Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

I noticed this Turkish-language Reddit link.[1]. It seems a massive off-wiki campaign has been initiated by Turkish-language speakers to create more disruption in the cesspool known as WP:AA2 and WP:KURDS. As the posts/comments were in Turkish, they were translated using Google tranlate:

• "The first spark was ignited in order to correct and organize the unfounded claims we have seen on Wikipedia recently. r/turkviki was established. Let's get organized from there."[2]
• "Friends, this subreddit was founded on the termination of unfounded claims made on Wikipedia. Our aim is to put an end to the unfounded allegations made on Wikipedia, the propaganda activities targeting our country and nation, to express the truth and correct the mistakes."[3]
• "we need a larger audience, salaried employees of wikipedia, and I don't know how effective we can be against the current Turkish hatred"[4]
• "Turkish Wikipedia Community Discord server. Friends, I left the link below if you would like to join the works that started before us."[5]
• "Friends, let's start with the liberation war first and let there be a spark of salvation for us from the lies in Wikipedia."[6]
• "First of all, we must explain why this claim [Armenian genocide] is not true. For example, instead of the 1.5 million people they said, there were actually 1.1 million Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire. There is no article about genocide against Armenians in the Treaty of Mudros Sevres or Lausanne. Until 1948, the United Nations and the League of Nations before it never defined a crime called genocide, and if you eat pizza and eat pizza in the future is a war crime, they cannot hold you guilty for what you did in the past. You can write that the deportation was carried out by the Union and Terraki and that the remaining Unionists completely severed their ties with the party at the Sivas congress, and the Parliament was against what the Committee of Union and Terraki did. In addition, we must reveal the evils committed by Armenians in the public opinion, instead of the crimes they have committed, the terrorist attacks of ASALA in Europe will be the best examples."[7]
• "Ottoman archives of the period are available on this site: Devletarsivleri.gov.tr (<cant post the entire link due to blockquote error>) It is enough for someone to translate it into Turkish for us to understand. then we edit the page on the wiki."[8]
• "The first thing that needs to be changed is the name. Then we will add the villages and towns burned by the Armenians. The number of people killed by Armenians is not specified. We should add them too. Let's diversify the missing parts as comments. Good luck with."[9]
• "A patrol is here! hello, i am zemxer from turkish wikipedia. As I'm on patrol on Turkish Wikipedia, I try to help new users as much as possible. You know, there is an approval system for the contributions made in Turkish Wikipedia, and I am one of the patrol friends who approve these contributions. I can help users and groups who want to contribute to Wikipedia and who want to make these contributions in an impartial framework. good wikis"[10]

So this group of people 1) clearly state their intention to spread Turkish government propaganda at Eng.Wikipedia disproven by the rest of the world 2) They receive support from users at the Turkish Wikipedia. Posting it here at AN as suggested by several administrators. You might be interested in this: @Rosguill: @Buidhe: @Bbb23: @Seraphimblade: @Black Kite: @Deepfriedokra: @Johnuniq: @HistoryofIran: @Dennis Brown: @Drmies: @El C: @Khirurg: @Kansas Bear: @Cplakidas: ‎- LouisAragon (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discord server

When looking at the members of their discord, I noticed a person named "Berk". He has a portrait of Ulugh Beg as his discord profile picture, the very same added by one of our own Wikipedians, BerkBerk68, here [11]. In other words, they must be the same person. BerkBerk seems to have a prominent role there, as he has published the rules of the discord. This is not the first time user:BerkBerk has participated in off-wiki canvassing through Discord, see for example these two posts back in July 2021, where user:BerkBerk tried to recruit an admin to his "14 people" discord, which was apparently focused on editing the Syrian Civil War and 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War. [12]-[13]- LouisAragon (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note the date 27-06-2022 at Discord:[14] Seems there's a triad involving editors at the Turkish wiki, off-wiki people, and editors at Eng.Wiki. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LouisAragon, this report may have all kinds of merit, but doesn't the "The discord server" bit inch into WP:OUTING? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Berk#2835 is me, and that community has permission from authorities of Turkish Wikipedia, and it is not interested in English Wikipedia editing. Many experienced/authorized Turkish-language editors are in that group, furthermore I am not the owner of that server. I undertake all the mistakes done by me at "discord" one year ago. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 13:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I not surprised to see you engaging in this kind of stuff again. Not interested in English Wikipedia editing? What is this you have written under Planlama ("Planning") then? Google Translate "Users will be divided into 2 main sectors as English and Turkish Writers. It is obligatory to make a total of 100 edits, 60 from one sector and 40 from another sector, on behalf of users who want to participate in both. When the new week is started, the number of edits between sectors (60-40) may change." I did write a similar report about BerkBerk to ArbCom sometime ago, though I am still awaiting an update. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I invite administrators to the discord server to prove that there is not any single edit provoked by me in english wikipedia, everything asked will be translated by me, and for any kind of distrust, access to server logs (+ProBot for deleted messages) will be given. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 13:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discord link here just got deleted [15] (including the user who posted it) and the discord is now gone. Something you and co. trying to hide? Fortunately I took pictures of BerkBerk's "Planning" list before hand. Would it violate WP:OUTING to post it here? --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

that text is not written by me, the person who writed it wanted me to post it (I understand the reason now), the planning list is already posted and I have opposed the things going on reddit on that server aswell. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 13:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kutlug Şad — 13.10.2022 O zaman r/Turkviki başlı başına canlı kuklacılık ("Then r/Turkviki is completely meatpuppet") Berk (me) — 13.10.2022 Öyle zaten ("it is, already") Kutlug Şad also posts a screenshot showing him posting a nationalistic comment, calling reddit users to the discord and asks me about it, I told him "don't". BerkBerk⁶⁸ 13:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

again, all logs and messages will be opened for Administrators. I have never motivated anyone to make any edits on English Wikipedia on that server. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 13:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So.. you wrote for the sake of someone else? Honestly, your excuses bore me. Prepare to make more, as this is not even scrapping the barrel. As I said, I also have that huge ArbCom report of you. Not to mention you have been called out for nationalistic editing or similiar by other users than me. Let's not forget my previous ANI report of you either. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have found messages of the owner sending me the text in order to publish it on server at 27.06.2022. since "discord screenshots" can't be used here, I will post it when its necessary. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 16:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly urge you (both) to only send any personal data like that to ArbCom — posting screenshots/text or anything that someone could argue is personal data will, at the very least, cause drama. The back and forth here is unlikely to resolve the issue, given that it appears to depend on this private evidence. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 17:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

