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. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} 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 seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Total
CfD	0	0	0	42	42
TfD	0	0	1	4	5
MfD	0	0	1	2	3
FfD	0	0	0	3	3
RfD	0	0	6	75	81
AfD	0	0	0	3	3

• 6 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 4 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 3 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 6 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 80 sockpuppet investigations
• 24 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 5 Fully protected edit requests
• 1 Candidates for history merging
• 20 requests for RD1 redaction
• 29 elapsed requested moves
• 3 Pages at move review
• 34 requested closures
• 145 requests for unblock
• 1 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 25 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (36 out of 8285 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin DC Super Hero Girls 2024-08-22 19:52 indefinite move Move warring: per RFPP Daniel Case Hamas red triangle 2024-08-22 14:58 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Millennium Dome 2024-08-22 13:15 2024-09-22 13:15 edit Persistent sock puppetry Goodnightmush Basem Al-Shayeb 2024-08-22 02:14 2024-09-05 02:14 edit,move Edit warring / content dispute Daniel Case Ian Anderson (soccer) 2024-08-21 21:20 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Anderson (soccer) (3rd nomination) RL0919 Emily A. Holmes 2024-08-21 21:10 2025-02-21 21:10 edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/BLP; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Korenevo, Korenevsky District, Kursk Oblast 2024-08-21 20:27 2025-08-21 20:27 edit,move WP:GS/RUSUKR ToBeFree Template:Fdate 2024-08-21 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2802 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Palestinian suicide terrorism 2024-08-21 17:11 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Draft:Rica Arnejo 2024-08-21 16:28 indefinite create Sock target Pppery Draft:Dsquares 2024-08-21 12:08 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Pokkiri 2024-08-21 11:53 indefinite move Persistent block evasion Bishonen Draft:Kedarkheda 2024-08-21 03:06 2024-08-28 03:06 move Move warring Johnuniq Israeli support for Hamas 2024-08-21 02:56 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Johnuniq Pokrovsk, Ukraine 2024-08-20 19:48 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Michael Lisovetsky 2024-08-20 18:38 indefinite create Re-salt Pppery Template:WP Athletics 2024-08-20 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 3616 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Dil Ko Tumse Pyaar Hua 2024-08-20 13:48 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Udukai 2024-08-20 11:46 2024-09-20 11:46 edit,move repeated hijacking to be an advertisement for something different than the original topic Bearcat Operation Hiram 2024-08-20 10:55 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish History of the chair 2024-08-20 09:21 2025-02-20 09:21 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry Lectonar Jhanak 2024-08-20 06:14 indefinite move Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content: please discuss on article talk Johnuniq South India 2024-08-20 04:27 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/IPA Johnuniq Israeli blockade of aid delivery to the Gaza Strip 2024-08-20 01:24 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case August 2024 Deir el-Balah attacks 2024-08-20 01:19 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Third Battle of Khan Yunis 2024-08-20 01:11 indefinite edit,move Daniel Case Mike Lynch (businessman) 2024-08-20 00:59 indefinite edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: per RFPP Daniel Case Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Administrators' noticeboard/12 2024-08-20 00:54 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated TheresNoTime Nikki Hiltz 2024-08-19 22:59 indefinite move Misgendering; resumed after prior protection period Firefangledfeathers Template:FoP-USonly 2024-08-19 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2507 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Harardhere 2024-08-19 17:22 2026-08-19 17:22 edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生 Knafeh 2024-08-19 03:58 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: restore previous protection Daniel Case Draft:Inanimate Insanity 2024-08-19 03:28 indefinite create reduce protection level Discospinster Ogaden 2024-08-18 22:00 indefinite edit Long term disruptive editing and sock puppetry. Semi PP not effective. Going back to EC. Ad Orientem Ukrainian conscription crisis 2024-08-18 20:58 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:RUSUKR Ymblanter Draft:Kelly Cooney Cilella 2024-08-18 20:16 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato

New tactic from the Dave Plummer Troll

Previous discussions:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1162#The Dave Plummer Troll is back
• Talk:Dave Plummer#Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2024

In this edit[1] it appears that the Dave Plummer Troll is now making the same accusations, but this time they ended up on Youtube. I don't think the Wikipedia editor who made the above edit is in any way at fault. I think they just found the link and posted it. I also doubt that the person who owns the Youtube account did anything except repeating the same accusations that the Dave Plummer Troll has been spreading online. All of the arguments in the above threads still apply. The new video once again assumes that if a prosecutor says it it must be true (odd that they don't treat filings by the defense the same way) and ignores the final settlement that the judge signed off on. Not sure what to do about this. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 03:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I reverted the addition of the youtube link at Talk:Dave Plummer until the issue has been examined here. Johnuniq (talk) 04:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Nobody objected to the revert (I did notify the author), so I don't think anything else needs to be done here. I suggest that someone not involved should close this. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC) Edited to strike comment 02:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Guy Macon Alternate Account: I was looking at the discussion, but didn't really know what to say as again I'm not that familiar with WP policies. That being said, I think the revert wasn't justified, as it was essentially hiding a piece of evidence in my opinion.

I don't know anything about the "troll", but it is not clear to me why Enderman's link is considered invalid... again from the perspective of someone who doesn't know much. Leaderboard (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Guy Macon Alternate Account I'm not sure I understand what you want admins to do. If someone had tried to add the YouTibe video to the article, this would just be a normal content dispute, but it doesn't look like even that happened. Why is this here? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

This is here because false accusations against BLPs are not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia, including false accusations in the form of a link to a Youtube video that contains a false accusation. The BLP-violating content was removed and as long as nobody objected to the removal of the BLP-violating content, we were done.

However, Leaderboard has objected, so now I need to present my argument for why I believe that the link is a BLP violation, which I will do below -- please give me time to compose it. If I cannot establish that it was a BLP violation it most likely should be restored, but that is not my decision to make.

This is one of the two places I could have started that discussion. The other is the BLPNB, and I have no objection to someone moving it there and leaving a link here.

Once again, please note that I don't think Leaderboard did anything wrong - What I believe was a BLP violation was obviously innocent and unintentional. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 02:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

YouTube is not a reliable source and random YouTube videos are not "evidence." WP:BLP requires reliable sourcing for any contentious content, particularly for content alleging unlawful conduct. @Leaderboard: I'm a bit surprised you posted this, as you've been here long enough to have read BLP and know how carefully it should be applied. Anyway as Guy Macon has already said, please do not post material containing poorly sourced allegations against living people, anywhere on Wikipedia. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Euryalus: see my contributions - I don't have a lot of familiarity with BLP policies. I knew that YouTube isn't reliable, which is why I put it in the talk page (requesting assistance) and not in the article itself. The video did link to a lot of sources though, and it did appear that the author tried to be as neutral and research as well as possible (which is why I was confused with the "Dave Plummer Troll" as that sounded as if an organised group is trying to discredit him). Put it this way: the question was not that YouTube isn't reliable, but whether the linked evidence (such as his memoir and court files) could be valid, and I did not know the answer to that.

TLDR; you know better than I, and hence if the YouTube link violated BLP rules even on the talk page, I apologise. Leaderboard (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Is this a BLP violation?

We know that the allegations in the video are poorly sourced for use in a BLP (see WP:YouTube), but are the underling accusations (found on many places on the web due to the tireless efforts of DPT) a direct BLP violation no matter where they are found?

The relevant Wikipedia policies are WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME.

Background: As detailed on his Wikipedia page, in 2006 Dave Plummer's company was sued by The Washington State Attorney General’s Office for alleged violations of the Consumer Protection Act. He ended up settling out of court, paying $150,000 in civil penalties and $40,000 in legal fees, and agreed to stop the practices that the AG objected to. A judge signed off on that agreement[2], and reliable sources that covered that primary document are the the main sources for our coverage of the issue.

Meanwhile, Plummer somehow made an enemy who I refer to as the Dave Plummer Troll. Every so often DPT tries to insert BLP-violating material into the Dave Plummer page, leading to long-term semiprotection. PPT has also posted the same material on Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, and a bunch of other places, and one place it ended up in is the YouTube video we are discussing.

DPT typically has the following message:

• If an Attorney General accuses you of something[3], you are guilty and were convicted of a whatever crime you were accused of.
• If an Attorney General releases a press release, everything in it is an established fact and you can ignore the actual settlement that the judge signed off on.
• If you settle out of court and agree that you did some things, that means that you went to trial, entered a guilty plea for everything else in the AG's accusation, and were convicted of a crime.
• You were also convicted of other crimes that the AG never mentioned. For example, deceptive marketing is upgraded to fraud and scamming.

In the YouTube Video[4] titled "Dave Plummer: The Man Who Scammed Millions (in 2006)" the narrator avoids the worst of DPT's claims, but does make the following claims:

• Timestamp 3:08: "his villain Arc"
• Timestamp 3:40: "he must be hiding something because naturally if the investigation accelerates and maybe some private investigator online takes on this he might get in legal trouble again how do I know he isn't doing Shady stuff with software if he did before and actively tries to hide it?"
• Timestamp 26:25: "I want to say you'd be pretty pissed if you fell victim to software online being a child or part of some other vulnerable population you would hold the Vendetta especially when the person behind it doesn't feel any remorse and constantly tries to whitewash himself"

Those are legitimate opinions, but they have no place in a Wikipedia BLP. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 05:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Guy Macon Alternate Account The YouTube video has not been used as a reference in the article. It would not be appropriate to use it in the article. The question seems to be if it is a WP:BLP violation to allow it on the talk page of the article. I don't think it good judgment to post it on the talkpage calling it an "expose" but I don't believe it is a BLP violation. As you say, the YouTuber is expressing "legitimate opinions" even if those opinions are not suitable for Wikipedia articles.

I feel like you are fighting some sort of battle here. Do we usually doubt the press releases of Attorneys General, or is it just for this one particular case? This seems like a content dispute that could be handled on the talk page instead of an admin board. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The relevant policies on press releases are explained at WP:PRSOURCE.

I deny that I am Righting Great Wrongs. I contend that I am simply applying Wikipedia's rules for BLPs properly. When discussing accusations of crimes, we don't use anything from the prosecution as a reliable source. Not only is it primary, it is hopelessly biased. We also don't use anything from the defense as a reliable source for the same reasons. The only exception is when we use such statements as sources for themselves, as in "The prosecution said X" or "The defense said Y" with no implication in Wikipedia's voice that what they said was or was not correct.

In particular, in the initial charges the prosecution often overcharges to convince the defense to accept a plea bargain on a lesser change -- see Plea bargain#Disadvantages and issues. In addition, both the prosecution and the defense often publish biased press releases after the verdict in an attempt to put a spin on the actual results. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 20:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Guy Macon Alternate Account Are you sure we don't use anything from the prosecution as a reliable source? This external links search for just the Washington State AG suggests that maybe we do, despite what WP:PRSOURCE says. We're talking about a settlement here, not a plea offer, so overcharging doesn't come into it.

This isn't a case of someone being accused or charged with a crime but not yet convicted (the WP:BLPCRIME situation). This is an adjudicated settlement, but if you wish to treat the press release of a US state agency the same way you would treat a press release from Acme Widgets, That's fine. We can look at contemporaneous reporting:

• Direct Marketing News Washington Settles With Software Firm, New York Sues Second Company
• Computerworld InternetShield vendor pays to settle deceptive ad suit
• Berkeley Technology Law Journal Who Can Fix The Spyware Problem
• Seattle Post-Intelligencer Company to pay over misleading pop-up ads

A quick Google search found those and I am sure there are more if someone wants to look. I think you will find that they echo what is said in the Attorney General's press release. Again, this is a content dispute, not a BLP question. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Those are all examples of reliable secondary sources (Direct Marketing News, Computerworld, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, Seattle Post-Intelligencer) reporting on the contents of press releases, which are allowed.

