reason it's probably the same reason that is behind their shameless support of a genocide. M.Bitton (talk) 10:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

References

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

Question to Admin

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

---

Question to Admin: Is it OK for an involved editor to close a discussion on the admin noticeboard? This seems very improper, and I think this action should be reversed. Marokwitz (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Why? So someone else can close it the same way? The quotes have been removed, there's no consensus that they were not allowed, there's a rough consensus that they were ill-advised. That's the best we're going to do, and now there's one less place to argue about ARBPIA. I think it's a win for everyone involved. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, I as the editor who opened the discussion believe the issue to be resolved. If it’s an issue in the future, anyone can start a new discussion, but as my goal was the removal of the quotes that (I believe) condone violence and the quotes are gone, we can end the discussion here. Thank you to all who participated. :) FortunateSons (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but it's important to note that the quotes were removed because JDiala decided to remove them (when asked nicely) and not because they had to. M.Bitton (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

They were explicitly asked by an admin to do so. Philipnelson99 (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

"Asked" Selfstudier (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify what happened, JD said "If I am asked to remove any particular material on my user page by an administrator, I will oblige." An admin asked, and JD obliged. Levivich (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Help — partial blocks and other new things

I was inactive from 2021 to 2023, so I lost my admin rights in 2022 and have just gotten them back. Since I've not had administrative rights in the past year, I've not paid a lot of attention to administrative matters. Could you help me? For one thing, I've heard about Wikipedia:Partial blocks, but I don't understand how to use them; I'd appreciate some assistance. (Yes, I know they came in before I left, but by 2020 I wasn't doing as much with administrative stuff, so I never paid attention.) Secondly, what are some other new developments since 2021, either technical or major policy? I don't want to go around enforcing superseded standards by accident. Nyttend (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Partial blocks are easy peasy, you just select a page, pages, namespace, or whatever that you'd like to block them from and block. If you use twinkle it's built in there too. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Welcome back! The page Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Administrators appears to be a good resource for administrators in your position. —Sirdog (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Partial blocks are like - "you know what I could really do with right now? an ability to block someone from a page or namespace". It's quite a rare occurrence, but you may know it's useful when you need it. First you select 'partial block', then select the page(s) or namespace(s) or other actions, then make sure you set the right option for the usual options (you usually don't want to prevent account creation as it's sitewide, and you also probably want anon-only). If it's your thing, you might want to brush up on Wikipedia:Contentious topics, Discretionary sanctions, or whatever they are. I confess it's a bit much for me and I don't think you'll go far wrong with going old school and just warn and indef people if they need it until you learn more :) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Not a new development, but WP:/64 is almost universal practice, now. Though really, it should read "just check the /64", otherwise you end up with situations like this. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I always check the /64 behind a problematic IPv6 editor, it sometimes turns up a long trail of problems. Acroterion (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

A p-block is like an article ban, except it's technically enforced, as opposed to leaving it to the user to adhere to or violate. And as mentioned, also across namespaces, and you also get more than one at a time — I believe it's up to ~10 p-blocked pages per user, unless this has been recently changed / expanded. El_C 23:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

P-blocks are really fine tuned instruments, extremely convenient to keep SPAs a bit more under control without needing to get out the heavy equipment; I need to use them more, but I rarely block anyway. Welcome back to the moppery. Lectonar (talk) 08:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@Nyttend I suggest reading though the back issues of WP:ADMINNEWS, it usually has a good summary of month-to-month changes impacting admins. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• Partial blocks are semi-useful. I tend to use them only with established editors that edit in many areas, but are a problem only in one area. As for SPAs, if they are edit warring (the most common issue), a general block is needed to keep it from bleeding over to similar articles, but others may feel differently. Partial block is a more gentle block, which is why I think it works for established editors with one off issues better, as it "spanks" them a bit less than a full on block and allows them to stay productive elsewhere. ie: it is better tuned to prevent disruption rather than punish them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Racist message on my userpage

Hi all

I recieved a racist message on my userpage from an IP address, please could an admin take a look? I'm hoping an admin can nuke the edit and ban the IP address.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 19:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Done. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your quick reply Firefangledfeathers. Just out of interest is there somewhere with a list of things users can be banned for and how long they are banned for? Honestly I'm kind of suprised you don't get permanently banned for racism. John Cummings (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

We generally don't block IP addresses for long periods unless there's evidence the same editor is using the same IP address for a long period. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the most relevant thing to read would be Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses. Though we might indef a registered user for a blatantly racist comment, it's rare to indef an IP address. They change so often that shorter blocks are common. For the record, I would not oppose any other admin lengthening the block. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the link and the reply and explaining why it work like this. John Cummings (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