its not just me, but also another experienced editor pings 2 other editors including me, asking if that would be "meatpuppet". and I respond: "it would absolutely be called that because it is". messages at 13.10.2022 proves that I am blaming that subreddit. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 13:50, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HistoryofIran Per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 169#Discord logs Posting discord logs on wiki is oversightable. Email them to arbcom. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see. The issue is that it (respectfully) takes too long if I message ArbCom. They still haven't updated me regarding the ArbCom report of Berkberk, which I sent two months ago. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HistoryofIran: If you believe there's action that ArbCom can take, I'd suggest starting a case request — just ensure you keep the right side of WP:OUTING etc, and (re-)email the committee the private evidence — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 18:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on the evidence already provided in this thread regarding how this Discord group has been advertised and coordinated on Reddit, specifically taking issue with content on en.wiki, I don't buy the claim that this is unrelated to en.wiki editing. Frankly, the rhetoric surrounding this group online is WP:RGW and vitriolic enough that I would have serious concerns about them even operating as a group on tr.wiki; there may be a case for starting a discussion on Metawiki. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You are openly invited to the aforementioned group to see the proofs of my opposition on the subreddit. messages there are clearly showing that individuals wanted to support the subreddit and to invite reddit users while experienced editors including me opposed that. it would also prove the fact that I have never encouraged/supported anyone to edit on english wikipedia. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 18:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you more clearly explain what the purpose of this Discord group is? Setting aside your specific participation, what is the purpose of the group, and why has it been promoted on reddit forums in the highly combative manner detailed by LouisAragon in the first part of this discussion? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The fact that both the Discord and Reddit sub-forum are now private makes BerkBerk's claim even less believable. I also still have that screenshot of his "Planning" message if an admin is interested. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, according to this post from 9 days ago, the privating the subreddit was something planned in advance, so. That's on me. ~Styyx^Talk? 23:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, glad to see. Some users think that I am managing a whole reddit group despite I have opposed that group days ago. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 15:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  promotions were made by different users and multiple experienced users including me thought that it would be meatpuppetry and opposed that (as it could be seen on the server messages including the meatpuppet expression). The general thought of the community is that Turkish community on Wikipedia have been regressed a lot due to the disgusting decision of Turkish government on blocking Wikipedia, and therefore source interpretation has changed a lot, which I totally agree with that. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 15:27, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Turkish community on Wikipedia have been regressed a lot due to the disgusting decision of Turkish government on blocking Wikipedia, and therefore source interpretation has changed a lot, which I totally agree with that, this does not allay concerns that the discord is operating as a POV-pushing platform. Additionally, your position in this thread is that there is a subset of people involved with the discord that have been publicizing it improperly, against your advice and against the intent of the server in the first place, would be a lot more convincing if you identified the black-hat editors misusing the discord so that we could investigate and address their malfeasance. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  ofcourse, the user that I have warned about this situation is Kutlug Şad as I explained above. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 16:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's some POV editing happening right now at Karapapakhs, who were renamed to "Karapapakhs Turks" by some IPs and a new account. Drmies (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have seen a large increase in dubious editing on Turkic history-related articles recently. I asked for a sockpuppet investigation into one because I thought edits were too similar. However, accounts coordinating off-wiki could very possibly be another solution. ~~ AirshipJ29 (talk) 00:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two brand new users are currently engaging in POV editing at Seljuk Empire, attempting to remove 7k sourced information through edit warring. This is not good. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Aaand r/Turkviki has been made private by its moderators. ~Styyx^Talk? 17:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• My screenshot of BerkBerk's "Planning" comment also shows a certain user (who has the role of "Yönetici", meaning "Executive"), that is User:Beyoglou. A notorious xenophobic pan-nationalist and sock (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Beyoglou/Archive), whom BerkBerk has claimed that he has "no relation to" [16] and has tried to defend [17]. Yet they are in the same discord, curious. Not to mention some of Beyoglou's socks have come to the aid of BerkBerk several times. Again, I have all kinds of proof to back this up, but WP:OUTING is not making this easy. I would prefer to send this to an admin who would be willing to make a quick judgement of this, rather than ArbCom. Though if I have no choice, I will send it to the latter. This connects rather too well with my current ArbCom report of BerkBerk. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:12, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Individual administrators aren't allowed to act on non-public evidence. It has to be ArbCom for something like this. – Joe (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, I have sent it all to ArbCom and asked them about an update regarding my other report. However, I do think some sort of action or actions needs to be taken here, as this is very concerning. We can't just sit idle. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I've gone ahead and blocked BerkBerk68. If y'all have a clue as to other editors I should block based on this matter, ping me. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:31, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Was that an action based on private evidence (as you mention on the user's talk page) provided to ArbCom? If so, we can assume this was a block made in your capacity as an arbitrator (given that you wouldn't have access to that private evidence were you not one), and not a "standard functionary" — correct? — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 20:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @TheresNoTime Ya know, that is a good question. I'm not 100% sure of that answer? I don't think it can be a block in my capacity as an Arb, because individual Arbs can't place blocks. An ArbCom block is by its nature a block by the committee and we only place them after a vote. So I think it must be a block in my capacity as an individual func. I asked that question of another Arb before I blocked, since I too wondered that, and they were also of the opinion that I could use the info ArbCom had been emailed to make an individual block. We do that from time to time with other matters: we get emailed something that really doesn't need the whole committee to waste its time on it, so one of us will just do it as an individual admin action. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:15, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  An individual admin action based on private evidence that no other admin/functionary (other than those on the committee) can verify/review? Doesn't that sound incredibly close to a recent discussion.. perhaps the community needs to be consulted on if they're happy for these actions to take place. I'm certainly not, and would expect our arbs to use a bit of common sense. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I read that RfC as saying that individual admins couldn't make those blocks, but individual CU/OS could, or of course ArbCom. So unless I've misinterpreted that RfC, I don't see how taking the action as an individual CU is an issue? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I thought the whole point with allowing that was private evidence was available for review by those with relevant access (i.e., all functionaries can review the private evidence which led to an action being taken)? Seeing as all functionaries are unable to review this evidence, and this wasn't an action by an arbitrator, all I can see is that you've decided to make a block based off of this thread. Perhaps that's warranted, I don't particularly care, but I definitely do care about ArbCom making somewhat secret decisions but enacting them in their private capacity. Whom do we hold accountable, the committee or the arb? How can we review an unblock request in this case? Do we contact the committee, or you? Why didn't ArbCom forward this evidence to the checkuser list when it decided it as an entity didn't want to do anything with it? These are worrying questions, and the community deserves transparency in how often this happens. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I see your concern, I'm not sure it's a major issue. Let's say that someone emails ArbCom an UpWork profile and says "so and so is a paid editor." Technically it's private evidence. But it would not be worth the time of the committee for all 15 members to deliberate and vote on blocking an obvious paid editor. So an individual Arb can just block said obvious paid editor without needing to make it an ArbCom block. It would be no different if say someone had emailed just me, and not ArbCom. In either case, the block I make is as an individual CU. The appeal is not difficult: the CU looking into unblocking just emails the blocking CU (pretty standard procedure) and asks what the basis for the block was. The blocking CU sends over the UpWork profile, and all is well. This case here is but a variation on that theme. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, so have opened a dedicated thread below. Thanks. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, CaptainEek. I will soon make a (probably unpopular) proposal here on how we can deal with this massive off-Wiki campaign, I would appreciate to hear what you all think of it. We shouldn't take this matter lightly one bit imo. Before the Reddit got private, there were like 400 members. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

• Proposal: 500edits/30days restriction over WP:AA2 and WP:KURDS articles.