As for your extenal link search I started looking at the list.

1. Page not found, Used to support the claim "there are 26,000 health clubs in the US", so not an example of a prosecutor releasing a press release after a verdict or settlement.
2. Page not found. Used as an example of a bad page in a sandbox. Original was clearly a bio of Rob McKenna, attorney general of Washington state
3. Page not found. This one is a link to an AG press release about a settlement that is found on the talk page of a BLP, (to their credit the editor paired it with a link to reliable source that discussed the same settlement) but the settlement was did not involve any BLP. It involved a tobacco company, and thus is not under BLP rules.
4. Page not found. This was a standard user warning template on the talk page of someone who violated copyright by cutting and pasting from a www.atg.wa.gov page. (as an aside, I don't think it was a copyvio, because the source is a government page, but this was in 2007 so it is a bit late to try to correct).
5. This one was used in a BLP to support the claim "State Supreme Court Denies Motion to Delay Sagastegui Execution" Again, not an example of a prosecutor releasing a press release after a verdict or settlement. (BTW, the link is wrong if someone wants to fix it. The correct link is https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/state-supreme-court-denies-motion-delay-sagastegui-execution )

I stopped there. I am not willing to check 138 links to find an example of Other Stuff Existing. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLPTALK allows for material that would violate BLP if used in mainspace to be discussed on talk pages for purposes about article improvement, but not anything else beyond that. In this case the user that posted the vid on the talk page appears in good faith asking if that was a source that could be used. Obviously the answer to that question is "no", but it is still a fair question to ask on the talk page. Unless there is further evidence the user poster the video is not acting in good faith and trying to plaster links to that video all over, it's nit a BLP to ask about it. Masem (t) 14:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, please note that I don't think Leaderboard did anything wrong - Their linking to what I believe is a BLP-violatiing video was obviously an innocent question about whether the information could be used.

WP:BLPTALK Says "For example, it would be appropriate to begin a discussion by stating 'This link has serious allegations about subject; should we summarize this someplace in the article?' The same principle applies to problematic images." I don't think that any reasonable interpetation of those words implies that a link to BLP-Violating material must be retained even after the question is answered with a no. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Unless the material is grossly violating even if presented in good faith (eg the type of material that we'd used revdel to remove after reversion), I personally don't think BLPTALK implores removal of this material, and in fact would seem more logical per WP:REFACTOR to keep the material so that a later person, also acting in good faith to ask about such material, can search the talk page and archives to find that it was already asked.
If its the case the link should be removed, that doesn't justify removal of the whole question, and I would, in the case of an admin cleaning up that link, leave behind something like "[Youtube video by (name) about Plummer, link removed per BLP]", so that later that source can at least be identified with some extra work by an editor but still retains that the question had been raised previously. — Masem (t) 13:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Much better than the way I suggested handling it. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Historical Elections ArbCom case

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

---

On 6 August, ArbCom opened a case on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historical elections, after preliminary discussion as an ArbCom Motion (rather than, as is more common, after a case request). In preliminary discussion, ArbCom said that the case would be a "hybrid" case because it would involve private evidence as well as public evidence. I submitted a preliminary statement saying that I urged ArbCom to make as much of the evidence public as possible, in order to maintain the trust of the community. If evidence of off-wiki canvassing or off-wiki harassment was mailed to ArbCom, as may have been the case, that evidence should be made available, even if the name of the submitter is withheld for privacy reasons. ArbCom opened the case on 6 August, with a closing date for evidence on 20 August. At this point, on 14 August, the Evidence section consists of one statement that is not really evidence but only a statement, and there has been one entry in the Talk section, mine. One reason for the lack of response may be that ArbCom did not post a notice on WP:AN of the opening of the case. Some community members may not know that there is a case. Another related reason is that ArbCom has not stated what the scope of the case is. Even persons who know that the case is open may not know whether they have relevant evidence to provide.

I can think of three reasons why ArbCom might not have publicized the case:

• 1. ArbCom intends to deal with the case quietly.
• 2. ArbCom has been preoccupied with other matters or distracted.
• 3. ArbCom has been busy behind the scenes dealing with email submissions.

The first, dealing with the case quietly, is a mistake, unless ArbCom is deciding to close the case as improvidently opened. If ArbCom concludes the case with little or no public evidence, and takes action against editors, the community will be dissatisfied with the Star Chamber proceeding. If ArbCom concludes the case with little or no public evidence, and takes no action, the community may see a whitewash.

If either the second or the third explanation, which are the good-faith explanations, is true, then ArbCom should, in my opinion, extend the dates for the case, and should make a statement as to what the scope of the case is. I know that much of the work of ArbCom is invisible. But this case is now partly visible and partly invisible, which is problematic. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

When was the last case opening that ArbCom created a central notification for? Doing so is not part of the usual procedures and the only one I could find with a quick search was Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_12#Fram_case_opened from 2019. The case's scope is "Conduct in the topic area of historical elections" and displayed at the top of the case's pages. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

And the only reason that happened for FRAM was because of WP:FRAMGATE; the community had been demanding very vocally that ArbCom take it up, and the WMF acquiesced. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 02:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The ArbCom didn't announce on this noticeboard that they had opened the case, but they did post here that they were considering doing so and invited comments, so it's hardly as if they were trying to keep the case as some sort of a secret. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't think that ArbCom was trying to keep the case quiet. That was the least likely explanation. But if there was private evidence, then ArbCom should make as much of the evidence public as is possible. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

This not a matter for the admin noticeboard. Make your point that 'ArbCom should make as much of the evidence public as is possible' on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historical elections/Evidence. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it's a shame Robert that you start from a false premise - ArbCom did not advertise this case - and then use that false premise to cast aspersions upon the Arbitration Committee. I also am surprised you're unaware of how ArbCom works with evidence in hybrid cases in expecting the evidence to be public at this point. In the last several hybrid cases - including this year - ArbCom makes public the private evidence that can be made public at the end of the evidence phase. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Andrew Davidson's behavior at DYK

A couple of weeks ago, Andrew Davidson showed up at WT:DYK with Special:Diff/1231899272, in which he called a hook "nonsense" and the nominator "The main culprit". He implied that DYK was not "a respectable publication" and expressed a desire to "shame" DYK in order to "deter sloppy work". Since then, he's been posting reports on WP:ERRORS#Current DYK almost every day complaining about something. Some of his complaints are legitimate, some are not, but the overall tenor seems to be the shaming theme. Yesterday he wrote It's puzzling to me that others have difficulty in spotting such issues which leap out to me.

Multiple people have requested that instead of waiting for the problems he spots to hit the main page, he could be providing a more valuable service by pointing out mistakes before they get published. Yesterday I requested on his talk page that he stop. In response he gave a long excuse why he's going to keep doing what he's doing, and took another dig at the DYK crew, calling out "careless oversights". He even saw fit to take a dig at how we organize the page we use for our internal discussions, asking "How hard is that?" with reference to his doing something his own way. I guess because he knows better what works for us than the people who work here every day?

All of this would normally not be enough to drag somebody to AN, but I see he's got a long history of this kind of disruptive behavior and is no stranger to WP:AN. In 2017, he avoided any official sanction but was chided for being disruptive at RfA. In 2020, he was warned about bad-faith editing and "advised to take seriously the feedback (and in some cases warnings) offered by many, particularly around personal attacks". In 2021, he was TBANNED from deletion discussions.

It seems inevitable that what's going on at DYK will end up here eventually, so I'm bringing it up now in the hopes of avoiding additional disruption. Nobody's denying that errors get made at DYK. I've certainly complained about my share. But Andrew needs to understand that just standing on the sidelines throwing darts at the people trying to get the work done isn't useful. Like so many parts of enwiki, DYK is understaffed and overworked. We don't need critics, we need more people helping to do the work. RoySmith (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

If those responsible for creating DYK content aren't prepared to do the necessary work to get it right, why should anyone else feel obliged to fix it for them? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the previous few days of ERRORS I don't see anything actionable. Pointing out issues at the forum for noting such errors isn't disruption: speaking as someone who has only infrequently dealt with the DYK system, it's byzantine and not a great place to browse discussions on hooks. I don't think his behavior counts as "standing on the sidelines" in this case (he is contributing, just not to the degree or in the venue you would prefer.)

Andrew might be occasionally more pedantic about aspects of the criteria than the regulars at DYK, but I don't see how calling out facts about DYK's regular issues is disruptive on the face. It seems like the fact there isn't any sort of disincentive for posting sloppy or erroneous work to DYK is one of the problems with the process, and should probably be explored if improving the quality of what gets posted is the main goal. I'm not a fan of much of Andrew's conduct, but I don't think poor behavior in deletion discussions is really germane to this situation. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Waiting until the last moment to raise issues is a long-standing problem at DYK, and incredibly annoying. But I was rather surprized to see this complaint being initiated by a regular offender, though he doesn't wait until they are actually on MP. Pot and kettle? Johnbod (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Having problematic or plainly wrong DYK entries on the Main Page is a long-standing problem of DYK, and incredibly annoying. Today, Andrew Davidson raised a complaint about the island hook at WP:ERRORS. But that hook was only in the DYK since yesterday 16.29, earlier there was a different hook[5]. Doesn't give people much time to check these... Fram (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

    There are many excellent editors involved with DYK, both writing/nominating and reviewing/administrating but the structure and institution of DYK has perennially prioritised quantity over quality, which results in poor hooks and poor-quality articles repeatedly hitting the main page. And historically, DYK has failed to get its own house in order, leaving it to others to point out the problems. While I'm sure we would all appreciate it if Andrew was more constructive in his criticism, DYK is probably more of a net-negative than he is at this point. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

    It may be partially a time-on-task matter, rather than quantity, but with humans involved, mistakes, miscommunications, misunderstandings are going to happen, all the way until it roles off the page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

    Sure, but DYK is about filling sets regardless of whether the article is 1500 characters thrown together from a few marginally reliable gossip sites or 15,000 words built from days research using book sources, and the compulsory quid pro quo makes superficial reviews by people with no interest or knowledge of the subject a feature rather than a bug. And instead of requiring higher-quality articles, we just have an extremely complicated set of rules, additional rules, and supplementary rules. All because DYK is designed to keep the backlog down, not encourage quality. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

    Interesting, I wonder if anyone really involved in DYK would care to comment, with ways to address, it seems like there could be ways to address some of that (although since there is no real system to qualify writers, qualifying editors seems a real stretch) but 'better articles' might still be a point to go for. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

    There are steps currently being taken to try to bring the focus away from pushing low-quality articles onto the main page. For example, we have started to "time-out" nominations that clearly aren't going anywhere and will cause nothing but controversy when actually on the main page. This may seem like a very small step, but it turns out that editors get rather unhappy at even the thought of their nominations not being accepted, and so we have to deal with the histrionics. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

