Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

Shortcuts WP:AN WP:ANB For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on 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 you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, 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

Template:Active editnotice

XFD backlog

V	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Total
CfD	0	0	0	14	14
TfD	0	0	0	8	8
MfD	0	0	2	1	3
FfD	0	0	1	6	7
RfD	0	0	23	27	50
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

This is a heads up and request for more eyes on this article North East Delhi riots and the talk page.

The talk page is currently protected. (I confess when I first glanced at the talk page I was slightly surprised to see the protection, but take a glance at Archive 2 and you will see why.) The protection is scheduled to end tomorrow.

I handled roughly 20 reports to OTRS complaining about this article — I don't know how many were handled by other agents, but almost all of them have been advised to open a discussion on the talk page so there may be a flurry of activity tomorrow when the talk page protection expires. My hope is that with enough eyes on the page, we can handle the contributions rather than having to extend protection.

This article undoubtedly contributes to the issue. See also:

• User_talk:El_C#North_East_Delhi_riots
• ANI thread

--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• On a lighter note, though, may I introduce User:DBigXRay, or, as he is now known from that article, a senior Wikipedia editor that hoes by the username DBigXray. Does he indeed!  ;) ——SN54129 15:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• But yeah, that talk page is going to light up like July the 4th tomorrow. All hands to the pump. ——SN54129 15:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also articles in Jihad Watch and OpIndia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Serial Number 54129, That is a mirror of this site which (As Gråbergs Gråa Sång rightly puts), is an Indian version of InfoWars). Not sure if it was a typo or deliberate, either way it just shows how pissed off they are to see facts out on Wiki. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 20:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

1RR has been added to the article. Three users blocked. As mentioned, talk page protected for one day — hopefully, my pointers are adhered to, because a repeat of today's insanity will not be sustainable — and if repeated, I lean toward protecting the talk page for a week or so next, as much as it pains me to do so. El_C 19:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, looking at the page history POV redaction using multiple reverts in violation of 1RR have already been done. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 20:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please submit a report at AE or AN3 for 1RR enforcement, with all the documentation attached. El_C 20:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Takijeg398 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can an admin hide the threats from this user on my talk. Apparently I am going to be hunted down, very soon. If so, I want the community to know that it was a pleasure being here. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 06:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • Also I believe he is a sock of User:Biman1989 (blocked by Bbb23) as the language is same as its socks and harassment emails I have been getting lately. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 06:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting my userpage and user talk be semi protected to discourage further socking. I have already disabled Emails. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 06:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 07:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks El_C, much appreciated. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 08:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

• 2 hours back, a Twitter handle with 262K followers has asked people to storm this article. [1] --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 11:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  DBigXray, I'm not sure whether it's that or the other biased articles that have been written, but I just handled 29 inquiries at OTRS on this subject in the last hour. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, not to jingse it, but we have managed to stay the course today, with the article talk page remaining open — I'd (cautiously) call that a success. El_C 01:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In a brilliant analysis of the riots in The Atlantic an acclaimed author Mira Kamdar writes:

The message from the BJP is clear: Elect whomever you like. We are still in power. Call the police; they work for us. Appeal to the courts; we’ll neutralize any judges who don’t toe our line. Continue to dissent, and we will set the mob on you.^[1]

That, in effect, is what is being on this page. The "mob" has been set on us, the standard modus vivendi of the Indian right wing. Wugapodes has now semi-ed the talk page for three days. I suspect it will need to be long term. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that 3 editors seem to have been outed over this issue, DBigXray having retired. There's been an attempt to out a third but so far unsuccessful. Doug Weller talk 17:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be wise to do something, such as an editnotice, to remind people editing such topics that Wikipedia is public and we can't control what people do outside of it. I think a lot of people don't realize it can be easier than they think for people to figure out their identity, and when there's a serious potential for some people to be subject to real-world harm, we should make sure editors are aware of that. (Note that "harm" is broader than just physical harm: job loss, damage to personal relationships, etc.) --47.146.63.87 (talk) 01:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's some pretty blatant socking going on at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Guy Macon. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There were about 30 unblocked accounts confirmed to them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Seems odd for someone to go to all that effort and then blow their cover by socking so blatantly that they had zero chance of getting away with it. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, RfA should always be semi-protected. Unconfirmed editors should not be allowed to vote there because most of the time they lack experience.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: I think that User:Gotitbro might be the sock master since the confirmed sock Grittrue seems to have been created to back Gotitbro up in an edit war on the emerging power article. I suggest a check user is performed on that account, assuming proxy IPs are not being utilised. Also the usernames look ”similarish”.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was just one sock puppet out of dozens. I wouldn't put so much emphasis on that one sock. Most throwaway sock puppet accounts are designed to be caught and be a waste of our time. To waste even more time, they also frequently try to set up innocent users. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so Gotitbro is innocent then. I withdraw my concern then, thank you for explaining Ninja.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of two possible reasons for sockpuppetry at an RFA. The first would be opposition to the candidate, probably for revenge, in which case the sockpuppeteer would want the sockpuppetry to go unnoticed, and so corrupt the vote. The second would be trolling or a general effort to cause dissension and conflict. In that case, the sockpuppetry probably is more effective if it is seen for what it is. Actually, a third would be to support the candidate surreptitiously, but I don't think that it is likely, because I wouldn't expect trolls or long-term abusers to support a trusted editor. It looks in this case like the second, a general effort to cause conflict. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with the second possibility, obvious sock votes => votes struck => looks like supporters are engaging in sockpuppetry. Basically a joe job. Unless they want us to think that it's a joe job, and it really is sockpuppetry by supporters and is intentionally clumsy to lead us to the conclusion that it's a joe job...we can go down this rabbit hole all day. Reminds me of a quote from a Star Wars novel, something like "either he was innocent and being made to look guilty, or he was guilty and was making himself look innocent by appearing to be poorly framed". ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 19:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Creffett, that hurt my brain. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 13:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Creffett, he can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 22:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line! creffett (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented at RFA a few times. There's no need to semiprotect anything unless there is ongoing vandalism. I dunno if those sock accounts were autoconfirmed, but requiring them to be wouldn't have been that much an obstacle to the socket. 2602:24A:DE47:B270:A096:24F4:F986:C62A (talk) 02:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a downright doozy of a case for all of you. It involves an American politician, Ibraheem Samirah who's currently serving in the Virginia House of Delegates. He just let it slip that he's behind at least one, but probably two accounts that are actively engaged in a white-washing attempt on his page. He's made repeated anti-semitic comments such as the KKK is worse than Israel and insulated that Jews are dirty, he's even assaulted a Jewish reporter who was peacefully debating the Israeli–Palestinian conflict with a protestor at the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries. Samirah has publicly stated in the Atlantic that he believes in politics of forced change, not through civility or dialogue. He is currently acting it out on his Wikipedia page. I first request that all of his edits be removed from the page (I don't want any of the editors currently involved in the dispute to face sanctions outside of Samirah for his aforementioned issues, and we've hit our revision limit so I'd like new eyes), then we need to move forward with an investigation over his current sock puppetry, and finally, I'd appreciate feedback about how we go about writing up his anti-semitic behavior and connections to Islamic extremism along with providing an account detailing his behavior on Wikipedia to the community and himself ultimately, so, he can hopefully learn from this instance and the public will be able to learn about what he's committed both on and off Wikipedia. This case is one of the most outrageous and ridiculous cases that I've stumped upon. I look forward to hearing from y'all. For the record, I've done a good job—at least in my mind—of summarizing all of his transgressions on his, and I'll probably keep expanding upon the evidence I've already found. Check out the article's talk page for a compiling of everything thus far. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 06:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have high-quality sources for these claims about a living person? Please show diffs which demonstrate the COI. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's literally all written up on the article's talk page. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 07:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not; I don't see any links to high-quality sources which discuss the purported allegations you make here. "Assault" is a crime, and there are zero sources cited anywhere on the talk page which state that this person is guilty of a crime. Either provide sources or you should start redacting these claims. I've already rewritten the header to be a more neutral statement of the situation.