As LouisAragon rightly put it, the WP:AA2 and WP:KURDS is a cesspool, and it's not going to get better anytime soon, especially with these massive off-wiki campaigns. In my 10 years on this site, the vast majority of IPs and brand new users in this area have been WP:NOTHERE, often ending up getting indeffed for pov editing and/or egregious attacks. It's also too easy for these troublemakers to sock nowadays, it's almost laughable. For example, see this long SPI archive [18] of the notorious sock Aydın memmedov2000, which doesn't even show all of their socks, there are even more of this person here [19]. Sadly that's just one of many cases. It would alleviate so much time and stress on Wikipedia if we implemented at least some sort of restriction in this area. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:30, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with HistoryofIran that there are too many LTAs in WP:AA2 (I can't speak for WP:KURDS) and that something needs to be done to address this. Aside from the LTA HistoryofIran mentioned above, there are 2 additional LTAs (1 & 2) whose socks I must report at least once or twice each month. It's extremely rare for a new account or IP in AA2 to make a helpful edit; instead, 99% of the time, they only do so to vandalise or promote a POV. I think the requirement of 500 edits and 30 days (which could possibly be lowered to 200-300 edits and 15 days) is a good idea to address this problem, so I support it. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 10:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for both. There's so much disruption in these areas, I'm surprised we don't already have a good enough restriction on them. Nythar (💬-🎃) 22:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this edit I reverted just now. They're even disrupting article not related to WP:KURDS. Let's at least ECP articles directly related to that topic area. — Nythar (💬-🎃) 22:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support applying WP:ARBECR to AA2 and KURDS. Levivich (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support something needs to be done concerning the flood of IPs and sockpuppets. The AA2 area is continuously being disrupted by the socks of Aydın memmedov2000, Beyoglou, Steverci. And a listing of disruption for the last 3 yrs: 2022 disruption 2021 disruption, 2020 disruption. I think this says it all. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was topic banned from BLPs. I would like to be un-topic-banned. I completely admit that some of my edits on/about 25 September 2021‎ to Kendall Clements, Garth Cooper, Michael Corballis, Douglas Elliffe, Robert Nola, Elizabeth Rata, and John Werry were unbalanced, cut-and-paste edits; bad encyclopedia-writing up and down. They were made in the heat of the moment and I should not have made them. They will not be repeated should I be unbanned. In the meantime I've:

1. made a mistake
2. made a couple of thousand edits (link slow to open due to age of my account and the number of edits)
3. recieved a (procedural) NPP barnstar (another one, maybe two, likely see Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Backlog_drives/October_2022)
4. seen some drama on meta (since en.wiki is the only WMF wiki I'm really active on, I'm assuming this was related to something on en.wiki)
5. had an en.wiki BLP I largely wrote nominated for Translation of the Week on meta
6. had a pretty good record of PRODs
7. since it was mentioned at the original ANI thread, I've also used an alt.
8. been contacted off-wiki about Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ronald_R._Fieve by someone who appeared to think this was relavent. I don't think it's relavent, but I'm including here for completeness.

Please be aware that there a technical reasons why old twitter content cannot be deleted (only the first 3,200 tweets of each account are accessible via API); all/almost all of my remaining tweets fall into this category.

In addition to my topic ban being lifted, I request that someone fix the copyright issues with Listener letter on science controversy. The initial version of this contains text lifted from one of the above-mentioned BLPs without declaring the source of the copyrighted text. Due to the close link to the previous issues I should probably not touch that right out of the gate. TBH, I'm not sure how that gets fixed either. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Stuartyeates: I posted an edit summary to note the copying within Wikipedia, per the instructions at §Repairing insufficient attribution. I think that what you meant is that this copying happened without such a note—more of a licensing than a copyright issue—but if there are also issues with insufficient attribution to copyrighted source, I think you could (cautiously) be more specific without breaking the spirit of the TBAN. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Firefangledfeathers. I think your edit covers my concerns. I'm unaware of any further issues. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm leary to extend grace in this case; your allocution above seems to focus on the more technical violations involving copy-paste issues; but completely ignore the meat of nearly every person who supported your ban which was that these were essentially attack pages. It's not just "unbalanced" or "bad encyclopedia writing"; your whole request seems to be of the "mistakes were made" type. You edited Wikipedia articles specifically to disparage and attack real living people. You wrote things in Wikipedia to maliciously damage the reputation of several people. That's a far worse behavior than being "unbalanced" or "bad encyclopedia writing". --Jayron32 15:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I am in general agreement with Jayron32 on this matter. In order to support removing the topic ban, I would expect a much more frank addressing of the indisputable fact that Stuartyeates created a bunch of non-neutral, poorly written BLPs for the purpose of besmirching living people who took the other side in an academic controversy than Stuartyeates's personal opinion. And then he gloated and bragged about his BLP violations off-Wikipedia, bringing this encyclopedia into disrepute. As one editor said in April, weaponzing Wikipedia to attack opponents who are living people in a misguided attempt to "right great wrongs" is a truly egregious violation that requires a much more detailed and much more "on point" self-reflection before I could support lifting the topic ban. Cullen328 (talk) 06:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Jayron and Cullen have already said everything I would have said about this appeal - no need for me to repeat. Begoon 11:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Adding, as perhaps a still outstanding issue: At the previous discussion I remarked: "Back on topic, and I think this was mentioned above, the User:Stuartyeates user page says: "Disclaimer: I own multiple Wikipedia accounts in a manner permitted by policy." Obviously those accounts are subject to the same topic ban, since it is the person, rather than a specific account, to whom the ban applies. I don't immediately see where/if Stuart names the 'multiple' accounts, though...". Stuart confirms the use of "an alt" above. If the topic ban is maintained then unless any other "alt"(s) is/are linked then I'm not sure how these "multiple Wikipedia accounts" can be monitored for compliance. Unless, of course, "an alt" means, or is supposed to be taken to mean that it is the only one... Begoon 14:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have this account. I have User:Not your siblings' deletionist. I have one other recently-active account, I have sent an email to AC about, as per WP:ALTACCN. I have a bunch of inactive accounts like, User:StuartYeates (last edit 2011), User:Stuartyeates (code test) (last edit 2014), User:Stuartyeates_randombot (last edit 2014), and probably others I've forgotten the names of. I have no other recently-active accounts. I am 100% aware that my TBAN applies to all of these and believe my only breach has been the one listed above which was dealt with proactively. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not convinced. The BLP violations and off-wiki behaviour that led to the ban were egregious, which the appeal does not really address. Stuartyeates has not sufficiently explained what kind of BLP material they would edit after the ban is lifted or how they would avoid repeating their mistakes. Politrukki (talk) 16:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• (non-admin comment) At the time, I argued for leniency, not because I thought Stuartyeates' edits were justified, but because the bad behavior was highly focused on a singular event, and a blanket ban from all BLPs seemed both disproportionate and punitive. I am not sure how to phrase a narrower interdict (a ban from editing BLPs on scholars and academics? from living New Zealand academics or anybody to with the controversy, broadly construed?, as a couple people suggested at ANI?), but I continue to think that a response along those lines would be more proportionate to the offense. XOR'easter (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many/most of my edits post-TBAN have been assigning new/orphan articles to wikiprojects, which are talk namespace edits. Narrowing the interdict to only apply to article space would allow me to do this for BLPs and BLP-like articles which I've had to avoid. Also a much more black-and-white test than 'controversy'. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why would "narrowing the topic ban" be seriously considered while the crux of the matter remains unaddressed?