    This is an incorrect assessment of what is happening at DYK, and nothing will be fixed if this is problem is misdiagnosed like this. DYK is not about filling sets, nor is it designed to keep the backlog down. DYK regulars would be I'm sure extremely happy to have less sets and less work. Those are both symptoms of the core issue, which is that nominators don't like being rejected, and reviewers don't go out to upset people. Quite basic, people-focused issues (the same that cause trouble occasionally at GAN), rather than some apparent desire to push out sets. CMD (talk) 11:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Well, just from watching over the years, volunteer editor-general for Main Page DYK is probably bound to happen. I suppose counseling him to tone it down (and telling him, we are almost all sometimes less than satisfied at what others do, here) might help, as such annoyance, particularly when strident, eventually might boomerang -- there are just more chances to eventually fall down when doing such an in-others-face critiquing role, over and over again. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• Andrew violated no rules, I'm afraid. Just a matter of manners at worst, which isn't actionable. BorgQueen (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  When I was a kid, bad manners earned me an early bedtime without supper. But I guess that has gone out of style. RoySmith (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• This all feels very similar to how Andrew interacts with ITN: raising a mixture of legitimate and illegitimate criticisms in what is almost certainly good faith but arguably the least helpful way possible; complaining that things should be done his preferred way - even when (sometimes multiple) consensuses have not supported his changes; and/or refusing to see if there is a consensus for his preferences. This in unquestionably annoying and has understandably pissed off multiple people, but fortunately or unfortunately (depending on your point of view) it rarely goes beyond annoying into actionable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs) 19:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Echoing this, pretty much. Unfortunately par the course for Andrew, it's genuinely annoying behavior but unlike his behavior at AfDs it's not disruptive enough to sanction. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I have wondered why he seems to prefer checking sets that are already on the main page (i.e. working against the process) to checking sets that are yet to appear (i.e. working constructively with the process). It seems he likes to appear as a lone ranger figure—turning up, shooting a few bullets and one-liners, and abruptly departing. Works for the cameras, not so much for the well-being of the Wild West town (to continue this increasingly involved analogy). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

If one of the goals is overall improvement of DYK, with error frequency the primary metric for evaluating the process, surely noting problems that did make it to the main page is still a solid positive even if it's too late fix them individually? JoelleJay (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I've agreed with Andrew Davidson in any Wikipedia-space discussion ever, and yet somehow I don't see any problem at all with what he's been doing at DYK. In fact I think it's very important that if we're going to be gauging overall DYK process success by the frequency it has errors we should make sure that that percentage is actually accurate and not just a sampling of whichever hooks a knowledgeable passer-by happens to notice might be problematic during the narrow windows they run. I know there have been several occasions where I've seen an issue but then realized there were only a couple hours left or the slot had already passed and figured bringing it up wouldn't be appreciated. In retrospect I don't think that was correct; just because a hook can't be pulled anymore doesn't mean an error didn't make it to the main page, and it's still helpful to acknowledge that it happened. Also the first few times I noticed something I didn't even know where to comment...the nom on the talk page is already closed, and clicking on the DYK link in the talk page banner just takes you to the template page which is useless for anyone trying to find out what DYK is or where to discuss the hook somewhere other than a TP that is almost by definition going to have almost no one watching it... David is right about "Byzantine". JoelleJay (talk) 18:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I have long said, one of those "joking, but not really" sort of comments, that I avoid Front Page processes, preferring to stick to less contentious areas like arbitration enforcement. Personally I find DYK a really unpleasant process to go through precisely because of the tension on display in this discussion - and indeed this process once introduced an error into a hook I wrote which was just incredibly frustrating to have happen after jumping through the various hoops DYK requires. I have a great deal of sympathy and respect for the work Andrew, and others like him, who is doing his best to try and serve our readers by making sure that we are giving them accurate information and is investing real time, effort, and care to do this. I also have a great deal of sympathy for Roy, and others like him, who is also doing his best and who is doing so in a system that is designed to reduce errors with multiple steps and checks only to then still be criticized by someone who is making no effort to participate until it's "too late" despite the real time, effort, and care he has invested. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Please note that I have participated in DYK in a variety of ways over the years. I have nominated over 100 articles, including articles created by other editors at outreach events. The nominations require QPQ reviews and so I've done lots of those too. And I've participated in DYK internal discussions over the years too. The only thing I've not gotten involved in is set-building and promotion of the queues. That's because it's quite a complex process and I don't have admin rights.

So, the idea that I'm purely lurking outside the process waiting to pounce is mistaken. I had a DYK of my own on the main page recently (Doris "Lucki" Allen) and I have another one in the pipeline right now (Quintus Quincy Quigley). My activity at WP:ERRORS arises because I usually read the main page every morning and most of the DYK hooks are new to me as there are a lot of them. I like browsing them, take an interest in the ones that attract my attention and take it from there. Sometimes I thank; sometimes I give a barnstar; sometimes I report an error; sometimes I go down the rabbit-hole; and otherwise I just move on.

Andrew🐉(talk) 19:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson, re: That's because it's quite a complex process and I don't have admin rights, you don't need admin rights to promote hooks to sets. With over 100 nominations, and the amount of time you spend scrutinizing DYK on the main page, you should have zero problem with the complexity. It's not rocket science, and there is always someone around to tell you what you've done wrong this time. Valereee (talk) 18:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Helping to build sets has been a great opportunity for me to learn. I'm not perfect at it, but the people at WT:DYK, and especially the admins promoting sets, have been very helpful, kind, and patient throughout the process. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Roy and Andrew both agree that the error rate at DYK is too high. I would hope there would be a way for them to set aside differences and work together on solving that mutually-recognized problem. On the one hand, Roy, I don't think it's fair to expect Andrew to look at queues and preps and not the main page when there are still bona-fide main page errors several times per week. On the other hand, Andrew, pointing out main page errors doesn't help stop them from happening; there would be fewer main-page errors if we caught them in the queue or in the prep.

As always, I think everyone should listen to me: the reason this is happening is because we are running too many hooks per day. We don't have the human resources needed to create and vet 9 hooks every day. If we cut the number of hooks like in half, the same number of volunteers could spend twice as much time on each one in the review, prep, and queue stages, significantly reducing the number of errors that hit the main page. In the simplest form: if we cut the number of hooks in half, the same amount of time Andrew spends each day reviewing the main page hooks could be spend reviewing the main page and the next queue. That's the real solution here. Levivich (talk) 00:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich May I quote you the next time somebody suggests we go to two sets per day because we need to churn through the backlog? RoySmith (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

YES! And ping me so I can take them to ANI. :-D I remember this being raised/discussed at WT:DYK before I did the May and June error reports, and it seemed nobody at WT:DYK really wanted to seriously consider this. But I am convinced: one month of half as many hooks, and we can all watch the error rate shoot up from 93% to 99%. Levivich (talk) 00:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I sincerely hope we never have a month with an error rate of 99%. RoySmith (talk) 01:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I support the idea Levivich is proposing here. I think it would be helpful to 1) get consensus here or someone where else from a broader community to prioritize this so you're not quoting a single person but rather consensus and 2) for the DYK regulars to decide, broadly speaking, what hooks will be prioritized. I'm guessing this would default to First in, first out but I would suggest something that spread the wealth (in other words penalize the DYK writing regulars who might have multiple hooks in prep or who've recently had something run) would be a better method. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

For spreading the wealth, maybe a one-hook-per-nom-per-set rule? Levivich (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I would be fine with that partially. We would also need to figure out if it works the same way for editors who nominate articles started by non-DYK regulars or non-DYK editors in general. I say partially because it should be stricter than a one-hook-per-nom-per-set rule because a set typically already has one editor per hook per set. SL93 (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

One-hook-per-nom-per-3-sets could work but it would be a pain to manage for prep builders, I imagine. Levivich (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

As someone doing a bit of work in prep over the last couple months, it really would be. That's the biggest issue from my point of view. When building sets, I'm typically looking at Template:Did you know/Queue#Prep areas, placing good hooks in appropriate preps to balance out bios, sports, music, etc., I'm not usually opening an individual queue and never focused on who already had pages in another prep or queue. This idea would involve opening up at least five queues at a time, to see two forward and back, in case anything in a slot behind that prep area has been filled. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I suspect people are too attached to WP:NOTPAPER. That's a great essay (whoops, I just checked, it's a full fledged policy) when applied to all of mainspace. But when it comes to the front page sections, there really is a space limitation; the exact number of pixels DYK is allowed to consume is a little squishy, but basically we have to play nice with our space or the OTD folks will want to know why. So, as I've said many times on WT:DYK, if we have a fixed output rate and the input rate (i.e. nominations) is bigger, we need to find another way to make it all balance. Any freshman engineering student who has taken Control Theory 101 knows that. As does anybody who has ever confronted a toilet which is draining slower than it's filling. It's all the same math. But people get bent out of shape over the idea that we need to judge submissions on their merits and reject the ones that aren't as good as the others. RoySmith (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

People getting bent out of shape is why I suggested both of my ideas. A community consensus with a selection criteria that has at least some objectivity to it is going to be perceived as more fair by nomination writers. I do think it important to also remember the pride and importance nomination writers have in the DYK process so of course there is going to be disappointment at being turned down. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't "agree that the error rate at DYK is too high" because I don't think that we know what the error rate is. We don't know this because we don't measure or record it. For example, WP:ERRORS is a noticeboard that doesn't keep archives. Instead of keeping records and statistics, the culture at WP:ERRORS is to shut down and clear discussion and reports as quickly as possible. And also, as we see in this case, to shoot the messenger too.

I keep a personal archive for my own interest and reference but this is quite haphazard as I don't patrol the main page systematically. From this, it seems that I've discussed about 80 DYKs at WP:ERRORS over about 8 years. This doesn't seem especially high -- it's certainly less than 1% of the total.

Now DYK does put quite a lot of effort into statistics -- see WP:DYKSTATS. It systematically records the number of nominations made by editors (for the QPQ requirement) and it records the readership for hooks, which is the main metric and goal. We might do more but DYK is so high volume that some script and template work would be needed.

Andrew🐉(talk) 06:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

No, Andrew, this is not shooting the messenger. If you started with, "I see a problem, how can I help fix it?", you would have been welcomed with open arms. Instead, you started with "If DYK published regular corrections then the shame might be a useful check and balance, helping to deter sloppy work." You should take this as a life lesson: if you see a group of people who are volunteering their time to do a job, insulting them and holding them up for public shaming because they're not doing as good a job as you want, isn't the way to get them to do a better job. RoySmith (talk) 11:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 200#DYK error rate. But if you don't think the error rate is too high, then fine, go work on something else. Levivich (talk) 12:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• If I may butt in as someone who was very active at DYK and then stepped away for some of the reasons that have arisen above: the issue we circle back to in these discussions, the common thread across all the threads about sub-optimal behavior and structure, is the number of hooks DYK attempts to run. Fixing that means increasing the human resources we put into the problem, or reducing the number of hooks we run. Both these approaches have proved difficult; because we quickly run out of editors willing to do the review work, and because we are very reluctant as a community to approve fewer hooks. Until we change that, we're going to end up having these conversations (that give me a strong sense of deja vu); every so often. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Like Vanamonde I've been very active at DYK and have more or less stepped away. IMO DYK is a problem that can't be solved because the people doing the work are vastly outnumbered by the people making the nominations, and almost all solutions require either (or both)