Your statement that you want go about writing up his anti-semitic behavior and connections to Islamic extremism along with providing an account detailing his behavior on Wikipedia is highly concerning in and of itself - you seem to have an ax to grind against this person. Wikipedia writes neutral, balanced biographies based on reliable sources and while editors can have points of view, they shouldn't be here expressly to portray a person positively or negatively. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you actually look up the edit revisions, linked on the article's talk page, which show the examples that I'm mentioning since they were reversed, and all the links are provided there. He admits to pouring water on a reporter, which is assault or simple assault (both misdemeanors) in the US. Also, I find it highly troubling that you decided to change the title of the section (which I didn't even name btw) to fit your slant. It's a clear case of conflict of interest and probably sock puppetry that even the admin that let the initial edits stand with regards to anti-semitism and how to summarize it correctly noted it's probably Samirah himself trying to undermine the process. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 08:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what you think is assault or simple assault - it matters what reliable sources say. And unless you have a reliable source that says he was even charged, much less convicted, of assault, that's right out. You need to immediately read the Biographies of Living Persons policy and take it to heart. We have a responsibility to biographical subjects to treat them fairly and write their articles in a neutral and non-sensational manner. Your attempt to staple together innuendo printed in a bunch of partisan scandal sheets to suggest that this subject is some sort of extremist terrorist sympathizer is highly inappropriate. What reliable sources say this person has "connections to Islamic extremism"? If you can't cite them, this accusation should be immediately struck. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More: This does not mean that COI editing and sockpuppetry are appropriate - it is clearly possible that this is the case, looking at diffs and the unknown users in question. But it is also true that living people who perceive unfair treatment in their biographies are often unfamiliar with our policies and procedures and are driven to correct (and often overcorrect) what they perceive as unfair writing. Looking at past revisions by Buzzards-Watch Me Work, which are clearly written in a manner which tends to portray the article subject in as negative a light as possible, using highly-partisan and dubious sources for claims of fact... I can see how this situation would have arisen. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is literally one of the most ridiculous things that I've read on here. Why don't you actually look up the definition of assault and simple assault? It's not like I'm pulling it up out of my ass. Furthermore, I find it highly offensive that someone who patrols this page would freely insulate that I'd make up an assault allegation. Also, it doesn't matter if he was charged or convicted since misdemeanor assault cases are normally at the discretion of the victim to press charges, and they're a number of reasons why you wouldn't press charges. But, he's literally admitted to it.

Your other point is also quite questionable since he's completely whitewashing his page. Even the admin who I'm working with notes he's attempting to do it. The idea that you're insinuating that it's not a big deal to do both of them is just completely absurd. If you literally create another account to continue whitewashing after receiving notifications from multiple edits of your actions it wreaks completely. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 08:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it doesn't matter if he was charged or convicted - I suggest that this statement renders you entirely unfit to edit Wikipedia biographies, because it's clear that you have absolutely no idea how the encyclopedia works and how our articles are written. This encyclopedia is based on reliable sources, and it absolutely matters that we do not state that someone committed a crime when no reliable source says they have committed a crime. This is basic and fundamental to writing an encyclopedia based on reliable sources and not on personal opinions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buzzards-Watch Me Work Please read the following statement carefully: BLP policy applies on every page, including this one, not just in article space. If there are no reliable sources that explicitly say that he was convicted of assault, then you cannot say that he did so, anywhere on this site. For you to decide what is and is not assault is WP:OR, which is not permitted. Either back up your assertion with sources, or strike those statements. If you make another unsourced accusation of criminality, your account will be blocked from editing. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit, it's apparent that he poured water on him which forces him to run away from his conversation with a protester along with his entire crew helping and surrounding him ie fleeing a physical menace as defined by Pennsylvania law (where it happened). How else would you decribe said occurrence? Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 09:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't get it or understand, which means a BLP topic ban is in order, at minimum.

You do not have a reliable source which says this person committed assault, which means Wikipedia cannot and will not say that they did. What you are suggesting is textbook prohibited synthesis, and is prohibited precisely because you have no idea what you're talking about. (Hint: the phrase "fear of imminent serious bodily injury" is not likely to result from getting your hairdo wet.)

We are not going to falsely and misleadingly portray someone who dumped a bottle of water over someone's head as if they are guilty of a crime of violence. Your sustained effort to do so is prima facie evidence that you have an ax to grind against this article subject and are editing their article not to create a neutral encyclopedic biography, but to express your displeasure with them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He is literally forced to leave the area by his bodyguard and crew which signals fear of bodily harm. Why are you demeaning it? It is certainly a violent act. I never accused him of punching him or anything of that manner, and in the original write up it specified what he did. Furthermore, I find it ridiculous that you then blame me for the problem. I wouldn't be here if he didn't break policy on conflict of interest or probable sock puppetry. I came here asking input over how to deal with him and also write up his past statements properly. His page still has unsourced material that needs to be removed. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 09:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOOMERANG applies here. Sockpuppetry and COI editing are bad, and should cease. But making unsourced claims of criminality against a living person is also very bad, and poorly-written BLPs with false/libelous material often lead to COI problems because defamed subjects feel justifiably angry and attempt to remove the material themselves. Your behavior here is contributory to the problem. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buzzards-Watch Me Work, you've been here for quite a while, I'm surprised that you don't seem to understand the importance of the advice given in WP:BLP and WP:OR. For any assertion, we should describe things in the same terms as the sources do; for a BLP, that's especially important, and for a claim of criminality (assault is a crime) it is of fundamental and vital importance. If a reliable source says that he poured water on someone, and he has confirmed that he does not deny doing so, then we can say in Wikipedia's voice that he poured water on someone. What you are doing by using another source to assert that pouring water on someone is assault is described at SYNTH, and you absolutely must not do it in a BLP, especially for a claim that he has committed a criminal act. I'm quite serious - now you have been advised of this, if you repeat it you can expect to be immediately blocked. I have no view on the article content, or on the accusations of whitewashing and/or sockpuppetry, but what you have been doing in making unsourced assertions of criminality about a specific living person is the most concerning thing I've seen in this thread. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Although it's true he made anti-Semitic remarks about 6 years ago while he's in college, I see no mention by Buzzards-Watch Me Work that he apologised a year ago for them - see this article in The Times of Israel[2]. The water throwing incident apparently happened but the sources I found were The Washington Free Beacon and Townhall using the WFB as a source, neither of which we would use in a BLP. Doug Weller talk 10:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