Above, Cullen said: As one editor said in April, weaponzing Wikipedia to attack opponents who are living people in a misguided attempt to "right great wrongs" is a truly egregious violation that requires a much more detailed and much more "on point" self-reflection before I could support lifting the topic ban.

Do you disagree with that assessment?

I don't. Begoon 12:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I do. That is, I've read Stuartyeates' statements then and now, and my honest take on the matter is that they know what they did wrong. I don't need to see further paragraphs of repenting in sackcloth and ashes to be convinced of that. XOR'easter (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It has been pointed out to me off-wiki that it's been six months. I am, however, unable to partake of the WP:Standard offer which doesn't seem to apply to a TBAN, only a site ban or an indefinite block. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can any admin close the discussion already? It has been over a week since it was relisted. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 09:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Currently AFD closures are slightly backlogged to 21 October listings. I am sure someone will get to your AFD soon. For future reference, if a closure is long overdue (I'm talking a week or more past the expected closing date), WP:ANRFC is the place to be. Stifle (talk) 10:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Involved at the AfD) The most recent comment was today, so beyond the backlog, I wouldn't be surprised if closers give it more time to make sure the discussion is actually over before closing. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just CU-blocked SMBMovieFan. Unfortunately they managed to rack up 700+ edits in their 3 week tenure. They have edited extensively in project space and participated in a number of discussions; I'm hoping a handful of editors would be willing to check through their edits to note the socking in discussions and/or strike their comments when appropriate as I'm about to log off for the day. I'll do what I can in te next 20 minutes or so, but extra eyes on their contribs would be appreciated.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:06, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ponyo, I'm cleaning up too. Can this discussion be closed: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Smartphones? — Nythar (💬-🎃) 23:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nythar: That's been deleted by Liz. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stifle, I wrote that message when it was still blue :) — Nythar (💬-🎃) 08:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe and I both requested undeletion of American engineering company Terracon at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 November 1 and WP:REFUND. -- Jax 0677 (talk) 12:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

REFUND is not the correct venue to undelete articles deleted via discussion. You have the DRV ongoing. No need for AN. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a temp undelete - see my comment at the DRV. Black Kite (talk) 13:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce that MJL (talk · contribs) has been appointed a full clerk, effective immediately, concluding their successful traineeship.

The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by e-mail to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee, Primefac (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § MJL promoted to full clerk

The arbitration case Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block has now closed and the final decision has been posted. The following remedies and motions are part of the final decision:

• For breaches of Wikipedia's administrative norms, Lourdes is warned.
• For conduct which fell short of the high standards of behavior expected of functionaries, the CheckUser permissions of TheresNoTime are removed. They may seek to regain them only through the usual appointment methods.
• For conduct which fell short of the high standards of behavior expected of functionaries, the Oversight permissions of TheresNoTime are removed. They may seek to regain them only through the usual appointment methods.
• For serious breaches of Wikipedia's administrative norms and of the CheckUser policy, TheresNoTime is admonished.
• The Arbitration Committee wishes to express that Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Actions by parties to a proceeding does not apply to TheresNoTime given that a majority of active arbitrators had opposed desysopping them at the time they relinquished their adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block closed

Second time I come across a sockpuppet editing a slew of articles that they've edited before... of course this is not out of the norm.....but in this case they're simply reverting edits. My question is do administrators have the ability to see a watchlist. As in can admins tell/see if a watchlist has been copied pasted from one watchlist to a new users watchlist? And if so is this method used in an investigation...and if not would this not be a good idea? Moxy- 00:31, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, no one is able to look at another user's watchlist. I don't even like looking at my own.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. I assume sysadmins could do some kind of DB dump, but that's well beyond our capabilities as volunteers. Also, there's no reason to assume they're using a watchlist in the new account the first place - maybe they're using the blocked account's watchlist, or maybe they just keep a bunch of tabs open...who knows. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thats mostly true, with the exception that a user who has your watchlist token (see Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist and Wikipedia:Syndication#Watchlist feed with token) can view a RSS feed of your watchlist (although that still doesn't let you see which articles are on it, and sharing that requires active effort) -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 19:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you have access to both accounts, you can use the "Edit Raw Watchlist" function to copy and paste a watchlist from one account to the other. But it's just a straight text copy and paste, and presumably leaves no record in any logs. 82.17.168.217 (talk) 11:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From Help:Watchlist: No user, not even administrators, can tell what is in your watchlist, or who is watching any particular page. Publicly available database dumps do not include this information either. However, developers who have access to the servers that hold the Wikipedia database can obtain this information. Animal lover |666| 14:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to legitimate info to a article to a page for a broadcast,how ever noone has bothered to check out the provided info submitted,this is unacceptable for wikiprdia,but I am accused of edit war according to the reverts made on KTVV-LD Othelum (talk) 01:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, discuss your proposed changes on the article talk page to seek consensus for your changes. If unable to resolve the dispute, seek dispute resolution. Best -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Othelum: I don't think KTTV-LD can sustain its own article, so I listed the redirect at RfD. RAN1 (talk) 04:13, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I want to disclose that I may possibly engage in some paid off-Wikipedia consulting and training work, related to Wikipedia article creation. I will not edit Wikipedia directly for any such client but may advise potential clients about policies, guidelines and best practices. Feel free to ask me for clarification. This is the type of advice that I already provide at the Teahouse and the Help Desk. Cullen328 (talk) 06:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for disclosing this. I'll reiterate what I said some time ago at Wikipedia talk:List of paid editing companies § Move firm to "Never blocked"?. I don't think off-wiki training or consulting requires any disclosure, although I think some level of disclosure is desirable, especially coming from an admin. MarioGom (talk) 15:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KrakatoaKatie, TheSandDoctor, and I have begun working on the RfC close. For Question 2, I've generated a google docs spreadsheet to help me tabulate the responses. I'm looking for a volunteer who I can deputize to proofread it for me, just to verify that I've transcribed all the data correctly. You don't need to be an admin, just somebody who didn't participate in the RfC and is willing to slog through a big pile of numbers to check them for accuracy. In return, you will earn the thanks of the committee and the right to display this handsome deputy's badge on your user page. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS, drop me an email if you're interested. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And we have a winner. Thank you to Firefangledfeathers for stepping up. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