1. More work from nominators
2. Fewer approved nominations

Both of these are unpopular with nominators. Which means we can't get consensus for any of them. Valereee (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• If Andrew's waiting until items are already on MP, or about to appear, there may be a good reason: if you're really good a spotting errors (or potential errors requiring some research to check), every step you move upstream (in DYK's fairly porous checking process) to apply that talent rapidly increases the number of errors/potential errors you find yourself uncovering and calling out. It can be overwhelming. DYK has always had one or two people who fulfilled the role of last-moment checker, and thank goodness for them. But it's a very dispiriting role, and people fulfilling it can become sour, because you come to feel like too many people upstream are asleep at the switch. EEng 18:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
• Perhaps come up with metrics to require the DYK factoid to be central to the article. What you may lose in quirky can be made up for with more natural focus on a supportable central article factoid (by writer and editor), better streamlined articles, and also prevent having the reader be less likely to go, 'what a way to misrepresent a subject' or 'I can barely find that factoid' in the article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  Strongly disagree. That the facts presented are odd or intriguing, so that the reader is drawn in, is DYK's great strength. The single thing that would most improve DYK quality would be to drop the ridiculous "newness" criterion: articles have tobe nominated within 14 (?) days of creation. That pretty much guarantees that inchoate, half-baked articles are will be shoveled onto the main page. EEng 13:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  Well, to the extent it is some kind of "strength", that clickbait aspect has always been discordant and caused discord. Also, at least in the past there was no real way to judge interesting as a group, nor enforce it. At any rate, "central" is not a synonym for "uninteresting". (And a bit contrary to your assumption, it is more likely that most DYK articles are planned practically in full by their writer for the front page spot before it was written.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  The clickbait criterion does cause issues, but "central" seems open to similar vagueness. What is central to Johann Joseph Dömling? (It would also create more entries overall, as we do get at least some articles rejected for lack of good hooks.) CMD (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  That's why you come up with metrics, like naturally mentioned in the lead, or a paragraph, or type of fact. For example with Dömling, it might be something about their path breaking. Nor is my proposal about getting rid of 'interesting', its rather channeling it. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• An important principle here is that being right isn't enough. Andrew Davidson and others aren't wrong that errors happen; errors do, and they should happen less. However, this doesn't justify being uncivil and disruptive about it. Some comments claim that this is just about 'manners' and that disrespect isn't actionable. But respect is one of Wikipedia's five pillars. If Andrew Davidson's treatment of other editors is disruptive, that is actionable under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, which govern behavior as well as conduct. OP is right that Andrew Davidson could contribute without throwing in caustic digs at editors.
  OP also rightly notes that Andrew Davidson's complaints are of inconsistent legitimacy. Two of the more dubious "errors" he reported include arguing that a hook about a woman should've focused on her physical appearance instead of her actions and claiming that following the WP:EN naming convention guideline was a "gross error". While wanting things to be done his own way, to quote OP, is an understandably human desire, opinions like these aren't errors, and reporting them as if they are is unhelpful because doing so adds noise to pages and discussions, making it harder to see and talk about actual errors.
  I hope that Andrew Davidson will be willing to contribute this help with spotting errors while dispensing with disrespecting community members and claiming that non-errors are errors. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 01:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• I side with AD here as the net benefit to the community. There's a LOT of sloppy work on the main page. Levivich' suggestion should be given serious consideration. Buffs (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Bot to inform temp users of expiry

I was requested to seek consensus at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Leaderbot#Discussion. Basically, I'm working on a (global) bot that informs users when their temp permission (which would normally be the non-admin rights on Wikipedia) would expire in a week (giving these users enough time to re-apply), and wanted to ask if the English Wikipedia community would be fine with it. This will be opt-out (opt-in is possible if the community would rather have that), with the mechanism for that not yet decided. If there is something else I need to do, please let me know. Thanks in advance. Leaderboard (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Support in principle. I don't see an issue with it. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Support in principle. This seems useful and unproblematic, as long as opting out is simple and the ability to do so is clear (e.g. it should respect {{nobots}} templates). Thryduulf (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Support: As someone who grants a lot of trials for perms, I like it. It makes sense, and we have FireflyBot, which notifies users of drafts about to expire, which is a similar enough concept. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

As someone who grants mostly temporary IPBE, I'd definitely want to see an opt-in/out option, based on the log entry and not the talk page. A reminder for IPBE is in many cases likely to be uninformative or confusing (some people don't even know they have it). To give another example of a potential issue, telling someone that their confirmed status is about to expire when they're autoconfirmed is going to be misleading. Not objecting at this stage, just suggesting things to think about. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Similarly, any temporary permissions that form part of the admin toolkit granted to a non-admin who has become an admin in the meantime. Thryduulf (talk) 19:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that would be a problem, because my understanding is that the temp rights are removed when the user becomes an admin so there would be no "reminder" since the flag has been removed. Leaderboard (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Not automatically, a 'crat has to actually un-check the boxes. Doesn't always happen. Primefac (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The IPBE message could be customised for the flag that is to be removed (or excluded), and the confirmed flag can be excluded for reminding purposes. Leaderboard (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: and others, does this message make sense for you? Also: users can opt-out via a central page on Meta (example) - is that OK? (Note that the confirmed flag has been excluded) Leaderboard (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I would point out that trying to edit when logged-out is not a good method for determining if you need IPBE (unless you are competent at parsing block parameters). It would also be my preference not to have to list users on a page somewhere. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:38, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: can you give an example on when you would give someone IPBE and not want them to be notified of expiry? As far as I'm aware, you do get an email when the right is granted, so I don't get the "some people don't even know they have it" part. Leaderboard (talk) 06:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you have to remember that most users are just occasionally writing about their favourite sports team, or breed of dog, or their local geography, etc, and don't really care about administrivia and how it's possible they can edit. I also suspect many users don't have email, and blue notifications, especially ones which appear trivial or incomprehensible, are easily ignored by many users. So it's sometimes the case that checkusers will hardblock whole ranges (or also just notice a hardblock) and then they'll grant a bunch of IPBE to users on the range so that no one notices any difference. The users didn't ask for it, and I do believe many don't notice or care about it. I'd rather not name specific recipients, but examples of people likely to get IPBE in this way are anyone on a Wikinger range, historically anyone in Ghana, and some people on some proxy ranges. It's also been granted in this way to people on individual IPs or common ranges such as T-Mobile, when the need arises. Notifying them about what has been performed behind the scenes is IMO just going to be confusing. It's not everyone; some I'm sure would appreciate the notification. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: That's the tricky bit for me (as you say, "some I'm sure would appreciate the notification"). My opinion is that it's better if someone could help reword the message so that it captures the concerns you have. Having to check the logs is something I very much would rather not do since it would introduce additional complexity I doubt would be justified, and the reasoning for putting the opt-out on a central meta page is for scalability - the plan is for the bot to be global and I don't think it's reasonable for me to have to capture all wiki's local opt-out preferences (for example, there is no concept of exclusion-compliant bots on my homewiki). Does this make sense to you? OR I could just add ipbe to the list of flags the bot will ignore entirely if the community would rather prefer that. Leaderboard (talk) 07:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

zzuuzz Ghana: did you throw out a random African country, or have we historically had issues with unintentional autoblocks for Ghanaian editors? I know this used to be a problem for Qatar, with all traffic running through a single IP address, but I don't remember any other countries with a comparable problem. Nyttend (talk) 07:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

No, yes, Ghana. Things have eased recently with the retirement of proxy-bots, but for several years it was almost impossible to edit from Ghana without IPBE. Most of Ghana seems to go through about 2 IP ranges which are full of proxies and frequently blocked for this reason or another. Some other countries have approached the same level of proxy-blockage (eg Nigeria and Nepal) but none anywhere near as bad. Lots of people in Ghana have IPBE without any request or likely idea what it is. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The bot is ready for local testing: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Leaderbot. Leaderboard (talk) 09:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

DeletedContributions broken

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T372444

If you're seeing strange things looking at deleted contributions today, the answer is that it's WP:THURSDAY. RoySmith (talk) 00:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith: I'm still seeing "strange things" when I look at a user's deleted contributions. For example, I delete a page, I look at the deleted contributions of the author of the deleted page, and it doesn't show up. OTOH, I look at deleted contributions of other users and I see deleted contributions - whether they are all of them, no clue. I have great difficulty looking at Phabs. Can you summarize (1) what the status is, particularly whether anyone has gotten closer to diagnosing the problem; and (2) whether there is an ETA for fixing this? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I only know as much as I can get from reading the phab ticket. If I understand the gerrit notes correctly, they've already got a fix, it's been tested, and merged back into the mainline code, so my guess is the fix will be deployed this Thursday. I expect @Pppery or @mszabo would be able to give you a better answer. RoySmith (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you understand correctly. If there's a really important need someone could backport the fix as early as Monday morning. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The fix has been backported now. WBrown (WMF) (talk) 12:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Subject Called for Edits to Remove Critical Material on 13 Keys/Allan Lichtman pages

Apparently the subject of two pages The Keys to the White House and Allan Lichtman directly called for edits to the pages concerning them to remove critical material (material which had been there for a couple months as a result of our own research and independent reporting) on his YouTube stream tonight, which has resulted in a swarm of edits to both pages to remove all of this material. This has made it untenable to permanently restore the previous material and reverting is difficult due to the deluge of edits; it also seems like a bad faith act to encourage edits personally in this way. I have done my best to restore the pages but anticipate more edits. Caraturane (talk) 02:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC) (updated to explain attempted reversion)

I've not examined this situation. But if there is an ongoing problem with IPs/new accounts editing this page because they were incited to by an influencer, the solution is WP:RFPP. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 11:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I've bumped protection up to full for both pages. Folks can hash things out on the talk page. Will keep an eye. Primefac (talk) 12:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

List of Israeli Massacres in Gaza 2023-2024

I was going through the new page feed and came across this article, is this article for real? Why must every battle be a massacre? I am not sure if anyone wants to go through the article or not. Do we have to have this sickness on wikipedia? Govvy (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

It's just part of a larger structure - Category:Massacres_in_the_Israeli–Palestinian_conflict e.g. List of massacres in Israel. There's a forest rather than a tree. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Calling almost every Israeli attack a massacre appears to be POV pushing. This is particularly the case because some are against consensus, and others are believed to not be the responsibility of Israel but of Palestinian militants. For example, consensus at Engineer's Building airstrike#Requested move 7 April 2024 was against massacre, while at Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion reliable sources consider Israel unlikely to be responsible.

Unfortunately, it's a common issue in the topic area - both "sides" seek to label the actions of the other side as a massacre. In particular, it seems all but impossible to get editors to adhere to WP:POVCAT. BilledMammal (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The main problem, as I already said at the talk page (which is where this discussion should be, not here) is WP:LISTCRITERIA, specifically define what can be in the list. Selfstudier (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I did some spot checks on four or five of the entries, and every single one of them failed verification on whether it's a "massacre". But I see (Redacted) Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

That's helpful. Selfstudier (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I was wondering if an article of this nature should be semi-protected. Govvy (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

For clarity, an article like this where there should be no content in it that isn't part of the Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict topic area, so the A-I CTOP restrictions and therefore WP:ARBECR applies to the entire article, the correct solution should be to extended-confirmed protect it it as User:ScottishFinnishRadish did. ARBECR encourages but doesn't require such protection. But in any case especially in this case where it's "entirely" rather than just "mostly", the only reason to leave it unprotected would be for WP:BANEX which I'm not sure even applies to ARBECR, or to reduce work for admins who'd have to protect the article. I mean I guess you could also say leaving it open allows technical violations which are so obviously beneficial that no one is going to revert them or even weirder scenarios. Still compared to the risk of genuinely unaware non-EC editors, and intentional violators editing the article due to the lack of protection, IMO the choice is obvious. Especially at this time and given how contentious that list is article to be. I think even with the ARBECR element, if ECP is all you want you could just use WP:RFPP in future. Nil Einne (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the personal attacks/aspersions you made against other editors. Focus on the content, please. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

You'll need to tell that to a couple of the admins at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#האופה then. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't often go to AE these days, but Administrators aren't immune from WP:NPA or from Arbitration Enforcement sanctions. I haven't read that long discussion so I can't say if anyone has crossed a line there. Regardless, that doesn't negate the fact that WP:NPA applies here. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I have little stake in this field specifically but as an editor of crime articles, IMO, the problem is the word massacre. Usage of it is almost always WP:OR unless it is the common name because its definition is inherently negative and carries a xintent aspect other terms don't have, which is fine when it's attributed by other sources but not when it's just applied by editors on the basis of their own judgment which is constantly. I have been irritated by this for literal years. Unless it is clearly the common name no article title should contain the word massacre. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

And then we have all these lists of massacres which are always a hybrid of mass murder incidents, group violence and state killings which are both nlist passing but are usually not conflated in sourcing, but the sources use similar words. Truly a mess. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Govvy, you realize that's not every battle, right? That's not every attack, or even every attack in which civilians are killed.