However, I'm concerned about the two SPAs, Is0811a and Johnbellgotahaircut - could just be supporters, could be a COI. Doug Weller talk 10:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Enough evidence for a CheckUser, I'd say. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller, The original version I saw, here, by Buzzards, did make it clear that he had apologised. So I don't think that comment is quite fair. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 11:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bellezzasolo then he should have made that clear here. Doug Weller talk 11:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bellezzasolo I appreciate it, and Doug Weller, I did make it clear in my follow up. It's just hard to keep up when I'm getting things thrown at me. I do apologize for not spelling it out clearer though. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 12:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• So we need a check for socks, and Buzzards needs, at least, a page-ban, for issues with Synth, OR, and BLPCRIME. Broader prohibitions could also be considered, but probably should warrant a separate sub-section below to discuss. If there aren't socks, a look indicates some COI issues that need resolving (or indeed, there could be both) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From this checkuser's perspective, there is insufficient technical evidence at this time to say that this is the same user. Formally, it's inconclusive. Following the BLP theme above I'll also point out for the purpose of these discussions that, whether it's the same user or not, there is insufficient evidence to say who this is. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How come zzuuzz? Both of them are only editing that page, and right after one of them gets a message on their user talk regarding their editing behavior, it switches to the other account. Their edit summaries also regurgitate the same or similar points. The only difference I can see between them is one of them is almost entirely mobile while the other one appears to be desktop based. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 11:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you that's not the only difference. Please have a look at whichever page explains the limitations of checkuser, because that's exactly what this statement is all about. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes zzuuzz, I've noticed several other differences between them too with regards to sock puppetry (like one mostly adds content, the other mostly blacks it among other technical issues etc.), but one of them basically admitted to being the individual he's writing on by stating "me" in the author's spot, and they've contributed to slanting the article pretty heavily in one direction. I know the limitations of checkuser, but I'm worried this issue will continue to manifest if something isn't done about it. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 12:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit I actually wrote: "Samirah assaulted Geraldo Rivera, a Fox News reporter, by pouring water on him while he was debating the Israeli–Palestinian conflict with a protester on camera at the 2016 Democratic National Convention." I was using the word assault to summarize the occurrence, and not to mislead. I clearly stated that he poured water on him in the article. I was using assault as an adjective legal descriptor, and on here to summarize his actions towards Rivera. I do understand your point on criminality and how that comes off, which is/was not my objective. I was just trying to summarize the occurrence on here instead of spelling it out the entire occurrence as I did in the article. I do completely realize your WP:SYNTH point. It was not my intention to write up WP:OR for the article, I was just trying to summarize it with a legal descriptor. I should have wrote something like, 'Samirah poured water on Geraldo Rivera, a Fox News reporter, forcing him to flee while he was debating the Israeli–Palestinian conflict with a protester on camera at the 2016 Democratic National Convention' in the article. I do actually appreciate your level-headed response. I just got incredibly annoyed when I was blatantly accused of lying about the incident, and I was defending my assertion from my legal experience. I had/have no intention of writing it up like that (evident by my initial write up), and it was an oversight on my behalf to phrase it like that in the article (note my clarified statement). Again, I do appreciate your constructive feedback. It's part of the reason I came here. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 11:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller I actually wrote that he apologized for some of his anti-semitic comments in the original write up on his article, but he also insinuated that Jews are dirty when describing a postcard. That, along with an anti-semitic comment or at least anti-Israel link was posted after his initial apology. I specified all of that in the article. I checked Wikipedia's reliable sources list when I was rewriting the section, and I didn't find them located there. I'm curious why you don't think they're reliable enough? They're not listed as banned or under warning. The one about pouring water has video and social media from him on it, so why can't we include that? I'm actually here to get constructive feedback regarding them, not to complain. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 11:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nosebagbear I do get your feelings on the matter, but I actually started this page to constructive support about the write up, and I've not reverted any of the recent edits on the page to initially avoid an edit war. I came here to get expert advice on the matter, and I attempted to source all the relevant information on his page, including the fact he was in a historically Jewish fraternity in the section regarding his anti-semitic comments along with his original apology on the matter. It's just there's, unfortunately, a lot of anti-semitic or at least anti-Israel comments he's made throughout his life. I'm trying to be as possible when I literally sent hours going through his edits and his father legal case on deportation to try and find if what he was writing had merit, which it largely didn't. It annoys me that someone with his level of public standing would try and bias public opinion on his actions. Including misattributing or downright lying about a judicial opinion found in the legal case. I've been trying to be as objective as possible about it. But, there's still currently unsourced information on his page, and I'm choosing to not touch it so I can build consensus about it. I wouldn't even break the reversion limit if I touched it, but like I said I'm trying to avoid an edit war on there. It keeps getting changed slowly over days, and I want to fairly summarize all relevant information. How are my actions causing harm to the article when I've chosen to get feedback from y'all? Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 11:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Buzzards-Watch Me Work: the decade old entry for Townhall says "As of 2010, a few editors commented that opinion pieces in Townhall are reliable as a source for the opinion of the author of the individual piece, although they may not be reliable for unattributed statements of fact, and context will dictate whether the opinion of the author as such, meets the standard of WP:DUEWEIGHT." I'll get back to WP:UNDUE. The author of the piece is Matt Vespa who "previously worked for CNSNews.com and was the recipient of Americans for Prosperity Foundation's 2013 Andrew Breitbart Award for Excellence in Online Activism and Investigative Reporting."[3] I presume you know about Breitbart, and CNSNEWS is part of Media Research Center. Still, we aren't talking about opinion here. The policy issue is WP:UNDUE - "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." In other words, if something is barely covered, why should we mention it? Particularly in a BLP. I couldn't find any mainstream coverage (and neither of those sources is mainstream, they are niche partisan sources). Doug Weller talk 11:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was first talking about the inclusion of the WFB since it highlights the incident with Rivera in it. As for Townhall, I think we should mention it since I personally noticed the citation after reading about the story in The Virginia Mercury, and it delves into the actual account pretty well. The Virginia Mercury is a paper that focuses solely on reporting Virginia's news. I don't think you can find any substantial bias from them. As for the case for UN:DUE, I honestly, don't see it. He forces a reporter to flee his job (he's actually reporting the news) and what prompted his action steems from the issues surrounding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, so I find it really hard not to mention it since he's a legislator after all. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 12:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Buzzards-Watch Me Work: by "significance" we mean the amount of coverage in mainstream sources, not anyone's perceived importance of an event. I have no problem with using the Virginia Mercury as a general rule, but I'm still not sure that reaches significance. I can't comment on the specific article as I can't get my VPN to connect, and I need that to read it. Doug Weller talk 13:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller, Yeah, GDPR is a pain sometimes. It is in the VM - Later that year, he was filmed standing with a group of protesters outside the Democratic National Convention and dumping a bottle of water on the head of Fox News’ Geraldo Rivera — an incident he hasn’t directly acknowledged but, in response to questions, did not deny. Also relevant to this section is His brash approach to politics drew scrutiny during his February campaign for office, with his Republican opponent accusing him of anti-Semitism for Facebook posts in 2014 that, among other things, compared funding Israel to supporting the Ku Klux Klan. Samirah apologized for his language but dismissed the criticism as a smear campaign.

But at this point it's feeling like we're more and more discussing content, rather than conduct. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 14:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller and Bellezzasolo when I lived in Europe dealing with GDPR was a complete pain. I do get your significance point, Doug. I was trying to establish why I personally thought it was relevant information first and then I was establishing media significance to it by bringing in more mainstream or neutral sources. Outside of The Virginia Mercury it's also been mentioned in the Washingtonian. Both of these publications are well established and relatively natural papers on local politics. I didn't think my character or intentions were going to be thrown under the bus as they've been here. I really wanted assistance trying to flush out the conflict of interest and sock puppetry first before moving onto contents, which is probably better to discuss on the article's talk page since it'd be in one place. I'd like to build consensus over the anti-semitic comments and other issues, but we've also got an individual who's whitewashing their own page (he literally said "me" when he was attributing a quote) that needs to be dealt with. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 17:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:@Buzzards-Watch Me Work: You haven't notified either Is0811a or Johnbellgotahaircut on their talk page with {{subst:AN-notice}} despite clearly talking about them.

Since there seems to be both a disconnect in being able to neutrally apply core tennants of editing (BLP, UNDUE, DUE, etc) with respect to this subject and in light of the lack of self recognition the activity is troublesome, I therefore propose the following: Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)(BWMW) is indefinitely topic banned from editing Ibraheem Samirah broadly construed. Appeal and review shall be no early than 6 months and 6 months after any unsuccessful appeal. BWMW is encouraged to work on other topics and demonstrate a much better familiarity and proficiency with applicable policies prior to appeal. Hasteur (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support As proposer. BWMW's responses here are significantly concerning, in addition to other editors suggesting that a block/ban may be needed. Wanting to try for a lower level restriction. Hasteur (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Mild Oppose. Not quite weak, but certainly not particularly strong. User clearly has made some grave mistakes, but he certainly seems willing to learn from them when they're pointed out. I have faith Buzzards-Watch Me Work will improve over time but only if there isn't a cloud over his head. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Let's make that a tepid oppose. @Buzzards-Watch Me Work: I can't find any evidence that either Johnbellgotahaircut or Is0811a have ever even said the word "me" in their on-wiki activity. Can point to the specific edit you are referring to? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MJL, so, Is0811a (talk · contribs) while he was attributing the source for part of his most recent edit, specifically, one about himself in the Washingtonian, wrote "me" in the author's last name listing spot. He also properly sourced another citation from Virginia onAir, where he was being interviewed by Shuaib Ahmed, prior to writing "me" on the author's listing spot. He obviously knows how to compose references properly on Wikipedia. He just slipped up and wrote "me" without realizing the significance of it. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Buzzards-Watch Me Work: (1) See Cullen's statement below. (2) What would |last2=home mean then? (3) Ignoring the evidence that this was clearly a broken way to put a quote in the page... wouldn't that imply that Is0811a was the Washingtonian reporter instead? The article's subject didn't exactly write a Washingtonian article about themselves. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban. It is obvious that this new editor Is0811a does not understand how reference templates work, as this example of their work shows:

"last=me|2=first=“I can’t make a post about health care without someone telling|last2=home.'”|first2=‘you’re not American Go back"

The editor clearly does not understand that those fields are for the first and last names of two authors, and instead was trying to format a quote from the reference:

"I can’t make a post about health care without someone telling me you’re not American. Go back home."