However it comes out, thanks to all four of you for donating your time and sanity to the project. Levivich (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A closing statement has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale/Closing statement. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have just blocked Rathfelder, an editor with over half a million contributions, indefinitely for socking. CU data shows that they have also been editing as Bigwig7, and have repeatedly used that account to back up their main account in discussions. Posting here since I know a lot of people will be surprised to see the block. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I knew what it was that makes people who seem level-headed do such silly things. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Well, I've looked at the history and the evidence is clear. Sorry to be losing another prolific category editor, even if he was abrasive. I guess it's one way to be cured of Wikipediholism. – Fayenatic London 12:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Before anyone reports me to the Ombuds, I have not shared the CU evidence with Fayenatic london. The publicly viewable evidence was sufficiently strong for me to run a check; the CU data was obvious and undeniable. I don't want this to be the end of the road for such a prolific editor - it's an indefinite block, but I'll say for the record that it doesn't need to be permanent. If they address why they did this, and make a convincing undertaking not to do it again, I wouldn't stand in the way of an unblock. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noted – I just meant that I had reviewed the editor interaction history, and found it conclusive. Apologies for implying anything else. For the record, I have no objection to Girth Summit's other statements either. – Fayenatic London 16:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No apology needed! Just didn't want any unnecessary dramah... Girth Summit _(blether) 16:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC) [reply]

I wish I knew what it was that makes people who seem level-headed do such silly things. The fact that we view them as level-headed is generally what opens the door for them to do it. The vast majority of fraud is not committed by overtly bad actors, but by people with access and the wherewithal to know how to get away with it. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 00:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I didn't expect to be shocked when I visited the noticeboard today but here it is. Rathfelder is a long-time editor I've seen around Wikipedia for nearly forever who has done good work here. I also agree with Girth Summit that if Rathfelder addressed why they did this and undertook to not to do it again, it would be reasonable to support an unblock.--SouthernNights (talk) 20:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW, I think I understand how good editors could wind up doing a bad thing like using a sock for support in discussions: An editor is dedicated to improving the encyclopedia, and makes many edits that do so, but they find that at times they are prevented from doing so by objections from other editors. Discussions are held, but the other editors aren't convinced by our editor's arguments, and consensus goes against them. Wikipedia has no mechanism to make certain that the "right" edit is advanced, so our editor starts to feel that having another voice in discussions would help them to win consensus and continue to improve Wikipedia. Probably they know that what they are doing is wrong, that it's against the rules, but improving Wikipedia is the bottom lime, isn't it?, so they keep on doing it. The ends, they feel, justifies the means.
  I have no idea if this is what happened with Rathfelder (and my description is not something which I ever did or would so, I assure everyone, although the thought has certainly crossed my mind), but that's surely one way it could happen. I think that many of us have come across what feels to us like wrongful blockage of good change -- I know I have -- so I have empathy for Rathfelder, and agree with those saying that a full explanation and a undertaking not to do it again should be sufficient for an unblock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is exactly what I assumed happened. I've seen it more than a few times and the siren's song is certainly there from time-to-time. Hobit (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Rathfelder has certainly made an inordinate number of edits and created and populated an enormous number of categories (100s per month). However many of these categories are ill-conceived, badly named, incorrectly parented, and only partially filled, absorbing the patience and time of other editors at cfd after cfd (see Rathfelder's talk). At least 2 editors have recently called for Rathfelder to be banned from category creation (user:BrownHairedGirl at this cfd (June 22) - "it is long past time for Rathfelder to recuse themself from categorisation or be banned from it for repeatedly demonstrating a severe and disruptive lack of competence" and user:Johnbod at this cfd (Oct 22) - "At the moment I would support a ban on new categories creation").
  My own view is that an indefinite ban for sock-puppetry is draconian, but that unblocking without a general discussion would be far too lenient. I also concur with BHG and Johnbod: Rathfelder should slow down, pay attention to other editors and cfds, do things properly or not at all. (The combination of Rathfelder and Bigwig7 at this cfd is particularly egregious.) Oculi (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

I have unblocked Rathfelder. They have accepted a one-account restriction, and TBans from categories, and from XfD discussions. These may be appealed in no less than six months, at this noticeboard. Girth Summit _(blether) 00:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am Costas Sacalis and I am from Greece. Please delete the User:Αρχιδάκια page. --2A02:85F:F5FF:BD72:20A4:6D1C:6F87:86EE (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the username? It translates roughly to "chiefs" or "chieftains". Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, αρχιδάκια means testicles in Greek. --2A02:85F:F5FF:BD72:20A4:6D1C:6F87:86EE (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a blocked account that hasn't edited in five years. If its existence offends you, don't look at it. Or at our article, testicles, for that matter. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bollocks to that! (I couldn't resist). Dumuzid (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quite why anyone should be bothered by a userid that has been blocked for five years is beyond me. Yes, we could delete the user page, but why bother? Nobody who wasn't looking for it would find it anyway. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The formal word for testicles is όρχεις (hence the English word Orchiectomy), but Αρχιδάκια is apparently one of many slang words for the same. We could speedily delete the user & user talk pages under WP:U5, although I suspect that the anon has only taken offence against it because somebody else had beaten him to register the account first.

As for the anon's first edit User talk:Δημιουργία λογαρασμού, which means "Create an account", that account has never edited, and was blocked sitewide in 2016 for socking on Greek Wikipedia, so we should delete that page. – Fayenatic London 21:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ever since problems were raised three weeks ago with the #CfACP campaign, I've been keeping an eye on the edits of Special:AbuseFilter/1073. To recap, this is a meta initiative with four Wikimedians in residence, to combat climate disinformation. The quality of the edits has been very poor: copyright violations, weird wikilinks (for instance, [[global positioning system|global]]), nonsensical citations (f.i. a dermatology paper to talk about the environment), and additions of unsourced text. Participants barely engage on talk.