This article needs editing, not AN. As others mentioned, it needs a WP:LISTCRITERIA (post it on the talk page with {{list criteria}}). Listing the victims' names probably violates WP:NOTMEMORIAL; that is an old debate on Wikipedia, I'm not sure which side is currently in the lead.

@Stephan rostie: what you wrote on the talk page about using the definition of "massacre" given at "massacre" is a major problem. Each one of those entries needs WP:RS that explicitly call it a "massacre". Please remove the ones you added that don't have an RS that calls it a massacre. It doesn't matter if Wikipedia calls it a massacre, it needs RS that call it a massacre. Levivich (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• This is a content issue or, if you like, a titling issue. Hash it out on the article talk page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Read the definition of a massacre. And what do you propose calling the whipping out of entire families of 18 and 60 members in a single strike ? Stephan rostie (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

^ that's the conduct issue: violation of WP:V and WP:NOR. Levivich (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Cited sources also call them massacres too, at least in the vast majority of the listed massacres Stephan rostie (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

"At least in the vast majority" isn't good enough. Every single one has to be sourced to an RS. Levivich (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay i can provide sources for them too, no problem at all, but i still wonder even if hypothetically a source couldn’t be found, what do you propose to label the whipping out of an entire families of 20-60 individuals of three generations in a single airstrike other than massacre ? Should the definition of the word “massacre” like any other english word be considered here ? Stephan rostie (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

If a source can't be found, I don't propose labeling it at all. Seriously, read WP:NOR. We don't decide what's a "massacre" and what's not; we just follow the sources. I think what you're doing is valuable, but it must be done the right way: use the labels sources use, don't come up with your own (even if you're right). Levivich (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

And make sure it's a reliable source, nothing that's red or yellow at WP:RSP. Levivich (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough Stephan rostie (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

also can you elaborate how exactly do you consider something like Al-Tabaeen school attack a “battle” ? Because “battle” implies bilateral engagement Stephan rostie (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich: You did post my name above, but I am not sure I wanted to reply earlier, I felt like I wanted to stay away from the article because it disgusts me. I feel that is a fragrant breach of WP:OR and others have said it's a memorial, which shouldn't be allowed apparently (a policy I've never heard of). But I wasn't sure the article was getting the right oversight and could easily be abused. War is horrible by any means, but lists like that are macabre and I feel they should have no place on wikipedia. Govvy (talk) 10:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

People seem to like them. They are quite popular. Just like war. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately or fortunately for Wikipedia, it likely traces back to "Boston Massacre" and I think it is or was enshrined in title policy, although that is not list. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Special:Redirect/logid/163858111

Could anyone please un-revdel Special:Redirect/logid/163858111? It was likely a mistake to revdel the block log entry itself when revdel-ing the edits was meant instead. GTrang (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Acroterion: -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I goofed somehow. Fixed. Acroterion (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Sock-started RfC at Talk:Leo Frank

A sockpuppet started an RfC at Talk:Leo Frank#RfC on whether a consensus currently exists regarding the innocence or guilt of Leo Frank in the murder of Mary Phagan. Even before the block/revelation, participants were questioning the RfC itself and calling for early closure. Would an uninvolved admin/closer be willing to evaluate whether early closure is warranted? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I closed it. Johnuniq (talk) 03:13, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Changes to the functionaries team, August 2024

Pursuant to the procedure on CheckUser and Oversight inactivity, the CheckUser permissions of Courcelles and GeneralNotability are removed. In addition, the Oversight permissions of Wugapodes are removed at their request.

The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks them for their service.

On behalf of the Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Changes to the functionaries team, August 2024

Review of RfC close

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

---

I am requesting a review of my RfC closure at RfC: Circumcision viewpoints. Prcc27 asked me to consider re-opening it, and I declined. Bon courage thinks it was a bad close and after discussion on my talk page, has indicated they believe the solution appears to be to ignore the close. So I am asking for a review of my closure. This is my initial response for my rationale for closing the existing discussion at the RfC. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

My main concern is the willingness of Bon courage to ignore the process outlined in CLOSECHALLENGE. They knew the next step after the discussion on my talk page, was to bring a CLOSECHALLENGE here to AN. Instead, they had already edited the article to their preferred version, and then said "the solution appears to be to ignore the close and follow the WP:PAGs". And the question asked in the RfC is not the question as Bon courage describes it, and when the content was re-added to the article after the RfC closed, it was reliably sourced, and then two minutes later, it was immediately reverted by Bon courage. Do we allow editors to ignore CLOSECHALLENGE, ignore a RfC close, make a self-determination on how they think the RfC should have been closed and edit the article to their preferred version? If this is the community consensus, please let me know, and I won't close anymore RfCs. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Non-participants

Yes, the position of the closer appears to be that WP:PAGs should not be considered by a closer unless they have been raised in the argument. However, since WP:CON is by definition "a process of compromise while following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines" relevant WP:PAGs need to be considered in determining consensus in a close, otherwise we'd have untenable situations like where (say) a small group of editors could agree to insert libel into Wikipedia, and a closer then saying that must be done "since nobody mentioned BLP". This is really a key difference between WP:CON and WP:LOCALCON.

In this particular case the question was about some text in an article summary and whether it should/could be sourced and how it WP:SYNC'd with the detail article referenced. The issue in now moot since by doing a WP:SYNC anyway some equivalent text in included, apparently without objection.

As a general rule, I think this trend of using RfCs to mandate text (and then finding sources) is not a desirable substitute for the normal editing process. Bon courage (talk) 10:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Is that what happened though? While the RFC didn't directly mention sources, in discussion the RfC on the circumcision page (Talk:Circumcision#Ethics in lead RfC) was mentioned as well as the Genital modification and mutilation page history [6]. Both locations seem to have several sources. Are any of the sources that supporters of the RfC wanted to use before your involvement, actually new or were they part of the circumcision RfC or already in the Genital modification and mutilation article or were used until removed? If it's the latter, then I don't see how you can claim RfC mandated text and sources were found later. Instead the RfC mandated text based on existing sources. I mean the RfC itself was structured poorly since people needed to go through either the edit history (which wasn't even directly linked) or check out the circumcision RfC etc to work out what sources were being used for the text. This might have reduced participant from uninvolved or less involved editors since those editors would see the text being proposed but need to hunt around to work out what sources allegedly support the text and so might not bother. So I'm by no means saying the RfC was perfect. But I'm unconvinced that the RfC was mandating text and then only finding sources, instead the sources were already there just not properly presented in the RfC. Nil Einne (talk) 08:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

To put it a different way, the main difference between this RfC and a good one IMO were that RfC only had the proposed text but not the sources. The sources were elsewhere but not in the RfC itself. If it had the proposed text and the sources, this would IMO be much more likely a more normal completely fine RfC. In some cases there might be two (or more) different suggestions possibly with different wordings. That is something that should have been dealt with via BEFORE which I admit I'm not sure how well was done here. OTOH, in some cases it might simply be that one "side" feels this this text belongs with these sources and the other "side" feels the article is fine without that and so it is simple a dispute between include this text and its sources or don't. It does seem to me that at least before your involvement, the most were focused on either including that text and sources or not. Nil Einne (talk) 08:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The text is reasonable enough, as it turns out, but my concern about sources was that it seemed the tail was wagging the dog and they might not exist. The plan was apparently to use one particular source for this (doi:10.1353/ken.0.0279), but how one was meant to know that, beats me! You for example seem to think multiple-sources were in play. I've been operating a slimmed-down watchlist over much of summer so maybe missed some of the background to this which would help provide context? Agree a 'normal' RfC (proposing sourced text) would have raised no eyebrows. Bon courage (talk) 09:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're right that only one source was used initially but it seem Prcc27 felt this was enough. I'm not going to comment on whether it was but my main objection to your initial comment is you made it sound like what Prcc27 was doing was saying "we should have this text, I don't know what sources support it, but I'm sure we'll find some". Instead, it seems clear that what Prcc27 was doing was saying "we should have this text" which was earlier in the article with this one source supporting it. The latter part was unfortunately only implied in follow up discussion rather than directly presented in the RfC. So yes they failed to present the one source in the RfC which isn't a good thing. But they clearly had a source in mind since the text and source was in the article not long before the RfC started. I just don't see how there can be any dispute especially given the followup discussion within the RfC, that Prcc27's main desire was to return to the earlier version with the text and source (which was only a few days or so before the RfC started). So a poor RfC yeah, sure, but not one where the editor started out with a wording they wanted and felt they'd worry about sources later. I may have misunderstood, but my impression was Prcc27 was also saying if that one source isn't enough, there are additional sources in the circumcision RfC we could consider using. Again not ideal, even if you feel that one source is enough, it's IMO better to present the other sources which might be used in the RfC itself. OTOH since Prcc27 apparently felt that one source was enough, technically they could have just presented the RfC with the wording and that one source if they were fairly confident the community would agree. If others in the RfC suggested that one source wasn't enough, then it might be necessary to hunt for more sources hence why it's better to either present these additional sources from the getgo or at least try and have more discussion before the RfC to work out if that one source is enough. But it can be hard to work out if there will be objection to your single source or the problem might be you need more or better sourcing before you start an RfC depending on the circumstance. Nil Einne (talk) 09:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Reading the RfC more carefully, it does seem the latter two editors were probably unaware of the existing sources which is unfortunate. However it seems unlikely the editor who started the RfC was unaware of the source they wanted to use, and I suspect the next one to comment was also aware. Ultimately all this seems to re-affirm my point. No question that the RfC was poorly structured since it didn't present the source to be used. But the point seems to have been to try restore recently removed text which did have one source which the editor felt was enough although they did link to another recent RfC on the related page where more sources were available if needed. The RfC should have been better structured so editors could easily see which source was suggest, and offer objections e.g. this one source isn't enough or is too old etc. I think more before might have helped especially in establishing whether there might be objection to that one source. OTOH, I'm also cognisant that it's hardly uncommon that editor can ask for comments and receive nothing useful until an RfC happens. But ultimately it doesn't seem to me that the RfC was trying to mandate text and then work out which source/s support it; instead it was just a poorly structured RfC where the one source to be used wasn't properly presented in the RfC. Nil Einne (talk) 09:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree, now, that in effect a reversion to a prior state was being asked for. But it didn't look like that at the time, with just text and no source presented. Hence I got the wrong end of the stick. Bon courage (talk) 11:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

An RfC with four participants, three of whom said "yes", is being challenged, and I cannot tell on what basis. Bon courage has brought up a ton of paggies (WP:LOCALCON, WP:SYNC, WP:SS, WP:ARBGG etc)... but not given an explanation of what any of this stuff has to do with the RfC. It seems pretty simple to me. Here is a quick recap of the RfC: it's so short I can just put the entire thing here for reference.