Buzzards-Watch Me Work also clearly does not understand what is going on with this edit, and their notion that "last=me" is an acknowledgement that Is0811a is actually Ibraheem Samirah, is quite frankly ludicrous.

Throughout this thread, Buzzards-Watch Me Work has shown serious misunderstandings of BLP policy, and it is obvious that they have an axe to grind regarding Ibraheem Samirah. Accordingly, I support this topic ban, and advise the editor that continuing this type of conduct in other areas of the encyclopedia may result in stronger sanctions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support: The responses (and the concerning comments regarding the use of "assault" / BLP editing) demonstrate some strong opinions from BWMW about the subject. In particular, the wording of the initial request and the comment we go about writing up his anti-semitic behavior and connections to Islamic extremism along with providing an account detailing his behavior on Wikipedia to the community and himself ultimately, so, he can hopefully learn from this instance and the public will be able to learn about what he's committed both on and off Wikipedia is concerning. Hopefully this is an isolated incident. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with regret. I'd hoped to be able to address these issues by talking them through, and had a discussion with BWMW on their talk page. Since they've posted a retirement banner on there now, I no longer want to badger them there. I think that a TBan is probably needed in case they decide to return - if they want to do that, I'd want to see some evidence that they've read and understood the relevant policies before starting work again on that particular article. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll add that BWMW has indicated that they may return a some future point with a different account. If this TBan is enacted, it will need to be explained to them that it applies to them as a person, not just to the account - socking to evade a ban or block isn't an acceptable plan for how to proceed, they would be better advised to edit uncontroversially and apply for the ban to be lifted after a while, once they've shown that they understand the relevant policies fully. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • While not making implications, I observe the edit summary and retirement "reason" give rise to WP:CLOUD concerns. Hasteur (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Buzzards-Watch Me Work has retired. A page/topic ban might still be sufficient to prevent further disruption, but I just wanted to note that for the future record. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retirements can be withdrawn at any time and therefore, this "retirement" declaration is irrelevant to this discussion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Hence the part where I said a topic ban might still be necessary.. My point was to pre-emptively explain why more severe sanctions are probably not for the best right now. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Forma edit to keep this from being archived while the Topic ban still remains open. Hasteur (talk) 02:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. A few individuals have been helping to expand Wikipedia:Community portal, to expand its usefulness as a central place for listing current editing activities, including WikiProject efforts, editing drives, edit-a-thons, etc etc. we added a new section there for listing current editing group activities and events.

I am writing this note simply to let the community know. I also posted a note at Wikipedia: Village pump (idea lab). Any of you are welcome to visit the page, add any comment, and of course to add any items or information on any community activities, editing projects, or other events that you may be a part of. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful, that you're not overdoing it. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

that's a valid point. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• How is this different than all of the other notice boards like VP? AN? etc...Praxidicae (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things I found recently. I'm sure everyone here is familiar with them, and found them equally positive and inspiring:

• Jimbo's comments about editors,
• Wikipedia Is the Last Best Place on the Internet

I've been keeping them in my mind, and thinking that it really is something incredibly positive that we are doing here, and yes, there are a few rough patches we can work on.

We rely on admins to mop up the spills and it can be a pretty bloody thankless task, so let me say thank you for your efforts. God knows that I prefer being able to run away and do something else when things get too hot, but you folk have to put on your admin boots and wade in. Thanks.

Speaking of hot, I'm sure everybody has been aware of the bushfires in Australia. There's a regular article we put out, for example 2016–17 Australian bushfire season, because of course we have most of our bushfires in the Southern Hemisphere summer which spans two years. We've been doing this for years, and it's usually a pretty uncontroversial thing.

Not this year. There have been all sorts of political aspects, and supporters of various political positions have been having a go at our article, not wanting to talk about the fires so much as make sure that they get their particular views into Wikipedia and that makes it official.

Sigh.

It's turned into a bit of a hotbed, and it's just massive compared to previous years: 2019–20 Australian bushfire season

I've tried to stay out of all that, but I got pulled in when I saw some edit-warring over something really stupid. (Story of my life, I guess.) The end date of the bushfire season. In previous years, we've gone along with the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, and they have a graphic showing the season in various regions, and it starts in winter (June-August) in the northern parts where the summers are really wet, and ends in spring (March-May) in Tasmania. So the Australian bushfire season really goes all year round from June of one year to May of the next.

I didn't know this at first, and the question in this year's article was that if all the summer bushfires were out, then perhaps the season was over? One guy said March was the end of the season because all of the bushfires were out, and another said the end of the season was ongoing because there might be more. This sounded like he had a handy view into the future to me, and I got sucked in over the philosophical implications.

Anyways, it got pretty heated there, with edit-warring and some trolling and a personal attack or two.

I was proposing an RfC on the season end date, going by the advice of Cas Liber who had waded into the flames and told us to stop throwing rocks at each other. I didn't see that this particular comment was anything but personal, so I looked up WP:RPA, removed it and left the suggested template.

The other guy complained to Admin Cas, who presumably sighed, grabbed his fire extinguisher, and jumped in once more. No criticism of Cas Liber, but I'd put in a comment about my philosophy on Wikipedia:

God forbid that any article should be seen as the personal preserve of a clique who launch personal attacks and edit-war over trivia. Let us set aside ego and attachment, and calmly accept that wikiprocedure will guide us through any difficulty.

and Cas removed it, saying that if I could remove someone else's personal attack, then he could remove my comments, which were not actually directed at anybody in particular, and are sentiments I hold pretty close to my heart and consider could usefully be employed by more people, not just in Wikipedia, but in wider life.

I think that civility piece, that minimum standard, is incredibly important, what I want us to do is to raise the level in the entire community, to raise the spirit of what we're doing, and I think that thinking about love, is the right way to do that. - Jimbo

Again, not a breath of criticism toward Cas, but where does the community of admins stand on the matter of humble editors pushing the line of civility and tolerance so eloquently expressed by Jimbo?

Is it really the place of admins to remove comments which while not strictly dealing with the business of the article, are aimed at promoting cooperation and a positive working environment? --Pete (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Skyring, Cas seems to be doing a remarkable job of moderating that dispute. Civil POV pushing can be just as disruptive as uncivil POV pushing. My advice to you would be to focus on the content of the article, or the tone of the participants. Don't try to do both at once. – bradv🍁 00:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ya'll should have an Rfc at that article. GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's fun to argue whether the 2019–20 Australian bushfire season is "June 2019 – ongoing" or "Winter (June) 2019 – Autumn (May) 2020" (no doubt there is a political backstory unknown to naive onlookers such as myself). However, people here are pretty smart and they can recognize sanctimonious twaddle when it is presented on a plate. As noted by bradv above, Skyring should either focus on content only, or could try appointing themselves Talk Page Monitor and post prattle about the behavior of other editors. Johnuniq (talk) 01:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

as I mentioned on my talk page - Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point and Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system#Gaming_the_consensus-building_process - Skyring, you really need to focus on the article rather than continue on. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cas! This isn't about the article. Or me, or you, or anyone else. I have no complaints or criticism about you. This is me making a wider comment on civility. Yes, of course we should focus on wikiwork. But when the workplace turns toxic, it isn't a positive thing. Jimbo made some good thoughtful points in the talk linked to above and I wonder how much the admin corps backs him on this. Lip service only? Wholehearted support? So far the advice given here seems to be that editors should duck their heads down and ignore personal attacks. I guess if you have a mop and bucket, everything looks like a mess to be mopped up, but I can't help but feel that there's more to it than that. --Pete (talk) 05:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, there is much more to being a useful admin than striking out bad words or comments about other editors. For one thing, some editors will never rest until they get their way and they are able to push and push indefinitely or until stopped. People at this noticeboard are advising that it is time to stop. Johnuniq (talk) 08:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pile-on agree with Johnuniq and Bradv. Speaking as someone with no connection to Australia and no particular interest in the topic at hand, whatever your (Skyring's) intent this looks very much like you declaring yourself a super-user and taking exception at being asked to treat other editors with the respect you'd want them to give to you. "Civility" isn't a synonym for "not swearing", and to be blunt it's clear to everyone except you who the uncivil editor on that discussion currently is. ‑ Iridescent 08:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right there, Iridescent. Not clear at all to me. I'm into my eighth decade, so the intellect isn't what it used to be. Could you explain yourself a little further, give a diff, perhaps? --Pete (talk) 11:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will quotes suffice?