@Jwale2 is coordinating. The participants from the Kenyan part of the project, for which @Cmwaura is the WiR, are responsible for most edits. @Clayoquot has been so kind to offer training, but disruption has continued. Not entirely sure what we do in similar circumstances. @Astinson (WMF) may advice from the WMF side.

I propose we ask the organisers the following:

1. Immediately stop recruiting volunteers
2. Deal with problematic edits themselves. Cmwaura is a new editor herself, so I'm not sure they have the skills to do this.
   1. Monitor edits. Check each for copyright. I have not seen a single comment on participants talk pages from organisers, nor any corrections in main space. Which means volunteers have had to check around 400 edits, most of which require reverting + warning, or fixing.
   2. Inform participants of basic policies on copyright, linking and citations. Ask problematic editors to stop editing unless they have finished training.
3. Clarify to participants that they will not get compensation for data usage if their edits are unconstructive.

In addition, I think it would be good if an uninvolved administrator could keep an eye on the abuse filter, and place partial blocks from main space/CIR blocks where appropriate. Many participates continue to disrupt after multiple warnings. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sending brand new users into a topic area with DS is unwise -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An experienced editor is needed to guide brand new editors in this area, which we don't seem to have. For a DS topic, it's a relative friendly topic area. The disruption is around generic WP:Competence is required issues, so I think the DS angle is less relevant here. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 13:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is deeply unfair that the (apparently paid) organizers of this project are refusing to engage appropriately. This essentially forces unpaid regular editors into the position of having to scrutinize and correct 400+ problematic edits added by barely-competent participants in another stupid WMF outreach project. This goes double in the area of climate change, where editing usefully may take more scientific understanding than many volunteers have (myself very much included). Frankly I think we should mass-revert anything with this hashtag and block participants if they keep adding rubbish to articles. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking through that edit filter log, here's a summary of the last few edits from that contest, ignoring edits that were just adding images:

Why does the WMF continue to run these "contests" and "campaigns" which do nothing but degrade the encyclopedia and waste editor time? From what I can see, the campaign participants have not responded to any of the concerns other editors have brought up on their talk pages, and nor have they tried to rectify any of those issues. For example, VickyOmondi's talk page is filled with dozens of warnings about copyright which all seem to have been ignored. I get the feeling that under normal circumstances, some of these users might have already been blocked for disruptive editing/WP:CIR/WP:IDHT issues. Thank you Femke for donating your time to help clean up their contributions, but I heavily question why it was made necessary for you to do that in the first place. (edit conflict) Endwise (talk) 09:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editors and admins here may perhaps be interested in WP:Don't knit beside the guillotine. It addresses some aspects of the wiki-culture at noticeboards, and grew out of a now-archived discussion at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 16#Making ANI less toxic. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fantastic essay, definitely needed more than ever in this day and age. I will thoroughly ponder its lessons, and will do my best to take them to heart. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appealing user

Venkat TL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction being appealed

An indefinite topic ban from the subject of politics in the WP:ARBIPA topic area, broadly construed (that includes related individuals, political history, etc.)

(Diff)

Administrator imposing the sanction

El C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notified

Special:Diff/1120321456

Statement

I have been topic banned from editing topics related to Politics on Wikipedia on 25 October 2022 .

I was page blocked for edit warring, on an article about ongoing political event. After the block expired, a fellow significant contributor of that page posted on my talk page asking me to help maintain the page. I wanted to respond positively to the request by the fellow contributor but I was worried that another revert I make on that page could lead me to a month long block for edit warring. Due to significant concern, I asked this question to the admin, who had given me the page block on the page but instead of replying, the admin topic banned me indefinitely from politics. The admin listed more than 6 month old ANI cases against me as reason, but all of those cases they listed were non actionable and were filed as a way out of content disputes by users having ongoing content disagreements with me.

I want to stress that there was no disruption by me since my page block and this topic ban was prompted by my question to the admin. I request the Admins to review and consider if the topic ban can be lifted. Thank you. Venkat TL (talk) 10:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In response to @Femke:, A new 'edit warring" did not precipitate this Topic ban, my question did. I have said it several times in my user talk comments, and I repeat here again, that I do not intend to edit war and would exercise extreme caution in my editing to abide with Edit warring rules. Due to abundance of caution of inadvertently violating any EW rule, I decided to get my concerns clarified from the admin before editing the page, little did I know that my asking a question, would precipitate a 'topic ban' on the only topic I am interested in editing on Wikipedia. But here I am. For seeing evidence of my constructive and collaborative editing, you have my entire editing history to review. --Venkat TL (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement(s) by involved editor(s)

Statement by El_C (sanctioning admin)

Just a brief note that I'm aware of this appeal. If any person reviewing it has questions for me, I welcome these (please ping). Otherwise, I'll leave it at that for now. Thanks. El_C 18:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion among editors about the appeal by Venkat TL