Entire four-comment RfC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows. There is a consensus to include the viewpoints of circumcision proponents and opponents in the article with the proposed wording. An editor also noted that reliable sources should be used to support the wording which is consistent with our policies and guidelines. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC) Should the viewpoints of circumcision proponents and opponents be included in this article? Wording in question: “Support for circumcision is often centered on its medical benefits, while opposition is often centered on human rights (particularly the bodily integrity of the infant when circumcision is performed in the neonatal period) and the potentially harmful side effects of the procedure”. Prcc27 (talk) 17:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC) Yes: per WP:DUE, “neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.” Whether or not to circumcise (especially a child) is a significant debate; and ethics of circumcision specifically is a significant consideration given by major medical organizations (see previous RfC on the matter). Prcc27 (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC) Yes per prcc27 Snokalok (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC) Unnecessary RfC per WP:RFCBEFORE. Was there any discussion on the proposed edit, and if so could you please link to it? RFCs aren't meant for merely "anticipated" disagreements. If you think this should be in the article, put it in; if someone reverts it, start a discussion on the talk page to try to reach consensus. Only if you reach an impasse is an RfC the right way to go. Tserton (talk) 11:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC) This has been discussed before, so WP:RFCBEFORE has been met. [7] A user recently removed the sentence in question from the article; if I re-added it, that would be edit warring. Prcc27 (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2024 (UTC) Yes assuming sources will be added as well. Senorangel (talk) 06:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It's really straightforward -- the RfC asked if the thing should be included, four people responded, three said that the thing should be included, the closer said that there was consensus for the thing to be included. Now one (1) editor has decided that this is all a big misunderstanding and the consensus is actually to have the article say the opposite? It's true that a four-participant RfC is not some kind of invincible ironclad consensus, but for Pete's sake, what possible objection could there be to this closure? This just feels like an editor not liking the RfC close and deciding to throw random WP:UPPERCASE at the wall to see what sticks. jp×g🗯️ 02:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the page in question, it looks like Bon courage just keeps on editing the article to say his own version, and then going to the talk page to demand that other people provide sources proving it wrong or else he will just keep adding it -- surely we have all been around long enough to know this is not how WP:BURDEN works. This feels somewhat tendentious to me. jp×g🗯️ 02:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that that is a summary section, meant to be summarizing the thing it points to. It shouldn't say "the opposite" of what the RfC proposed, it should just mirror the thing it's summarizing (which is not "the opposite" as it happens). The "random uppercase" things are WP:PAGs, and kind of matter. You can't have an RfC decide that, no matter what article A says, its summary must be fixed without regard to that; the WP:PAGs tell us that such material should be in WP:SYNC. My final edit is not really "my own version" but just excerpts from the articles-being-summarized, which as far as I know I did not write. Bon courage (talk) 02:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Withdraw

• It seems evident from subsequent editing that my intervention here is hindering rather than helping evolution of this article, so with apologies to all I shall put my tail between my legs and withdraw my objection to this RfC/close assuming that sources are used in such a way that WP:V is respected, and hoping the WP:SYNCing shall be improved as the article evolves. Bon courage (talk) 05:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Participants

I originally supported a re-open of the RfC, because I felt BonCourage’s edits went against the RfC and their concerns were not brought up there either. And because it was still under 30 days since it started. However, I think the sync is sufficient, as long as the viewpoints of proponents and opponents are articulated in a neutral manner. Re-opening an RfC may no longer be needed. For the record, I think the closer closed the RfC correctly, based on the discussion made at the RfC. Prcc27 (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I also am concerned with Bon Courage’s actions. The wording I proposed at the RfC was actually a longstanding paragraph in the article. It had been there for several years (albeit the wording had been tweaked a little bit over the years). And it was reliably sourced as Isaidnoway noted. Bon Courage’s behavior does seem to be an example of a user taking ownership of an article, and unilaterally overturning an RfC. While I am not necessarily against the sync, I would like for an admin to determine how the RfC should be enforced. And maybe even give Bon Courage a formal warning for their disruptive behavior. Prcc27 (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The source was not part of the RfC, and a 2009 primary source is not great. You seemed to agree with this by then using a 'more recent' 2015 source.[8]. The only trouble then is that WP:V was not respected, and in fact the source you selected said pretty much the opposite of the text cited to it. Wikipedia simply cannot allow a WP:LOCALCON RfC to wave away the need to respect core policies like WP:V. This exemplifies the problem with having a RfC designed to 'enforce' text with the hope that sourcing can be found to support it, Bon courage (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

This is just more obfuscation. The RfC was not designed to 'enforce' text with the hope that sourcing can be found to support it. The RfC was about re-adding the sourced text which had been in the article for at least the last ten years, and had been recently removed. This reply in the RfC, makes that abundantly clear; the RfC was about re-adding the sourced text which had a long standing consensus. In fact, the sourced text was in the article, when you edited the article in December 2019. So for ten years, five years, the sourced text had been in the article and you didn't complain. It was only when the sourced text was re-added after the RfC ended, and there was consensus to re-add it, you swooped in two minutes later and unilaterally decided the consensus from the RfC didn't matter. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

This is just wrong. As anybody can see the RfC has no "sourced text" and said nothing about "re-adding" text but was presented with no context and no source. How are editors meant to know about an old discussion on a Talk page archive? And how am I expected to recall some text in an article I edited 5 years ago? And 10 years ago a 2009 source would be a lot less dated than it is today. As to "enforcement" the OP of this section is talking about "how the RfC should be enforced" just above. PMID:25674955 does not support the RfC text and WP:V cannot just be ignored. Bon courage (talk) 04:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

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

TBAN appeal: Dympies

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

---

7 months back, admin Firefangledfeathers replaced my existing Rajput topic ban with a broader ban (that includes editing in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan related topics) after a discussion here. The primary reason cited for sanctions was the violation of existing Rajput Tban.

For last seven months, I edited pages which are unrelated to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. I made 325+ edits including creation of 6 articles. My editing in the duration was quite peaceful and I didn't receive further sanctions. The more I edited, more I learnt further about Wikipedia guidelines. Today, I find myself much more competent in editing Wikipedia than before. I feel that I can constructively contribute in the areas to which I don't have access presently. Yesterday, I appealed to the banning admin's talk page but he advised me to appeal at WP:AN. So, I wish to appeal my TBAN here. I assure our community of following :

• I will keep adhering to my one-account restriction as I have been doing for last 7 months.

• Before adding any content, I will give more care to WP:DUE.

• I will try my level best to avoid edit warring. In accordance with the WP:BRD, I will discuss the matter first with fellow editors and take them into trust before making edits which can invite contentions.

Regards, Dympies (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved editors (Dympies)

Per WP:CTOP, this appeal will succeed if "a clear consensus of uninvolved editors" supports it.

• Comment I'd be willing to grant another chance, but I'm hoping to hear more from editors who have worked with this user first. Also @Dympies: You've mentioned that you've made a number of good content contributions as well as created several articles. Are there any that you're especially proud of and would like us to take a look at? Being able to show off specific work that you've done is something that can give other editors confidence that you've put past mistakes behind you. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@ The Wordsmith: So far, since the topic ban, I have created Secularism in Taiwan, Secularism in Tajikistan, List of Afrikaners, Secularism in Azerbaijan, Tecno Pova 6 Pro, and Junichiro Hironaka. All of these articles can be expanded further. For example Junichiro Hironaka's entire episode with former Nissan's CEO Carlos Ghosn has to be mentioned yet.[9] Dympies (talk) 05:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support per WP:ROPE as I don't see any issues with their recent contributions. They appear to be editing constructively in other areas. Ratnahastin (talk) 05:28, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support There's a lot of signs that the editor is building productively. No issues outside the designated areas. Ahri Boy (talk) 12:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Dympies has been editing constructively. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments by involved editors (Dympies)

A quick procedural note: though I was the enforcing admin, the present TBAN was enacted via a consensus of admins at AE which included @Black Kite, The Wordsmith, and Firefly, with Abecedare expressing acceptance of the option. On the merits: I am neutral on this appeal, leaning toward accepting it based on a cursory review of the contributions since the TBAN was broadened. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Disruptive unregistered user

User:2A00:8A60:C010:1:0:0:1:1016 has variously described me as a "mathematical crank" (in Talk:Axiomatic system (logic)) and "intellectually blind" (in their own talk page) for what they vaguely describe as "adding a bunch of false and misleading claims" to an article, but which I describe rather as replacing the article's tons of unsourced, unverifiable statements with content supported by, and sourced to, WP:RS. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

/64 blocked by Isabelle Belato. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

User edit warring

The user @Bgsu98 keeps reverting edits on The Amazing Race Canada 10 stating that the episode name is not true when it says that on the show's website. They also put a talk page message on my page about me making harrasments to them abut living people (yes idk what that means either). Please block them for at least 24 hours (and hopefully more) as because they have a vendetta against me and as soon as I edit any genre article, 2 minutes later they take it down. Thank you. Jd101991 (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, this user is posting unsourced spoiler information about the results of a reality television show which have not yet aired. Without a reliable source, that information is inappropriate. If someone could please instill in them the concept that fan sites and related spoiler sites are in fact not reliable sources for Wikipedia, that would be awesome. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jd101991, you should not add speculation about the results of an unaired episode, even in hidden text. Schazjmd (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

so then can you let me know why @Bgsu98 decided not to remove the province new brunswick in the first paragraph of the article? Of course i didn't write it, so they didn't remove it. If i put it there, they would've taken it down. Jd101991 (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

This is, I just noticed, the wrong noticeboard. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

This isn't the right place to report edit warring. Please visit WP:ANEW for instructions/more info. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked the OP for two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Request to Remove Private Information (BLP Violation)

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

---

Hello,

I am requesting the removal or redaction of a comment containing Asmongold's full name, posted in violation of the Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) policy. The individual has taken steps to keep their full name private, and it has not been widely published by reliable sources.

Here is the link to the specific comment: Talk:Asmongold#c-Skipple-20240821150200-SturmFernmelder-20240820164900

Additionally, I would like to request that the page be protected to prevent further BLP violations, as this is a recurring issue with people posting private information.

Thank you for your help! SturmFernmelder (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

This looks like a rather ordinary content dispute to me. It might help your argument there if you substantiated your good faith basis for the subject's intentions with more than your assertion of such. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. There are a significant number of RS giving his real name and I don't see any evidence that the subject has "taken steps" to keep their name private. Black Kite (talk) 19:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response! My good faith basis stems from the fact that Asmongold does not use his full name publicly in any of his businesses, social media profiles, streams, or other platforms. His pseudonym is what he is known by, and his full name is not widely published or utilized by him in any official capacity. SturmFernmelder (talk) 20:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

This does strike me as a content decision. The people suggesting the inclusion of the full name are doing so supported by sources which strike me as reliable sources for video game content. Wikipedia follows the lead of reliable sources. Including the full name isn't necessarily the right decision just because some include it, and here the BLP would help inform what that decision should be, but it also does not strike me as a violation of policies to discuss it. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• Agree that if the name is not widely used, it doesn't need to be in the article, but it's not a BLP violation to merely discuss it, especially if it is out there anywhere publicly. SturmFernmelder do you represent this individual? 331dot (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

  The reason I am asking is because it has been redacted in the past as well. And no, I do not represent this individual. SturmFernmelder (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

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

• NB: I have opened an SPI based upon observations at the relevant talkpage. Grandpallama (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:DYK

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

---

I'm not saying it can't be there, but this really seems like a tawdry and unnecessary hook and I think it would be much wiser NOT to have this on the main page:

"... that some LGBT people wear shorter nails on their middle and index fingers to allow for easier manual sex and to express a queer identity?"