Lay off me, HiLo. This isn't about you. If you can't provide some editorial input here, why don't you butt out?[4] - This is your first reply to HiLo48 after reverting them at the article, with the summary [y]ou got a crystal ball, HiLo? They have stopped. Stick to the facts. Seriously?

But your position seems to be that the end of the season is flexible, depending on the original research of editors as to what constitutes enough of a fire to leave a scorch mark on Wikipedia[5] -You asserted that the fires were over. And you left that gem when confronted with the fact that they were not, in fact, over.

Does anybody have a good argument as to why we should now change this longstanding consensus to suit the whims of original research and personal opinion? - Bearing in mind that the day prior you were asserting that the season had already ended because, and I quote, they (the fires) have stopped. But then, you switch stance to: We don't wait for the bushfires to end, we don't guess, we go by the Bureau of Meteorology saying that's when the season ends.[6] Again, the very day prior you were asserting the exact reverse and that the season ended in March, 2020. Now suddenly you think reliable sources should be used instead of your own opinion that because the fires have stopped, therefore the season is over.

It looks to me like you are putting ego ahead of a very long consensus here, for no good reason that I can see[7] - Ego? Really? Go read the userpage of the editor you made that comment to. There is a line on it that should stick out. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Paid contributions declaration"? I've taken the liberty of adding diffs to your cherries picked above, so that context is visible. See the first post in this thread for an explanation of my views changing as I looked deeper into the matter of Australian fire seasons, and our many years of reporting. The state-based emergency pages used as evidence that bushfires continue always have a bushfire or two listed. Over a whole continent, they never stop, a point made by the Bureau of Meteorology and the Bushfire CRC in their graphic showing that bushfires in Australia never reach zero, they just come to a minimum around May and June. Both of these links were raised in discussion on the page.

The fact that the out-of-the-ordinary killing fires were off the front pages, the news reports turned to other matters, the two months of choking smoke blowing through my house and half of Eastern Australia had stopped, the fires no longer glowed in the dark at night in the hills around Canberra, and the heavy water bomber at the airport has remained idle for a solid month of flooding rain and regrowth helped my opinion along. But I am grateful for your snarky analysis of a few phrases plucked out of context and misleadingly described. Kind of illustrates my point, really. You do see this, I trust.

But again, this isn't about me or anyone else. I'm no saint. I can be a cranky, annoying, pedantic, and yes, snarky curmudgeon. There can't be too many on Wikipedia with a longer history of arseholery than me. Jimbo himself kicked my irritating bum off Wikipedia somewhere back around 2005 and he was right to do so.

What I have come to realise is that Wikipedia itself is a treasure, and what makes it extra-good is that procedures have evolved to keep a large and diverse community creating gold without strangling each other. Jimbo, for all of his God-King status, very rarely intervenes. There's certainly no top-down direction in anything but the broadest terms, and everything has evolved through discussion and consensus.

My question remains. What is the position of admins on implementing the vision of Jimbo linked to above? He describes something extraordinary as being a guiding principle of the project, and that principle is love. My own field of philosophy literally means "love of wisdom", and we all cheer at the thought of schoolchildren in Africa having better access to Wikipedia, which is chock-full of knowledge and wisdom. How are admins and indeed base-grade editors dealing with the concept of love as a guiding force? From what I can see, it seems to be a challenge for many. I think, if the first instinct of a Wikipedian is to aim a kick at whoever is irritating them, they aren't acting out of love. --Pete (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Um, while I can't speak for Mr rnddude, I very much doubt it's the paid contribution disclosure to which he's trying to draw your attention, but the fact that you're claiming you know more than a New South Wales firefighter about fires in New South Wales. To reiterate what I said above, when you think every other person on the site is being unreasonable and every other person on the site thinks you're being unreasonable, you might want to stop and think that maybe the problem is you, not everyone else.

I can't speak for any other admin, but the vision of this particular admin on "implementing the vision of Jimbo" is that I couldn't care less what his vision is or isn't. While Jimmy does for historic reasons retain a seat on the WMF board, he's been detached from the actual operation of Wikipedia for years, and the mix of tendentious editing and whitewashing the biographies of people he met at parties that constitutes his edit history over the past decade would have long since got any other editor banned. I give whatever he happens to come out with on any given day considerably less credence than I give the opinions of a new week-old editor, given that the new editor is actually involved with Wikipedia whereas there's no evidence Jimmy has the slightest interest in anything that takes place on this site any more, provided the paid after-dinner speaker gigs keep flowing. Jimmy Wales is in no position whatsoever to lecture anyone on "civility" (disagree with him and he's as uncivil as they come), but even if one does accept the argument that civility is the key to Wikipedia, as an outside observer who to the best of my knowledge has never interacted with you in any way it's fairly clear that the only person being uncivil on that bushfire talkpage is you. ‑ Iridescent 17:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And there I was thinking that Jimmy Wales was "a good Wikipedian who deeply respects and defends NPOV and policy based reasons to do things in all cases". Phil Bridger (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[8][9][10][11][12]. ‑ Iridescent 18:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. It's a pity that our dear co-founder doesn't have the gift described by Robert Burns. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pete, there's nobody here who can tell you 'what admins think' about anything - there isn't a controlling body, we don't speak with one voice, we're just a bunch of volunteers with disparate opinions and areas of expertise. Since it is not possible for anybody to answer your question, and this isn't really the place for philosophical musings anyway, are you happy for this to be closed now, or is there something specific you want to ask? GirthSummit _(blether) 18:15, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just respond to Iridescent, if I may, who has done me the courtesy of following the link I provided, and actually putting some thought into his response.

Am I really claiming I know more than a New South Wales firefighter about fires in New South Wales? I am unaware that I made any such claim. Perhaps a diff would be in order? Now that you have raised that notion, I reject it utterly. In any case, neither Bidgee nor myself is of the slightest use to Wikipedia as a source. That idea got knocked on the head long ago.

Nor am I claiming that Jimbo the man and the sentiments he expressed in that speech referenced above are cut from the same fabric. The vision expressed seemed to draw a positive response from his listeners, as has the project he founded, very little of which he had a direct hand in laying out. How many policy documents has he edited? A quick look at the earliest years of the WP:5P policies shows no involvement at all.

And yet, here we are, spending our free time on a shared vision. Extraordinary.

Phil Bridger, well put! I think the point that Burns was making is that none of us has that particular view, but of course you had a twinkle in your eye as you said it. In any case, this particular wretch is not claiming any great gifts of charm or grace. I'm still waiting for Iridescent to establish the uniqueness he claims I enjoy, but I suspect that I might be waiting a while for that diff. I am not yet so bound up in self-abuse that I cannot detect stress and anger in the words of others, even if some suggest that this wretch is blind to it in himself.