• I don't see a strong reason to lift a narrow topic ban so quickly --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Absolutely not. The topic ban was warranted. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• This request does not contain any information on what you would do differently. You've got three blocks for edit warring since July and you've been cautioned for tone at AE. How will you avoid this in the future? In addition to some reflection, I'd like to see constructive editing in an other area before the topic ban is lifted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 13:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• This user has been highly disruptive over a substantial period both at DYK and in pagespace, often bludgeoning discussions and complaining of mistreatment. Disruptive edits always seem to be in the content topic from which they were banned. I see no reason to allow them more opportunities to disrupt, just because they have a current pressing interest. My suspicion is that this topic ban will never be relaxed, unless, as User:Femke suggests, the editor has demonstrated they can again be trusted with the responsibility. The Tek Fog page is illustrative; this political app page was created by this user based on The Wire coverage which now appears to have been fabricated. I have no reason to believe this user directly involved with the fabrication, but the user's judgement in the case reveals much about why they are now topic banned. BusterD (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmm.. I'm not sure they could have known or suspected it was fabricated. It was reported on by Deutsche Welle and Le Monde too. That said, the behaviour in the AfD wasn't quite ideal, with comments on the (later-blocked) nominator [22]. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose at this time. The editor has been disruptive enough in the topic area to have been blocked several times in the last four months. El C advised the editor to wait six months before appealing, but Venkat TL waited only two weeks. Wait six months. Cullen328 (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose for six months of constructive editing in other topic area. I thought you had retired? The pattern is clearly visible, you start an edit war, and when you are at ANEW, or blocked, you say "block is preventative, not punitive. I'm not going to make controversial edits so the block is not necessary now". You also add "retired" banner whenever you are under scrutiny or something goes the way that you don't prefer. Another thing is your personal accusations. In this edit you accused El C by saying please contact the admin User:El C who has blocked me calling me a threat to that page and made sure no one else unblocks. (emphasis by me) do you have any evidence that El C made sure no-one else unblocks you? —usernamekiran (talk) 05:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• No way. From an editor that has managed to get himself multiple times blocked for edit warring (which they managed to get reversed every time by arguing that blocks had become moot and infructuous), topic banned from DYK, and now topic banned from a part of ARBIPA, one expects at least some remorse or even acknowledgement of their presumptuous and flagrant conduct and disregard for the policies and how they would avoid its recurrence, but I see not one scintilla of remorse or acknowledgement coming from this user. Though my interactions with them have been limited and largely confined to talk page discourses, they have typified the hallmarks of tendentious editing in almost every instance: consider, for instance, their special efforts at Raju Shrivastav to edit war (that eventually got them a 3RR infraction block) in order to skew the recently deceased BLP by labelling the subject a "hypocrite" (for an opinion they had aired irl), citing Twitterati (bots and trolls)[23], showing a flagrant contempt for BLP. The topic-ban thus is well deserved and they can benefit from the forced break should they desire. They were urged to make productive edits elsewhere for six months before writing an appeal but they choose to disregard even that advice. Introspection and attendant reforms on their end are all the more necessary because it is evident that much of their disruption and tendentious editing flows from their POV-driven and partisan editing in ARBIPA. Wikipedia is not the place to engage in WP:RGW so they would do themselves a favour by aligning themselves with the goals of the encyclopedia, eschewing tendency to game the system, wikilawyering and assuming bad faith and casting aspersions on others. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 10:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• No, obviously. T-banned just 13 days ago and advised to wait 6 months before appealing it; has made no edits at all (claiming "retirement") between then and now; appeal makes no mention that they understand why they were banned and how they would approach similar issues going forward. In short, pretty much a textbook example of how not to appeal a topic ban.

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding temporary checkuser privileges for scrutineers

Brief summary:

• At 4:39 on 6 November, I blocked Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) from editing the article Aaron Maté for 7 days, for (in my view) gaming the 1RR in effect on all Syrian Civil War articles. This came alongside blocks of Poyani (talk · contribs) and Hobomok (talk · contribs) for edit-warring on the same page, and a subsequent lengthening of the 1RR on that page to a 72-hour window.

• Marek's response to that block prompted Newyorkbrad to request he strike an aspersion, which VM obliged.
• VM's subsequent comments echoed that same aspersion though and were otherwise incivil; while an administrator does not become INVOLVED because a user responds incivilly to their administrative action, I recognized that it was bad optics for me to take action, so I asked NYB to assess whether action was needed.
• VM then removed that comment with summary Please refrain from posting here again.
• I restored it with summary this is an inquiry relevant to your ongoing unblock request. if you would like to remove it, you are welcome to remove the full request. you do not get to curate what the reviewing admin sees.
• VM removed it again with summary feel free to post on NYBrad's talk page. But in the meantime, since you've said "That's all I have to say here unless pinged by a reviewing admin" and since you WEREN'T pinged by anyone, including any reviewing admins, and since this is MY talk page and I don't feel like being threatened by someone who has already made one bad block: please. refrain. from. posting. here. .... ever again (unless pinged by a reviewing admin
• I siteblocked VM with rationale Community sanction enforcement: Disruptive editing and personal attacks in response to edit-warring p-block on a WP:GS/SCW article. As disruption has occurred on own talkpage, revoking TPA; you are welcome to submit an AN appeal through UTRS.

Now, to start off: I fucked up. Removing content from your own unblock discussion is more straightforward disruption than personal attacks, and, importantly, much less personalized. And disrupting one's own unblock discussion is routinely grounds for loss of talkpage access. So I thought that the same optics issue involved in taking action over the personal attacks would not appply. Clearly, I was wrong. From my perspective, having already made the decision not to block over the aspersions, the crucial role of the comment removals was clear to me, a but-for cause of the block. But I recognize now that to anyone other than me, this came across not much different than if I'd blocked one step earlier. I also felt there was some time-sensitivity involved, as potentially an admin could come along to review the unblock, be deprived of the information that the blocking administrator felt the blocked party had engaged in personal attacks during the request, and unblock based on imperfect knowledge; in retrospect, this was unlikely, and it would have been better to bring the matter to AN or AN/I promptly.

I apologize for falling short of the expectation that administrators not give off an appearance of impropriety, and await the community's trouts and admonishments. That leaves us, though, with the question of what to do with the block. I do think my block was justified, and did not violate INVOLVED, but I recognize that it should not have been made by me. So I am opening it up to peer review. I have no objection to any admin restoring TPA, reverting to the p-block, or unblocking outright, if there isn't consensus to maintain the current sanction. Update 14:42, 7 November 2022 (UTC): Reverted to p-block (see below); review still requested as to whether to maintain p-block or unblock outright.

Courtesy pings: @Red-tailed hawk, Piotrus, GizzyCatBella, Only in death, Zero0000, and Fyunck(click). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 12:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, and for admins, noting without comment utrs:65091. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 12:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You think just "trouts and admonishments" are what should happen?

  This was a "respect mah authoritah" block, or lèse-majesté if you prefer.

  Way outside of what the community expects from an admin.

  It leaves me, for one, with absolutely no confidence that you understand how to behave impartially and fairly.

  Yeah - you fucked up... Begoon 12:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Two things -

  1 - Tamzin is a great (in my opinion) but newish administrator and we are all humans, mistakes happen.

  2 - We'll probably see all of those crawling up here because of the editor affected by the block. Just ignore them. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin, where's the "personal attack" in feel free to post on NYBrad's talk page. But in the meantime, since you've said "That's all I have to say here unless pinged by a reviewing admin" and since you WEREN'T pinged by anyone, including any reviewing admins, and since this is MY talk page and I don't feel like being threatened by someone who has already made one bad block: please. refrain. from. posting. here. .... ever again (unless pinged by a reviewing admin)? Is it saying you made a bad block, or is it saying they feel threatened by your subsequent behaviour? I don't see an "attack" in either thing... Begoon 13:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Begoon: I addressed te matter of the personal attacks in this comment on my talkpage. To answer your direct question, I was not saying there was a personal attack in that edit summary. Looking back, I wish I hadn't mentioned personal attacks in the block rationale at wall. The presence of any personal attacks was merely context for what came next; the block itself was for removing the comment (and, pace BilledMammal, I have never seen OWNTALK interpreted to mean that an editor can pick and choose which comments an unblock reviewer sees, especially those by the blocking admin). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 13:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any editors choose to use the provision in those circumstances, but that doesn't mean they aren't permitted to do so. At the moment, there are four justifications that would permit you to restore the comment, and as far as I can tell none apply here and as a consequence your edits were both WP:EDITWARRING and a violation of WP:OWNTALK. This comment restoration was an understandable mistake, but still a mistake and I believe it would be best to quickly reverse the mistake, as well as the actions that were taken using that mistake as a justification. BilledMammal (talk) 13:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok, I don't see any of those things as "attacks", and, as Brad says below, an admin who has just blocked someone, particularly questionably, is going to need a thicker skin than that before escalating to harsher blocks unilaterally (and I'll go further - should in nearly all circumstances not do so themselves at all). I'm not sure there's really any defence for how you used your tools here, frankly - it seems to me like "how not to admin" 101. Begoon 13:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Editors are forbidden from removing four types of comments from their talk page; I don't believe any are relevant here, which means WP:OWNTALK applies and Volunteer Marek was permitted to remove the comments.