It looks to me like the same bitter human being has been using this IP for politicized POV pushing and BLP violations since November, 2022. Any other opinions? Cullen328 (talk) 02:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't sure enough. It's been a while and there's so little to consider. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Possible compromised account

Mikerussell (talk · contribs) appears to be compromised. An account with 7000+ edits that started vandalizing in the past day.[5][6] Would like a second pair of eyes please. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

CU data provides no reason to believe there was a recent compromise of this account. I can't rule out a compromise between 2022-03-14 (last time the user edited without vandalism) and a few weeks ago (when CU data would be stale). Thankfully, there's also no evidence of a slew of other accounts operating on the IP address(es) in question. Good block on behavioural grounds by SarekOfVulcan, though. Until the recent edits are addressed, this account shouldn't be editing. --Yamla (talk) 14:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Less good, perhaps, is that there's still no indication on the editor's talkpage that officially they've even been blocked, let alone the steps they should take to attempt to recover the account if they can. I wonder how they can "address the recent edits" when they (presumably) don't know they need addressing. Obviously, the log itself doesn't make that clear (and, of course, ain't intended to). And have stewards been informed? Happy days. ——Serial Number 54129 14:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I stuck template:uw-compblock on the user's talk page. --Yamla (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Good stuff! You are Roman Emperors; I am merely the slave behind you as you return in Triumph to Rome. ——Serial Number 54129 14:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Good block on behavior, at least. I wasn't sure if it was compromised or if the person after a time just decided to go off the rails. 331dot (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Well spotted. I know the feeling. "Woo-ooh, I'm half way there"  :) ——Serial Number 54129 14:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you please block this IP?

A quick look at the history at Sukhoi Su-30MKI shows an IP, User:2402:8100:384e:1beb:ac52:e91e:48d4:a649, which shows them edit warring on said page. Numerous editors, including me, have reverted, but they continue to violate 3RR. Please also RevDel the edit summaries for these edits (as WP:NPA violations): [7] [8] I think this justifies a block of at least 1 week or longer, for NPA/edit warring, so please block for that amount. I will reply here if they keep this up. Thanks! thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 21:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked the /64 range, and revdel'd one of the summaries (the other isn't that bad). If they continue editing the page using other IPs feel free to report to WP:AIV. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 21:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ingenuity  Thanks I thought I would've had to deal with that again. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 21:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Could you please use this translation?

I translated this page from Portuguese to English (https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodrigo_Tavares_(administrador)) given that the existing English version of the page was very limited. Could you help me posting the translation? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fgvwiki07/Rodrigo_Tavares I havent found the correct way of doing it. Thanks! Fgvwiki07 (talk) 09:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@Fgvwiki07: I have moved your userpage into draft space and submitted it into the Articles for Creation program. It is now Draft:Rodrigo Tavares. Be advised, it is unlikely to be accepted at first attempt, if at all; for a biography, there are far too many unsourced and possibly poorly sourced statements.

I note the discussion on your talk where it seems that—five years ago?!—you admitted a conflict of interest with the topic. Have you been in breach of the terms of use and multiple policies ever since? Posting here, rather than moving it yourself, is a start, but I do not see the necessary declarations made anywhere. ——Serial Number 54129 11:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

thanks for your reply. The English translation mimics the original version in Portuguese. It is just a translation of an article that has been active for many years now. I have actually done my best to add additional sources and references. I will keep adding. Regarding the conflict of interest, well, I can not even recall that. I have no contact with the person if that was the case. Fgvwiki07 (talk) 12:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@Fgvwiki07 The talk page needs a template attributing it. I think it's at Help:Translation Doug Weller talk 06:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Dovidroth unbanned

Following a successful appeal of his site ban to the Arbitration Committee, Dovidroth (talk · contribs) is unbanned. The topic ban, which was passed at the same time as the site ban, remains in force.

Support: Barkeep49, Guerillero, HJ Mitchell, Maxim, Primefac, Sdrqaz, ToBeFree

Oppose: Firefly, Moneytrees

For the Arbitration Committee, Maxim (talk) 15:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Dovidroth unbanned

A question about edit warring

Hello, I'm unsure if this is the right forum, but I have a question regarding some behavior I've seen from an experienced user that seems to violate Wikipedia policies.