Thoughts? Buffs (talk) 02:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not advocating for the article's removal. Buffs (talk) 02:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

No changes. Just keep it retained. Ahri Boy (talk) 03:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS is that way. And as hooks referencing human sexuality go, this is as far from "tawdry" as possible—an academically-worded description of the article's central topic. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 04:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd support a more children-friendly main page, but it's probably a matter for the pump. Levivich (talk) 05:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

If we wanted to protect children from information, we should start with harmful things like war and violence, not lesbian sex. —Kusma (talk) 07:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not looking to "protect children from information" and Levivich didn't make such an assertion either. Information about wars and violence is generally not harmful, but that depends on the graphic nature of descriptions or pictures. Information about sex is titillating, but generally considered a cheap/low-brow way to get attention and inappropriate in academic literature. I think we could do better as a community than cater to basal human instincts. But that doesn't mean my opinion has to carry the day. In this case it doesn't. Buffs (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

You linking to WP:NOTCENSORED while complaining about this hook being on the front page is very contradictory. We feature wars, murders, etc. on the front page frequently but this is where you draw the line? Also as Tamzin points out, this is far from "tawdry". ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 05:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

"DYK has issues with tasteless or clickbaiting hooks" Fram said it, not me. Clearly my opinion isn't in the majority on this one. I'll consider it resolved. Buffs (talk) 18:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

DYK has issues with tasteless or clickbaiting hooks, but this seems to be a hook which is directly related to the topic. If you had complained about another original hookhere, which somehow got reviewed and promoted into the preparation areas before being changed, you would have had a good point. But the above, nah. Fram (talk) 07:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Close review: Nikola Tesla's birthplace RfC

I am requesting community review of my closure of an RFC on the specifics of the birthplace of Nikola Tesla (closing diff), which was recently challenged on my talk page by the IP address 93.141.181.3, who believes that the close did not sufficiently assess consensus (their original comments, my reply). As an IP, they cannot edit this page, so I am starting it on their behalf. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Involved

(from my talk page ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)) The closure haven't provided any explanation on how the consensus was determined. No explanation on how sources were considered when establishing the consensus. No explanation on other points from the discussion. Improper use of SYNTH and OR and unsourced claims, Gish galloping. The RfC stated 2 questions and the consensus was provided only on due weight. I would like an explanation on how a group of editors who disagree with the sources can have a valid stand against presented sources without any sources of their own. 93.141.181.3 (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

From the closure explanation , I expect the following. Name all participants and name the points they made and sources they posted. Name couterpoints others have made to their points and explain how the points were evaluated in determining the consensus. 93.141.181.3 (talk) 15:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I was the one who opened the discussion. I accept the closure. I accept that RfC was a mess. I accept that I'm solely responsible for that from start to finish. Yes my RfC wasn't neutral nor brief, often incorrect, initially proposing outright plagiarism, and following none of WP:WRFC. I admit that I have then proceeded to spend nearly 8,500 words bludgeoning the discussion. Everything was correctly closed. I would just ask for one thing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29, can you just explicitly write the consensus on the other question editors have voted upon. Something like "The consensus on the 1st question is NO. The consensus on the second question is NO". Trimpops2 (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• I randomly came across the RFC and commented there, all I'll say here is that the close doesn't surprise me. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. You are one of the major participants. I'm glad we agree. Only one IP has complaints, but he didn't contribute more than 0.1% so I don't see why this shouldn't be promptly closed. Trimpops2 (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I'll do that if others agree. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I thought the close was carefully considered and judged. The conclusion of "no consensus" effectively keeps the longstanding status quo, which has been stable for six years. The IP here is very likely block evasion by User:Bilseric who has been consistently disrupting the process while using IPs from Croatia. I am loathe to allow a blocked editor to demand a review, robbing the community of even more of their time. Binksternet (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Binksternet. But, ~~ AirshipJungleman29, can you also write in the consensus on the 1st question? Trimpops2 (talk) 18:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Another admin needs to seriously consider blocking this user Trimpops2, because they've first endlessly bludgeoned this discussion, despite numerous warnings, advocating for one weird POV, and are now posturing completely differently, for another weird POV, as if it was all some sort of a bizarre online game. This is as clear a case of not actually being here to build an encyclopedia as it gets. --Joy (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

because they've first endlessly bludgeoned this discussion Yes, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 said that in the closure. I have already admitted my wrongdoing there. advocating for one weird POV It was inapropriate to ignore numerous users who have tried to explain to me that Tesla has no connection to Croatia. My problem is that I was under influence of Croatian propaganda and I was confused by the statement that Tesla was born in Smiljan , present-day Croatia. I though that Tesla was born in Austrian Croatia, but as Binksternet has said, sources place Tesla in Croatia only because that's what it is called today. Tesla has no relation to Austrain Croatia. I didn't know that. Now when the consensus has been determined, I have accepted it. I admit it was a weird POV and I appologize. and are now posturing completely differently I'm just agreeing with consensus and comments other editos have made in their responses to me. for another weird POV It's not POV, it's the consensus. My problem here is that I found the article text confusing, but I have already accepted that article needs no change. Binksternet has provided an explanation why Croatia is mentione, because the sources place Tesla in Croatia only because that's what it is called today. Trimpops2 (talk) 22:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Since you keep pinging me, can I inquire as to what inspired your sudden change of heart? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

It isn't sudden. I never intended to contest your closure. We aren't enemies here. At some point I realized that I need to listen what other longstanding editors are saying. You are completely uninvolved editor and your closure is against my stand. Let's see what other longstanding editors have said to me. Joy has just now said that I was advocating for one weird POV. He is Croatian and longstanding editor and admin. I'm sorry Joy. I accept that me pushing that Tesla was born in Austrian Croatia is a weird POV. Pincrete said that Tesla wasn't born in any variant of a political Croatia. Binksternet, said that Most of the literature about Tesla and his family de-emphasizes Croatia and instead underlines his Serbian heritage. So the idea of pushing more "Croatia" has no merit. and Tesla biographies place Tesla in Croatia only because that's what it is called today. Croatian culture played very little role in Tesla's upbringing.. Sadko, said that Tesla's relation to Croatia in any way, shape or form is almost non-existing. Jalapeño is also Croatian as Joy, and he also voted against. I have to accept that both Croatian and Serbian editors are agreeing about this contested issue. This is good for Wikipedia. People have claimed for a long time that this article is a battleground between Croatian and Serbian editors. Sadko is Serbian. We have both Croatian and Serbian editors agree. I see that as positive. It's not an issue between Croats and Serbs. After your closure, and after I saw how many editors have tried to explain to me that I'm the own pushing Croatian propaganda. Chetvorno from the begginging have said that, but I didn't listen. Look how many editors tried to explain it to me. At some point I needed to accept that I'm the only one in the wrong here. I really don't contest your closure. I never planned to. There is one more thing , I did one wrongdoing today. I need to admitt that as well. I started a discussion to remove mentions of present-day Croatia from the article. I though that it might confuse readers like it confused me. I didn't think others who have disagreed with me in the RfC would complain now when I have accepted their stand. I already admitted in the discussion that I was wrong. The text can stand. It's only I that find it confusing , but as Binksternet explained, present-day Croatia is mentioned only because sources place Tesla in Croatia only because that's what it is called today.. As long as that is clear to the readers I don't have problems with mentioning present-day Croatia. As long as it's clear that Tesla has no connection to Austrian Croatia. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to relitigate this, but nb that I said wasn't born in any variant of a political Croatia. Where he was born may well have/have had claims to have been culturally/historically Croatian, I was reliant on sources presented. I would also have said that he was born in Croatian Austria, rather than the other way round as you have it, since Austria was the ruling power. But mainly my reasoning was that the simplest/clearest way was simply to say "born in the (Croatian) Military Frontier" and leave it to interested readers to 'deconstruct' that anomalous entity if they wished to do so. Pincrete (talk) 05:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Joy, if you want to block me, I really can't complain to much. Everything you said is true. I have been pushing a weird Croatian propaganda that Tesla was born in Croatia. I'm sorry I didn't listed to you and others who have tried to explain to me that Tesla has no connection to Croatia. If you start a report I will admit my wrongdoing there. At this point maybe it's time for me to bear consequences of POV pushing. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I apologize. I was brainwashed by propaganda in my own country. I can now accept that was the case and what others have stated in the discussion, that Tesla wasn't neither born or has any relation to Croatia. I'm sorry, I wasted all your time. It was hard to accept that I could be brainwashed. Wikipedia helped. Thank you for that. I can agree with the closure and I don't think this review is necessary. Trimpops2 (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Uninvolved

• Endorse: I saw this sitting in CR for a while but didn't close it because, as @AirshipJungleman29 aptly stated, it was a mess from start to finish. There was no other way to close this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Once again, I apologize. I was brainwashed by Croatian propaganda. Trimpops2 (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Thanks for your time. You'll need a lot of it for this RfC. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

See this. [10]. i have no evidence but woikd not be surprised if the IP is the blocked disrupive editor there, Bilseric. Doug Weller talk 17:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I agree. We shouldn't waste community time. Trimpops2 (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Is reverting alleged OR from an FA exempt from the 3RR brightline?

In this AN3 report Black Kite ruled no violation because there were less than 4 reverts in 24 hours. Fair enough. But they went on to say the reported user wouldn't be sanctioned anyway because

this is a featured article and [the user who was reverted by the reported user] is trying to add unsourced original research to the lead paragraph ... That's just disruption and even though it isn't technically included in WP:3RRNO

and

3RR is a technical bright line, and that metric has to exist, but equally I don't think you'll find any admin that will block any user (regardless of whether they're an admin or not) for removing disruptive material from an article (especially a fairly high traffic featured article) unless there is some other problematic issue.

Is that right? On their talk page Black Kite said that was common sense. I've always assumed WP:EW's Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense was taken literally but are there exceptions not stated in 3RRNO? Equally, I don't think the user adding the material was being disruptive merely by adding it. They might be wrong but not disruptive although they were edit warring as was the reported user. I'll notify Black Kite, the reported user (DrKay) and the reporter (John) of this thread - but I'm not looking to have anyone sanctioned or to change the outcome of the 3RR report - just clarification of admin practice in this area. Btw, just to be clear, I think Black Kite is a good admin and don't have any issues with them in that regard. I'm sure they acted in good faith. DeCausa (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Exempt? No. But 3RR isn't a rule that someone must be blocked for violating, just a point at which they can be blocked. It's still up to admin discretion whether blocking would be beneficial. There are quite a few times I've let technical 3RR violations slide with no action or a warning because the edits were obviously improving the article, or because blocking would be detrimental to the encyclopedia. (I have not looked through the edits from the report in question, so this is a general response to scenarios like this; I have no opinion on whether Black Kite's decision was correct.) —Ingenuity (t • c) 18:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Assuming your statements here are 100% factually correct:

1. The user in question did violate 3RR; removing OR from a featured article is no exception.
2. An admin who decides that a specific instance of a rule violation should be ignored is not out of line. Indeed, the admin may legitimately choose to ignore it if enforcing it would be bad for Wikipedia.