Girth, you'll forgive me restoring the indent your comments rightly own. It seemed to me that you were unconsciously suggesting that the comments of others were not worth responding to. Yes, of course there is no Admin King, nor any one voice beyond what wikipolicy gives us. If you yourself have no answer to the question, and wish to hurry along to the next puddle with your mop and bucket, that's fine. I came here seeking wisdom, and it seems I have come to the wrong shop for that, brother. --Pete (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Skyring, to be honest, it looks to me like you're just trolling a this point. Please add my voice to the list of those telling you that you appear not to know how to interact civilly with others. GirthSummit _(blether) 22:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How much lack of clue needs to be demonstrated to warrant remedial action? It would helpful if anyone had time to check the contributions of Skyring (talk · contribs) (Pete) and work out if a WP:NOTHERE or WP:CIR block is required to allow other editors to work without distractions such as those shown above. Johnuniq (talk) 02:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Skyring has been a disruptive editor literally for 15 years (the "I demand that Wikipedia treat my personal opinions as fact, and I'll keep posting walls of text until you agree" attitude we're seeing here could have come straight from the 2005 arb case that originally got him banned). That said, he hasn't been blocked since 2016, and unless something is really egregious I wouldn't want to block out of the blue (he might have construed the lack of formal complaints recently as an indication that Wikipedia's culture had shifted and the way he was acting was now considered acceptable), and (his ramblings on this thread aside) I don't see any obvious problems since this thread started. IMO this thread is sufficient to constitute a warning (he can hardly claim he's not aware of it); if there's any subsequent disruption, that's the time to drop the banhammer. ‑ Iridescent 08:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is amazing, thank you. I have encountered Skyring but have forgotten where. I had not seen his outstanding block log and did not know that an Arbcom case had been required. I guess you're right but we admins need to stop those who can argue ad infinitum from wasting the time of other editors and action might be needed in the future. Johnuniq (talk) 09:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Giving credit where it's due. Skyring/Pete has (AFAIK) shown restraint in the last 3 to 4 years (since an Rfc on the matter), concerning the Australian head of state topic. A topic he was quite passionate about. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The three thousand bytes Pete left at User talk:Girth Summit today had made my head spin as about 2/3 of it is philosophical/historical musings. Ultimately I think the last 1/3 is fair enough on the ADMINACCT front but also really suggests that this thread acting as a warning has not quite sunk in yet. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be dealing with an IP-hopping vandal, see [13] and Special:Contributions/2600:1008:B04B:4A75:D875:E4CD:A0D6:F9B7. I need to step away from my computer for a bit right now so I can't investigate much further, but it would be great if an admin comfortable with range blocks could look into this case. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those IP addressed can not be contained by a single range block. However, it would be better to have just blocked the WP:/64 here, rather than having to make two separate blocks. ST47 (talk) 01:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ST47, noted, thanks. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I would like to report a backlog of requests on AfC participants talk which has been existing for 5 days now. I hope someone will clear the backlog there. Thank you! -- JavaHurricane 05:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's normal, as I'm usually able to get to them about once a week. I will be clearing the list either today or tomorrow. Please be patient. Primefac (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac, what JavaHurricane really means is please hurry up and get to me because I'm second on the list I somewhat disingenuously just asked about. Although if the criteria were changed to Must have 500 non-automated edits, they'd never get it (94%, anyone?!) Happy days. ——SN54129 13:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Number 54129, not really. I was concerned about the backlog as I thought that the list was checked every day. @Primefac:, thanks for your help! JavaHurricane 13:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some weeks it is checked that often, but I had a competition, two days of conferences, and three different tests to grade this week, so it's been put a little on the back burner. Primefac (talk) 13:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ckatz is not currently active. Their user page - which is protected - transcludes {{busy2}}, which is being deleted in favour of {{busy}}.

Please therefore edit that page, to replace:

{{busy2|I'll check in when I can, but please understand that circumstances may create a significant delay between when you post and when I am able to respond. Thank you for your patience and understanding.|align=center|color scheme= blue}}

with:

{{busy|message=This user is busy in [[real life]] and may not respond swiftly to queries. If you have an urgent matter, it may be best to [[Special:EmailUser/Ckatz|use email]]. I'll check in when I can, but please understand that circumstances may create a significant delay between when you post and when I am able to respond. Thank you for your patience and understanding.|image=Crystal Clear app xclock.svg}}

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the original just be substituted/preserved on their page? I am not sure I would suddenly want people encouraged to email me if I didn't include it in the original message I left on my page.Slywriter (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slywriter, check the user page in question. The text "This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. If you have an urgent matter, it may be best to..." is part of the boilerplate in {{busy2}}, but not {{busy}}, so it must, in fact, be added manually to preserve the original message. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 17:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See it now. Didn't realize already customized to include email language. Objection withdrawn.Slywriter (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Johnuniq (talk) 09:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for addressing this, I've just noticed the issue and I appreciate you having fixed it. Cheers. Ckatz^talk 01:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please protect my userpage (semi) for about 30 minutes? Thanks. (For testing purposes)

Besides, I would like for the users 2600:1003:B117:3265:471F:98E1:7998:AE62, 2600:1003:B101:F1E1:54AA:7C56:FA6F:3408, 2600:1003:B112:6924:6FB6:4406:F7E1:C67A, 2600:1003:b116:1548:2827:564e:791e:268, 2600:1003:B12F:413B:639:8DD2:9DE4:60D6' edits to be revision-deleted. They were grossly insulting. Thanks. tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 07:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The Lord of Math, I've protected your userpage as requested. If the protection expires before you log in, feel free to re-request for a longer period of time. I cannot do anything to edits by those IP addresses, since they've never edited your userpage; aside from edits you've made, the only edits in your userpage's history have been when two people moved the page and when I semiprotected it. Nyttend (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Nauriya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Nauriya is asking the community to overturn a site ban:

Its been more than one and half years since I am blocked from Wikipedia. Community had a lengthy discussion on my conduct at this very platform and I accepted their decision for my mistakes and stayed away from any disruption, dispute, or sock-puppetry. I took this much time to understand this platform further, although, a member since 2013, I was only interested in one medium - arts and media. I used this account since then and made memorable time and edits with it, which gave me pure joy. Wikipedia, at a time was my only activity and it consumed me inside out. I was all over the place with my copyrights issues and other mistakes, but in the end I can only learn from them and move forward with understanding. I can not undo or erase my doings but can only ask those, in whose hands authorities are given, and I am asking for a last chance. I have taken this period to rehabilitate myself in terms of a better knowledge for the rules and regulations that runs this platform. I didn't had the courage to appeal this unblock earlier ever after the due "six month" period of limitation, as I wanted to give myself more time to think, what I was involved with and how my conduct was viewed as wrong and disruptive. All of what was happened is in the discussion already and I don't want to dwell onto that but I will take this opportunity to appeal the community and admins to consider my request with utmost sincerity and my honest acknowledgement of mistakes into your account. This is indeed my last chance, and I am making sure to try my best to prove to you that I no longer intend to repeat those mistakes, ever again. I am clear what I am asking for and I will make sure, what happened, will never happen again. I assure you, or I wish I could show you that I have come without any agenda, and this is not a planned scheme with any ill intention of being disruptive and dishonest again. This is all I have to say. I have kept my options open for all the possibilities and as much as I am desperate to come back, I will respect any decision made, without any question. Thank you very much for taking your time to hear out this request. Nauriya, Let's talk - 15:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I didn't see anything obvious in a sock check. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, but willing to reconsider - I'm not sure I see understanding of what got them blocked - I see all over the place with my copyrights issues and better knowledge for the rules and regulations that runs this platform, and a couple "I won't repeat my mistakes," but still missing the explicit "here's what I did that was wrong, here's what I will change in my behavior" that I expect from a good unblock request. I'm willing to reconsider if I see Nauriya follow up with something like that. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 13:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• As the CCI guy, I'll have to think about this. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Nauriya is still pretty large. Money emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 14:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They also had a now closed CCI under a different username: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Faizanali.007Money emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 14:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I am only seeing what happened, but nothing about what got them blocked and how they would avoid problems given they "don't want to dwell onto that" after all. Shashank5988 (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• (Non-administrator comment) Are non-admins allowed/supposed to post an oppose/support opinion for unblocks on an administrator noticeboard? I always thought that if you did, you had to preface your comment with at least a "non-administrator" disclaimer. I could be completely wrong,and this is not intended against the two users who have posted, I am simply curious. Thanks all, Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 19:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Puddleglum2.0, um...well...nobody's complained yet! My understanding is that non-admins are welcome to contribute to these unblock discussions since they represent community consensus, not just administrator consensus. I usually don't add the prefix unless I think it's important to be clear that I'm not an admin (usually if I'm addressing a non-admin posting to the board and don't want them to think I speak with administrator power backing it). I think the admins who frequent this board recognize my username by now and know to ignore me without me adding the "non-admin" disclaimer. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 19:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict) Yes, you're welcome to comment here. Appeals of community sanctions are presented here for discussion by all interested editors, not just administrators. You can use the nacc template for this purpose but it's not required. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC),[reply]

OK, thanks Ivanvector and Creffpublic! (Or Creffett, not sure what's connected to what...) That makes sense, thanks again. Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 19:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Puddleglum2.0, you can ping either one of me - I'll see it regardless. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 19:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I continue to suspect the motivations of the original proposers of the ban, particularly in light of certain off-wiki harassment which is currently ongoing involving some of the participants, but nonetheless there were valid concerns raised about Nauriya's editing. In the original discussion I suggested that any unban process should include an indefinite revocation of autopatrolled and an indefinite ban on all image uploads. Nauriya's patrolling and content review userrights were removed before the ban discussion concluded, so that part is moot. I sort of agree with creffpublic that we need to see more self-awareness here, but I am not outright opposing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Response from Nauriya:

  : @NinjaRobotPirate: Since I can not edit at ANI, if I may, I want to say that my request clearly says that I am sorry for my mistakes and I will not follow the same path, as I did before. Also, all other accounts are not mine, this has been discussed and confirmed in previous discussions. Prior to 2013, I did have accounts, as I was an IP exempt because I was in a place where all of sites were blocked, so I did made mistakes because I was very immature editor at that time and it was also cleared by admins. After 2013 I never created another account, I did change the name though. Thats it! Nauriya, Let's talk - 19:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  moved here by NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Did anyone bring up sockpuppetry? This comment is adding some unnecessary confusion to the situation. It was established prior to or during the 2018 ban discussion that Nauriya was using that account after they had been blocked in 2013 with a different account. I don't think it was conclusively established that Faizanali.007 was their former account or just a very similar account. The investigation was hampered by the filer being part of a group of editors very obviously filing multiple SPIs and other administrative reports against their enemies in a broad India-Pakistan editing conflict, wasting admin time to try to get some sanction to stick against their opponents. There was some checkuser stuff in the 2018 SPI but I wasn't around for it and I'm not going to try to comment on it. There was a discussion in the 2018 SPI in which several admins (courtesy ping Bbb23 and Abecedare) discussed Nauriya's history, and determined (my paraphrasing) that although Nauriya was technically evading a block, they went five years without getting into the trouble which led to the block, and had become a productive contributor over those five years, and so blocking them for long-stale block evasion was unproductively punitive. Nauriya was effectively granted amnesty for the past block evasion. On the other hand, several admins and other users in the 2018 ban discussion took the banned means banned approach, particularly in light of Fram's investigation revealing that Nauriya was in fact still breaking copyright rules right up to the start of that discussion, and so the reason for forgiving their block evasion was moot. The filer of the SPI and the ban proposal insisted without evidence that Nauriya was committing copyright violations throughout those five years; maybe CCI got to the bottom of that, I don't know.

  Are you confused by all this? Good. My only point here is that this appeal discussion should consider the circumstances of the 2018 ban, and not get into the weeds of the weird maybe-sockpuppetry history, because nobody really knows what happened there and there is no evidence that Nauriya has used more than one account since 2013. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a (or really the) person whose been working on the CCI, they definitely committed copyright violations during that time period; see Rozee.pk and Rafaqat Ali Khan.Money emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 17:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(responding to ping) Ivanvector summarizes the socking and proxying situation well. Anyone interested can read my and Bbb23's July 2018 summary at SPI, which contains links to some relevant posts. Looking at the SPI and the Sep 2018 ban-discussion will also reveal what Ivanvector means by "suspect the motivations of the original proposers of the ban", although that of course does not excuse Nauriya's proven copyvios etc.

All that said, the socking, proxying, and mixed-motivations-of-some-accusers are a messy sideshow IMO, and I would recommend judging this ban appeal based upon Nauriya's copyvio history and the chance that the problems will recur in the ban is lifted. Abecedare (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanvector, you should know by now that Nauriya had admitted that he had socked as Faizanali.007, Salarsikandar.81 and Tabraiz.18 only after the SPI was filed.[14] Unfortunately he got away from this sockpuppetry but was warned that any more socking or copyright violations will result in a block.[15] ANI was opened only after it became obvious that Nauriya was continuing his copyright violations for weeks and pretending to be perfect as the very first post in the ANI thread reveals. Lorstaking (talk) 07:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• For your consideration: @Money emoji, Shashank5988, Creffpublic, Puddleglum2.0, Ivanvector, and Abecedare: et al. who might be interested, since Nauriya was originally blocked for copyright violations, I thought it imperative to ask them a few questions about copyright stuff:

*Query: Hi Nauriya, since you were originally blocked for copyright violations, I'm wondering if you could please answer a few questions. They might be a bit tough, so you should probably think about them and answer to the best of your ability:

1. What is a copyright?
2. What sort of content is considered copyrighted?
3. How do you know if material is copyrighted or free to use?
4. If you are unclear on some of the nuances of Wikipedia's rules about including copyrighted materials, where at Wikipedia can you find answers to those questions? (For example, specific Wikipedia policy/guideline pages or places in the community where you could ask for help. You don't have to list everything, I just want to see if you know where to find answers to questions that might come up.)

I may have follow-up questions depending on your responses. We can move my questions and your responses to the relevant AN discussion should you choose to answer. Thank you and regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Answers:

1. As per my understanding, a copyright is a legal right of the individual/owner of their intellectual property that prohibits anyone other than the original owner of the unauthorised use and distribution of their works.
2. All creative content is considered copyrighted per Berne Convention. However, any material/work released to public domain, becomes license free, or in case where copyright is explicitly detailed and disclaimed.
3. Since Wikipedia, uses links/references to the content written/used in its articles - any material/text or work that is a simple copy-and-paste from websites, is considered copyrighted. All other works on Wikipedia are free to use, if in compliance with CC-BY-SA and if co-licensed then GFDL or where restrictions and sanctions are applied.
4. If one is having difficulty in understanding the Wikipedia copyright policies, we can approach WP:C for understanding the basic terminologies. If one want to know how to use copyrighted content on Wikipedia, they can refer to WP:COPYREQ and related WP:CV101. In addition, WP:CRA can serve as an assistance to user(s) looking for brief overview. The most important one in my view is knowing WP:COPYVIO and in my case where I was wrong, one must know how can they add this image to Wikipedia? / can they copy-paste this text into Wikipedia?. And for help WT:CP, WP:CQ are helpful or we can find a relevant noticeboard to approach for help.

Thank you @Cyphoidbomb for taking your time out and being so considerate. And yes sure, thats what I am here for, to answer any question I can in order to show that I am willing to abide by the policies of this platform. And ask for help first this time, if I will face any problem. Nauriya, Let's talk - 8:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC) If anyone wants to format the above so that it looks nicer, please do. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support unblock The answers above give me confidence. Thanks you Cyphoidbomb. Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 15:15, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A little more elaboration: initially I was going to support based only on WP:AGF (which I think should be used much more with unblock requests like this) and WP:ROPE. The answers have strengthened my opinion and I think confirmed that this editor has edited in good faith, even if they were wrongngr. (and they have admitted they were wrong). I think there is no end to forgiveness, and that's why I've chosen to support. (Although I wouldn't be opposed to a topic ban on Pakistan-related topics that Lorstaking proposes.) Thanks, Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 16:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to go with support here too. The answers are a bit weak but going in a promising self-aware direction. I'm sure there will be enough users scrutinizing Nauriya's edits as to head off any future copyright problems, for which a fresh block is sure to ensue. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Not all of the problems have been addressed. Given one of the concern included meatpuppetry as Abecedare pointed above, the unblock appeal made above and this recent response regarding copyright violations makes it obvious for anybody that these both messages are written by two different people. In the light of such dubiousness and incomplete addressal I would oppose unblock. There were also problems with article creations by Nauriya, one of which included repeated recreation of Wasi Shah. Maybe an alternative solution would be to unblock with an indefinite topic ban from anything related to Pakistan but then I am not sure if Nauriya will edit anything else. Lorstaking (talk) 07:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are the same users who did vandalism. I attached the evidences. Thank you so much.