In those two cases (one and two), on two different dates, the same editor (@Selfstudier) has restored a new addition that was reverted twice, sending everyone to "discuss it", when there is no consenus for their re-revert. But from reading WP:ONUS, WP:EDITWAR and WP:BRD, that seems to be against the rules.

In both cases, I contacted the editor and asked him to explain their behavior, but they sent me away.

• On the first time, he answered: "I have made precisely one revert so am not edit warring, nor have I any interest in your irrelevant commentaries."

• On the second time, he answered: "Discuss it at the article talk page.", and then wrote on my wall that I'm harrassing him.

On the editor's user page I see more problematic conduct, such as telling someone their edit was "lazy, POV, bad faith". The same editor has also labelled me and other editors who voted different from him on an RFC an ""a pro-Israeli POV blockade," but when someone asked them to withdraw their words, their answered "Your edit comment a couple sections above is also inaccurate, I put this down to your being a relative newcomer to WP." To be honest, this feels a bit like bullying.

I'm seeking advice on how to address this issue. Can someone intervene or offer guidance? Thank you.

P.S. I originally posted this on the edit war noticeboard. If this still isn't the right place, please point me in the right direction. Thanks in advance! ElLuzDelSur (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@ElLuzDelSur: Although this is framed as a question, it is really a complaint again Selfstudier, whom you are required to notify per the instructions at the top of this page.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

If it sounded like a complaint, it wasn't meant to be, but I do think some of those actions might violate Wikipedia rules. I just want some advice on what's acceptable here, and what's not. I'll let them know of the discussion. Thanks for the help! ElLuzDelSur (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm aware, Bbb23 pinged me. Selfstudier (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

In both the instances you cited Selfstudier (who I don't believe you notified of this discussion) only made a single revert - both to very large additions of controversial material to articles in contentious topic areas. Per WP:ONUS the onus lies on a person who is adding text to justify it. A single revert, asking for discussion at article talk, isn't edit warring. It's actually pretty much standard practice. Simonm223 (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@Simonm223, in both cases the editor re-added new content that was reverted before. In other words, reinstating a new addition that was reverted twice. From what I read, if someone did an edit that was reverted, others are not supposed to re-revert it. So what I am asking here is if editors can restore an edit that was reverted several times before them. ElLuzDelSur (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

If multiple editors are going back and forth regarding an edit on a page in a contentious issue it's probably indicative of a risk of an edit war. However that generally indicates it would be a good idea to take the dispute to article talk and thresh out the problems there. And, in such cases, you can hardly isolate the last editor and say, "see that is the one who is edit warring" - especially when they are the one saying, "let's take this dispute to talk." Simonm223 (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@ElLuzDelSur Let's look at the history leading up to one of the questioned reverts here: [9]

• April 11 you added in this edit. Which you called a revert despite being substantially different from the removal immediately before it.
• David A reverted you here saying it looked POV, also April 11 [10]. In an ideal scenario this would be the point the discussion would have gone to article talk. It's not policy but WP:BRD is generally treated as culturally appropriate and we see B and R there.
• OliveTree39 restores your version calling it consensus. Based on edit history (and please note I've never edited this page myself) I'd question that statement. [11]
• Selfstudier then reverts this [12] and, quite rightly, suggests taking up the issue at talk. This is all happening in short succession - so while it is indicative of a risk of edit warring nobody is actually breaking WP:1RR here and, frankly, Selfstudier looks correct in their judgment. Simonm223 (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Another interesting way of phrasing "OliveTree39 restores your version calling it consensus." is to write "OliveTree39, who registered their account at 2023-12-27T08:53:38, restored the version of ElLuzDelSur, who registered their account 29 minutes, and 28 seconds earlier at 2023-12-27T08:24:10, calling it consensus." Given the vast size of Wikipedia this is an impressive example of a highly improbable event. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no consensus for your revert either, so instead of accusing them of edit warring, you should have started a discussion on the article's talk page. You "asking them to explain their behaviour", even if framed as an innocent request, is in fact an unsubstantiated accusation of bad behaviour that they certainly don't have to entertain or respond to. Doing it twice, could easily be seen as a form of harassment. M.Bitton (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I've fully protected the article for a week, less than the time this has been edit warred over, which should be plenty of time to get an RFC going on how to frame the lead. Feel free to poke me when the protection expires so I can restore ECP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

IP 62.31.67.177 is continuing harassment

62.31.67.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) IP was recently blocked for harassment, and now they're right back at it - examples: [13], [14][15]. Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

They've been reblocked for two weeks. What they were doing was blatant vandalism, in future WP:AIV is the best place to report. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for 'edit warring' on Tom Aspinall's page