Animal lover |666| 18:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The editor DrKay reverted was not following WP:BRD, which complicates this particular example. I think DrKay has the moral high ground here and it is hard to take the other editor's side. However it would be nice to see more respect for 3RR from DrKay; a third editor could have made the final revert and avoided some drama. Personally I am pretty self-aware of my revert count in situations like these and I like to see this self-awareness in others as well. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that. The reverts are more than 24 hours apart. 3RR was not violated. It seems like there is no violation. Is this ANI just about Black Kite's statement? –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not looking to have anyone sanctioned or to change the outcome of the 3RR report - just clarification of admin practice in this area. Levivich (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not ANI and right at the beginning I highlighted it wasn't a breach of the bright line. It's what Black Kite said in relation to what should happen even if it was a breach of the bright line. DeCausa (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• There's a decent chance I would warn or sanction users that violate 3RR, even if they're making a good-faith effort to keep original research out of a featured article. I took Black Kite's comments as his being transparent about how he exercises admin discretion. Please don't take it as a broader statement about policy enforcement. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
• Four reverts in just over 24 hours. Warning the other editor in the edit war with a templated message mentioning blocks (DrKay is an admin). No BLP, copyvio or WMF considerations. No participation in article talk on the matter. The edits were clearly not vandalism. If this translates to "no violation", and if this is due to the article's FA status, I feel guidance should be added to the relevant policy page to allow a community discussion. There is already a mention there about TFA. I made the AN3 report because I thought DrKay acted poorly, very poorly for an admin. I would not have wanted them to be blocked but I believe a warning would have been appropriate under my understanding of current policy. I am absolutely certain that all three (the two edit warriors and the admin who closed the AN3 report) acted in good faith and believed they were improving Wikipedia, but this is almost always the case in edit wars. Finally, using "common sense" as a rationale sounds tempting, but one editor's common sense may be another's utter nonsense. This is why we have policies, guidelines, and discussion pages. If editors are allowed to get away with blatantly edit-warring, what could be seen as using (implied) threat of admin tools in a content dispute, and failing to discuss in talk, on the basis that it's an FA, I think that's a shame. Edit warring is bad; it creates unneeded tension, reduces the chance of collaboration occurring, and deters editors from improving articles that may need it, in spite of once having been peer-reviewed. I am agnostic on the material they were edit-warring to include or remove, but discussion is the way to go, not this, I think. Thanks DeCausa for bringing this here. John (talk) 19:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
• Another example of Wikipedia verb conjugation.

  First person singular, present tense: I am "defending an FA against disruptive editing".

  Second person singular, present tense: You are "edit warring".

It is always particularly annoying to me when an editor is actively edit warring, but feels it appropriate to leave their opponent an edit warring templated warning. DrKay's previous 4 blocks for edit warring were all more than 10 years ago, albeit all while an admin, so hopefully this is an aberration. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Lol, I thought the name seemed familiar. DrKay blocked me for edit warring many years ago! So if anyone wants to assume I hold a grudge and this is an "involved" comment of some kind, feel free, but the fact is I'm just forgetful. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Block/ban appeal - Cyber.Eyes.2005

As Cyber.Eyes.2005 (talk · contribs)'s appeal has been sitting for several weeks without a response, and given that they are considered a banned editor per WP:3X, I'm bringing the appeal here for community review. I have no opinion as to whether the appeal should be accepted but will note that I don't see any obvious evidence of recent block evasion.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Begin appeal:

Requesting an unblock/unban request through WP:SO. I sincerely apologize for the mistakes I made in the past and fully understand that my previous actions, which led me to be blocked, were against the community guidelines of Wikipedia. I have since taken the time to thoroughly review and understand Wikipedias policies and guidelines, and I assure that I have learned from my mistakes and will not repeat them. The reason I got blocked as my first account User:Cyber.Eyes.2005, was due to getting involved in edit warring on a few articles, especially Brokpa. This eventually led to me being indefinitely blocked as I got involved in sockpuppetry. I didn't know much about Wikipedias policies at that time, and this became the reason I repeatedly made mistakes. During the past months, I have been working on other Wikimedia projects and have been a constructive editor on Simple English Wikipedia and Wikidata and I've become well aware of how Wikipedia works, policies like not abusing multiple accounts and edit warring, and how to contribute positively here. Moving forward, I am committed to making constructive and valuable contributions to Wikipedia only. I sincerely apologize for my past behavior and looking back, I understand that I lacked the maturity to edit constructively. I assure you that those mistakes will not be repeated and that my contributions will only be constructive. I am sincere about contributing on this wikipedia as well and I hope the admins would give me a chance. – Cyber.Eyes2005^Talk 19:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

They also included the following follow-up:

I am reaching out to appeal an unblock/unban request through the standard offer. I sincerely apologize for the mistakes I made in the past and fully understand that my previous actions, which led me to be blocked, were against the community guidelines of Wikipedia. I didn't know much about Wikipedias policies at that time, and this became the reason I repeatedly made mistakes. I have since taken the time to thoroughly review and understand Wikipedias policies and guidelines, and I assure that I have learned from my mistakes and will not repeat them.
Original block
My first account on Wikipedia, User:Cyber.Eyes.2005. Since I wasn't an experienced editor and didn't know much about Wikipedia policies, I became involved in edit warring on a few articles, especially this one, Brokpa with User:Aman.kumar.goel and got blocked. This eventually led to an indefinite block as I got involved in Sock puppetry, both of which were in violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and I fully understand that.
Constructive editor
During the past months, I have been working on other Wikimedia projects and have been a constructive editor on Simple English Wikipedia, Wikidata and Urdu Wikipedia and I've become well aware of how Wikipedia works, policies like not abusing multiple accounts and edit warring, and how to contribute positively here. Moving forward, I am committed to making constructive and valuable contributions to Wikipedia only. I sincerely apologize for my past behaviour and looking back, I understand that I lacked the maturity to edit constructively. I assure you that those mistakes will not be repeated and that my contributions will only be constructive. I am sincere about contributing on this wikipedia as well and I hope the admins would give me a chance. If granted a second chance, I am committed to contributing responsibly and constructively to Wikipedia. I hope to be given the chance to demonstrate my dedication to being a positive contributor to this community. – Cyber.Eyes2005^Talk 09:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Support unblock. Extremely new editor at the time they were blocked. The blocks were two years ago. They appear to have made constructive contributions to other wikis in the interim. The unblock request shows some introspection and I think it's reasonable to give them another chance, with a one-account restriction and an updated CTOP IPA notice. Schazjmd (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• Sure, unblock. Ponyo says there's no reason to think they've still been socking, and the edits at Simple and at Wikidata seem like they're in good faith. Schazjmd's caveats seem wise, as well as letting CE know that they're going to probably be watched more closely for a while, so they should tread very carefully. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support unblock exactly per Schazjmd. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

  The simplewiki diffs presented by Ratnahastin are slightly concerning, but not nearly concerning enough for me to stop supporting the unblock. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support unblock - this is what we want to see in people who ask about the Standard Offer. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 01:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - One needs to have a look at the edits he has made on Simple Wiki and they are disruptive. For example, he claims here that only Eastern Pakistan falls under the Indian subcontinent when whole Pakistan falls under the regional term. Here, he is edit warring to remove the Indian origins of Mughal empire. He created "Ancient Pakistan" there, even after knowing that such a POV article does not exist on English Wiki either.[11] He created "Middle kingdoms of Pakistan" on Simple wiki when no such article exists on Wikipedia because the country Pakistan was itself created only in 1947. He created "Indian naming dispute" there and used a large number of Godi media sources (see NDTV, Firstpost, India Today, etc.) which are notorious for falsifying history to fit the narrative of the current ruling Modi's BJP government. These are just some examples. He would be topic banned or blocked if he made these edits on English Wikipedia. I cannot think of supporting unblock with a topic ban from South Asian topics because there are no other topics which he has edited so far. I would rather urge Cyber.eyes.2005 to fix the damage he has done to Simple Wiki. Ratnahastin (talk) 01:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per above. His disruption on Simple Wikipedia is simply too big to ignore. It refutes his claims of being "a constructive editor". Dympies (talk) 01:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
• Weak support - Activity shows slow but growing signs of being productive. I urge Cyber to continue contributing elsewhere, even after the unblock. Ahri Boy (talk) 02:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ratnahastin. There appears to be a huge number of unwarranted and unjustifiable edits from this editor, aimed at proving that Pakistan did not came into existence in 1947 but has existed as a separate entity for thousands of years. Creation of Hellenic Pakistan by mispresenting Indo-Greek Kingdom is another evidence of that. It is also the first time I am hearing about a "Indo-Pak subcontinent".[12] Nxcrypto Message 03:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Block appeal - Solaire the knight

As the block appeal for Solaire the knight (talk · contribs) has been open for several weeks without closure, I've volunteered to bring it here for community review.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Begin appeal:

After additional consultations and conversations with administrators, I decided to submit an additional request, answering the necessary questions asked of me by the administrator Z1720.

An edit warring is when users revert other people's edits, especially repeatedly, rather than trying to reach consensus within the project's rules (this is objectively bad and prohibited because edit warrning destroys constructive work on the article and turns it into battlefield between users). My actions were rightly defined as a edit warring, because instead of opening a topic in the discussion of the page and showing reasonedly, with authoritative sources, why I think my edits are correct and reaching consensus through mutual discussion, I simply canceled the edits of my opponents and appealed to them " morality and justice." In the future, If my edit is reverted, then I will refrain from such actions as destructive and create a thematic thread on the talk page to discuss the conflict that has arisen and how it can be resolved within the framework of the project rules. Once the discussion is over, I will need to ask a neutral administrator to summarize it in order to approve consensus and avoid new conflict due to different views on the outcome of the discussion.

A reliable source is an authoritative source who and meets Wikipedia's requirements for authoritative resources and can confirm the information I add. For example, if I want to add a claim that a scene from a show has become a meme, I need a source that directly describes this meme and meets Wikipedia's requirements for authoritative sources on a given topic. If other users express doubts about this, then I should also initially create a topic on the discussion page, where convincingly demonstrate authority of the source or provide new authoritative sources, instead of using any emotional reverts. This can be done by showing that the source is considered authoritative in its field (for example, it is widely quoted and recognized as authoritative by other objectively authoritative sources), is not in the database of prohibited sources on Wikipedia itself, and is not engaged in the dissemination of unauthoritative or biased information such as conspiracy theories, etc.

I accept your reproach. Instead of drawing conclusions from the warnings of administrators and other users, and correcting any identified problems in my actions, I simply began to argue and complain about other users, although the topic of discussion should have been my behavior, and not transferring blame to other users or or another links to “justice and morality.” Now I understand that in such situations I should have at least adjusted my behavior and discussed in a polite and reasonable tone how I could correct this in the future. As a last resort, consult with familiar users. But definitely don’t taking this as an attack or a challenge against me.

To sum up the above, I ask you to unblock me by demonstrating that I recognize and understand the problems voiced and leading to my blocking. In the future, I promise to resolve any conflicts through constructive dialogue with authoritative sources within the rules on the talk page, avoid any edit wars, and take warnings as an opportunity to stop and correct problems in my actions instead of reacting hostilely to them. I hope that I have adequately answered the questions asked of me and can expect the block to be lifted. But of course, if any additional questions arise for me, I can always answer them.Solaire the knight (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

• It seems like a reasonably self-aware unblock request, so I'd be ok with an unblock. If unblocked, STK needs to remember that their edits are going to be watched more carefully for a while, so they should tread very carefully. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support unblock, hesitantly. I'd have liked to have seen some edits on other projects while they were blocked to show they can collaborate (August 2023 to June 2024, no edits anywhere). Looking at their interactions here and on their talk page at ru.wp, Solaire the knight seems to have been easily provoked. But they seem to recognize that in their unblock request and indicate they plan to react differently going forward, "definitely don’t taking this as an attack or a challenge against me". I hope they can adjust their approach to collaborative editing; their contribution history shows the potential for being a useful and productive editor. Schazjmd (talk) 22:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
• I reviewed the first unblock request last year, and left a very detailed response on what Solaire needed to address in a future unblock request. I have no opinion on this, and instead endorse the community's consensus. I invite editors who are commenting on this to read my comments in the first unblock request and determine if this addresses those concerns. Z1720 (talk) 02:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)