In such circumstances, I believe the correct response would have been to make the comment on Newyorkbrad's talk page, rather than edit warring over it and then blocking the editor you were in an edit war with. Without considering the wider dispute, I think the correct response now is to revert the block. BilledMammal (talk) 13:09, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin, in the past I've seen you try to deescalate a situation [24]. I think that would have been the proper thing to do here. In this case VM was frustrated by original admin action and got frustrated. Their actions on their talk page may not have been helpful but given the wide latitude people are given with respect to their own talk pages I don't think it crossed any lines nor did it require further actions to protect Wikipedia. Thus I don't think the further escalation was justified and the action taken could certainly be seen by others as "respect mah authoritah" even if that wasn't the intent. Springee (talk) 13:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Newyorkbrad:

• Volunteer Marek e-mailed me yesterday asking me to comment one way or the other on the page-block. I asked Tamzin for her response first, which she provided, for which I thank her. I view the page-block as being of borderline necessity. As Tamzin acknowledges, VM did not violate the 1RR/24h that was in effect on the page at the time, and if I am reading the chronology correctly, there was an ongoing talkpage discussion. I would not have blocked, even p-blocked, but it's well-known that I am less of a "hawk" on "edit-warring" than many other admins. In any event, even before this escalated, I was not planning to act as the reviewing admin on the page-block, because I was specifically called to the page, and blocked (even partially blocked) users do not get to select their own reviewers; but the page-block has served its purpose and I suggest that if not reversed, it at least be commuted to "time served." The same goes for the other editors who were blocked at the same time.
• In my view, the full block, while placed in good faith, was unwarranted and should be overturned, whether by Tamzin or by consensus here. Adverse comments by sanctioned users against sanctioning admins are part of the territory. While I'd prefer it to be otherwise, sometimes these comments become personalized, and while I would not have expressed myself as VM did, I don't think he crossed the line into blockworthiness with his comments. (He did, at the outset, strike one comment I thought particularly unnecessary.) As noted above, it can be especially escalatory for an admin who perceives herself as the target of an attack to place the block, except in cases of gross abuse or harassment, and this was not that. I do, however, agree with Tamzin that VM should not have removed comments by the blocking administrator from his talkpage while an unblock request was pending.
• The removal of VM's talkpage access was unnecessary. I suggest that that be reversed immediately so that VM can comment on-wiki, rather than in an UTRS thread that only some administrators, and no non-admins, can read.
• One user has suggested bringing this matter before ArbCom. That is not necessary and I hope it will not be pursued.
• Lastly, while looking into this yesterday, I noticed that many of the unblock requests in CAT:RFU have been pending for weeks or months. We promise blocked users a reasonably prompt review, and should keep that promise, even for blocks with a much lower profile than this one. It would be useful if some admins with some extra time would give attention to those; I will try to do my part in clearing the backlog. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I removed TPA because the disruption was happening on the talkpage itself, so otherwise a siteblock would have seemed purely punitive. But I'm not going to argue on that if even one admin disagrees, so, TPA restored. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 13:14, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I have opened a case request at ARBCOM here. That is about Tamzin's poor decision making and use of advanced tools in enforcing that. Not about overturning Marek's block, which this noticeboard is more than capable of doing. What it cannot do is remove tools from an Admin who slaps someone with an escalated block for being annoyed at a particularly poor block to start with. ARBCOM have made it clear over the years removal of tools is their remit and I have no wish to see Tamzin continue with their high-handed approach, and this sort of poor thinking is exactly why they were lucky to pass RFA in the first place.

As to Marek's block I think it should be lifted ASAP for being poor in the first place, and poor in the escalation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh goodness. One hates to see this. One of the most difficult parts of being an admin is being able to show restraint in the face of comments that could be seen as pointed or escalatory. In light of the essay that Tryptofish posted, I don't want to jump to any sort of conclusions regarding what the next steps are in this scenario. But within the scope of this thread, it's safe to say this was not a good block. It seems that at the very least, some formal apologia is needed in order to avoid an ArbCom case (which I think at this point is a little too aggressive a next step for a relatively new admin).--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree 100% with Newyorkbrad. Both the page block and the site block should be lifted ASAP, ideally by the blocking admin. 28bytes (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The original block could be debated but it was rather mild and not much out of the ordinary. The second block looked too much like a personal response to VM's angry reaction to the first block. When people are blocked, they often react badly but taking this on the chin is in the administrators' job description. In the most severe cases a different admin should step in. VM's removal of a paragraph was improper but didn't prevent the pinged admin from reading it. I would prefer to see the second block lifted. Zero^talk 14:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• FYI, Tamzin has undone the site-wide block. The page block remains, and can/should be discussed here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Okay, it's clear there will be no consensus to maintain the siteblock, so I have reversed that, and have apologized to Marek for overreacting and escalating the situation. I've left the p-block intact, and will leave it to another admin to decide whether to maintain it or unblock outright.
  I do want to say a word on thickness of skin. I get a lot of criticism way worse than this, and shrug it off. Just as I shrugged this off; I took no personal affront, because I learned long ago to disregard those kinds of comments. I don't think I was acting emotionally here. The emotional response would have been to run for the hills, out of knowledge that blocking an experienced user would likely lead to stress. Instead I did what I thought was the right thing, based on facts, not feelings; I just miscalculated badly. Really badly. And I'm sorry for that, and sorry to be taking up volunteer time with this. That's the opposite of what I ever want to do here as an admin and as an editor. I hope people trust that, if this were the kind of mistake I make habitually, it would have come up about a thousand blocks ago. I can assure everyone it's not a mistake I will make again. I thank my peers for their feedback here, and will bow out from here on out unless anyone has any questions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 14:42, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]