• Tom Aspinall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 164.39.154.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Discospinster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Two other editors, one of whom engaged in personal attacks on my talk page after I reverted a couple of his changes and the other of whom appears to be an admin, keep restoring the claim that Tom Aspinall is of Polish heritage on his Wikipedia page and when I provided a source with the names of Aspinall's parents they reverted it, claiming it was an unreliable source, and the admin then blocked me from further editing the page for edit warring, when both of them arguably started it and never made any attempt to guide the discussion to a talk page. There was no warning for this and neither of them has been able to explain why my source is unreliable and theirs isn't. If some other Wikipedia people could weigh in on this that would be appreciated. 164.39.154.22 (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Endorse pageblock, brightline edit-warring, and you weren't personally attacked. A warning is not obligatory. Reliable sources are required. Acroterion (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Is 'I get it. You're British, its very important to you that Aspinall is as British as you are.' not a personal attack? He also accused me of googling random sites in pursuit of confirmation bias in the history section of the Tom Aspinall Wikipedia page. Also, what makes the source I provided unreliable?164.39.154.22 (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack. You're being disagreed with. You are still able to edit the article talkpage, where you can provide appropriate sources for consideration. Belief that you're right is not a justification for edit-warring. Editors are not your opponents, they just expect you to get sourcing right when challenged. Acroterion (talk) 23:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

"its very important to you that Aspinall is as British as you are" is absolutely a personal attack, it's a blatant accusation of nationalist bias. Try substituting "British" for something like "Black" or "gay" or "Jewish," and I think you'll see how inappropriate that kind of comment is. Levivich (talk) 00:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is very much a personal attack, in addition to being a dumb strawman. Bad faith assumptions about the other editor's motives are a poor way of handling a content dispute. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

(from AIV) "Edit warring" is a suboptimal block reason when the blocking administrator made three reverts themselves. Of the default reason dropdown, Persistent addition of unsourced content and especially Violations of the biographies of living persons policy make a less involved impression and clarify the actual justification for the block. Also, unless the situation is really clear, the response to the BLP violations should ideally be limited to removal of the challenged content, without restoring any previously-present material, as that's not covered by WP:3RRNO #7. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the central issue is one of conflicting sources. The edit-warring violation is a bright line, but such a justification should be used by someone who hasn't reverted. All that said, Talk:Tom Aspinall is thataway, and a much more productive use of volunteer time, including that of the IP's. Acroterion (talk) 23:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

As a separate, but related matter, I wonder if we should have a templated pageblock notice that in the clearest possible terms tells new editors to go to the article talkpage to work it out. The pageblock notice isn't much help, and editors who have been p-blocked end up complaining, rather than being helped into productive problem-solving. Acroterion (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

What am I supposed to do if they just ignore me though? I've asked on my talk page why the source I provided is any less reliable than the one they use and have yet to receive an answer and it looks like both users have moved on to other discussions judging from their edit histories.164.39.154.22 (talk) 23:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I did answer you on your talk page. ... discospinster _talk 00:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

You didn't respond to my follow-up question though, and speaking a language from a different country doesn't necessarily make you from that country. In this case for example Tom could just speak Polish because his wife is Polish, a fact which I'm pretty sure is easy enough to find so I won't bother posting any references for that fact here.164.39.154.22 (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

The article said his mother is Polish, and he speaks some Polish. It's not a leap. Also here he is on Instagram saying that his family are Polish-English (yes I do understand some Polish to answer your follow-up question). He is not from Poland but he is of Polish descent.... discospinster _talk 00:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

The article did say that but that doesn't make it true and could very easily just be wishful thinking on the part of the Polish authors and if the reference I provided can be believed his parents at the very least have English names. I've never seen a source with a direct quote from Aspinall or anyone related to him stating that his mother is Polish. Like I said before, his wife is Polish and he's stated he has a lot of respect for the country of Poland so it's not a leap to assume he simply learnt Polish to please his wife. References to his having a Polish family could also just be a reference to his wife's side of his family rather than him being of Polish descent (which is also not true as I know for a fact his father was English which is also quite easy to find and therefore not worth referencing here and so is at most of partial Polish descent).164.39.154.22 (talk) 00:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Open a discussion (a polite one) on the article's talkpage, listing sources. Your talkpage isn't a good place to work that out, it should be where people now and later on can see what was discussed. Be patient, these things take a little time - that's one issue with edit-warring, the urge to make it stick right now. Also, WP:BLPN is a good venue for getting speedier discussion. Acroterion (talk)

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)