• Бмхүн (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 47.244.55.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Evidences = [16], [17], [18] --175.223.37.88 (talk) 04:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, i moved it to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.--175.223.37.88 (talk) 04:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP; you do realise this is English Wiki? we cant deal with any matters from other Wikis, including Korean Wikipedia. Nightfury 09:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A group of editors is completely blanking the viewpoint that the South Korean president and his government mishandled the outbreak. Reliable sources were cited, but they blank it out nonetheless.[19][20] Koraskadi (talk) 07:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a content dispute, which aren't settled on this page. You need to follow the dispute resolution process, particularly discussing the change on the article talk page with other people. These edits were reverted because they were felt to constitute original research, I have no idea whether that's correct but in principle it's a legitimate concern - Wikipedia shouldn't contain original research, even if sourced. Hut 8.5 07:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the concerns raised with the content, there is also the issue of Koraskadi reverting five times in under 24 hours despite a warning, for which the user is now blocked. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:55, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Someguy1221: This is a content dispute between pro-Moon Jae-in editors who owned the article and an anti-Moon editor who challenged awkwardly. All the additions Koraskadi made are described in the Korean article. Koraskadi have initiated a discussion today. I think your second block is a bit harsh.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kasper2006, Lugnuts: this convinces me Nicola Mayr speaks German, though it doesn't say so explicitly. 2601:648:8202:96B0:54D9:2ABB:1EDB:CEE3 (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple IPs and accounts have been making COVID-19-related, now online changes to major American universities. This seems to be a concerted effort, though I've not researched to find its source. Anyway, please keep an eye by adding major American universities to your watchlist. El_C 16:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not the list that's being edited, apparently. Are there any particular pages experiencing problems, or can you show some example diffs? There could be something we can do. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reverted this last night at Bucknell University: [22]. The problem has continued: [23] and (more obnoxiously verbosely) [24]. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Iowa State University; poor ElKevbo has been battling off vindictive Cyclones all morning. This was the sixth introduction of "online": [25]. And in the two minutes since I Ctrl-Ced that diff and typed this up, there has been another one. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, that's a pretty broad range of IPs doing the vandalism. Maybe an edit filter can help? (@MusikAnimal: if you're ... online ... ) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think we should assume that this is a concerted effort. Tens of thousands of students just had their school arrangements disrupted. Most of them are spending more time online than usual. Of course a handful of them are going to make a (poor) "joke edit" to Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I don't think it's a concerted effort or sockpuppetry or anything like that. It's just the students on each campus reacting to their change in circumstances. I've protected ten such articles in the past hour or so. If I see the change to "online" has been done and reverted twice, that's enough for me: bang, semiprotection, 2 weeks. The secret for how I was able to find so many that needed protection: I found a few by other means, then I just followed User:ElKevbo around! What an outstanding job he has been doing putting out fires all day! -- MelanieN (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, there are so many of these (I've now protected more than 20, and I am not the only one doing it) - different people all doing the exact same thing, changing the description of the school to "online" - that maybe there is some suggestion out there, some prompt on social media, "hey, let's do this". Somewhere far beyond my ability to search it out. Anyone want to see if they can find out where this is coming from? -- MelanieN (talk) 23:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: This Reddit post caught my eye earlier just before I reverted Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and I'd imagine the same can be said for most of these other universities, but I don't know for sure. Just college students pretending to be clever. OhKayeSierra (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding that, OhKayeSierra! Yes, I had suspected this is being spread by sites like Reddit as well as others I've never heard of. That's one reason why I am protecting for two weeks instead of a shorter period; with this kind of egging-each-other-on, I don't think it will die out in a day or two. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

University of Pennsylvania is getting hammered and WP:RFPP hasn't gotten there yet, if anyone is able to do the honors. Thanks! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everyone, for pulling together on this. I have not noticed any repetition of these disruptive edits today, so I can cautiously say that it looks like we're good, for now. El_C 15:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, I reverted on a BLP today.[26] Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yale University several times now. Meters (talk) 00:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I semi-protected Yale University for a month. Johnuniq (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still a bit of a trickle today — I just semiprotected Princeton University‎ for 2 weeks, for example. But I think we got it under control, for the most part. El_C 06:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not totally. I protected five more this morning. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And one more. BTW I have noticed that several of these edits adding "online" mention Zoom in some way. Example:[27] Does that ring any bells with anyone? -- MelanieN (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw something on Twitter about this as well. I believe it is just a trend that will die off soon. I've created Special:AbuseFilter/1046, log-only for now. — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C, MelanieN and others: I get the hunch some of these are good-faith, such as Special:AbuseLog/26253240. Should we show a custom message, something like Educational institutions should not be changed as being "online" institutions solely because they are offering online courses due to the coronavirus pandemic? For now I've got the filter in warn-only. — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MusikAnimal, thanks for your help and input on this. They may be good faith on the part of the poster, but they are still incorrect and should not be allowed. These are not "online universities", they are major universities that are temporarily operating over only the internet. Some posters may be doing it innocently, but I think most of them are inspired by something they've seen on Zoom. Latest example: [28] And no, I would not put up a warning not to do it, per WP:BEANS. Just remove it without comment. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Coronavirus disease 2019 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

And make it indefinite if possible. The page is getting 250000 views/day, so even quickly-reverted vandalism is seen by hundreds of people. Thanks all. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the history, are we sure that all or even most IP edits are bad? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but this stood for six minutes. I expect if we unprotected Donald Trump, there would be a mix of good and bad edits also. Care to try? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I've done so even if it technically violates policy. This is exceptional circumstances; a page with such high visibility on a topic with so much misinformation (both malicious and good faith) swirling around is a unique case. With the kind of pageviews this is getting, if "taking zinc supplements prevents you getting it" or the like is live even for a few seconds, we're potentially putting someone's life at risk. Yes, Anyone Can Edit and all that, but we still have a duty of care to readers. ‑ Iridescent 18:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, Iridescent. A rule prevented you from improving Wikipedia, so you ignored it. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  No problem at all; when the protection policy was written, we obviously didn't anticipate a situation with such a high potential for people to insert good-faith errors with potential real life consequences. AFAIK even the cesspits that are Facebook and Twitter have also started filtering coronavirus-related nonsense.

  General note to the usual self-appointed busybodies who wander around noticeboards unilaterally closing threads; don't close this one but instead let the bot archive it in the normal way once it's stale. There will potentially be objections to this action is it technically violates Wikipedia:Protection policy, and there's no point forcing anyone raising reasonable objections to start a fresh thread. ‑ Iridescent 18:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, Suffusion of Yellow there are over 100 coronavirus-related articles and templates so are there any others that you see subject to vandalism? I have many watchlisted but they change repeatedly over a day and I can't check every edit or verify every patient total that gets updated. A week ago, I asked if members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine could keep an eye on the subject but it has grown exponentially. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Here is a log of all non-confirmed edits to pages with "coronavirus" or "covid" in the title. There are going to be too many to review them all, but it may be useful to find pages that need protecting. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Good call, thank you. I'd agree that our obligation not to spread disinformation is greater than our obligation to be editable by anyone at this moment. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse protection - I don't even think this is an IAR case. There wasn't much vandalism but there was some, and of the nature that suggested there would be more, and we use protection to stop disruption - that's basically all the policy says about "when to protect". Unfortunately some of it is from confirmed accounts. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - I don't think that "some vandalism" is a particularly good protection reason but preventing people from adding medical disinformationon to the main article of an ongoing major disease outbreak which has already drawn disinformation is a good one. Worth watching the entire COVID-19 article zoo, perhaps? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The main Coronavirus page is actually getting more views. It's EC-protected, but that expires in a week. Someone should remember to enable semi-protection as soon as the EC protection is over, IMO. And maybe enable PC protection now, in case no one remembers. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I think it was brought up at least once before, but how do people feel about community-authorized sanctions for Coronavirus? I recognize that this is more "preventing a potential problem" than "fixing an existing problem," but I only expect disruptive editing and conspiracy theory-pushing to get worse. Not a formal proposal, just a straw poll, since I've never participated in GS proposals before. creffett (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Personally I'd be against it. DS only works for intractable disputes; treat all the loons, homeopaths and Russian bots as we do any other vandals. ‑ Iridescent 20:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Creffett, I agree with Iridescent S Philbrick(Talk) 21:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Sphilbrick, Iridescent, all right, thanks for the input - that's why I asked instead of jumping straight to the proposal! creffett (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Creffett, I appreciate that your suggestion was well-intentioned, but I think starting with protection, and possibly escalating to 1RR would be better interim steps. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse protection, thanks Iridescent. There is very little chance of good information being missed because a passing IP was unable to add it, and very good reason to help keep rumor and disinformation out even if it was only present for half an hour. Johnuniq (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• This seems very sensible to me; well done all. I've marked the page as semiprotected so readers can see it. Agree that similar semiprotection for related pages might not be a bad idea, though the other two main pages already are - Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is semiprotected until the start of April and 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic until mid-April. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose IP editors are not causing any problems. The last IP edit I saw was this edit. It was fine and perfect. Wikipedia is free for everyone. Protection should be based on real vandalism history not speculations based on page views.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  If you have any valid criticism of my protection feel free, but don't just come here and make shit up in the hope we won't notice, and if you're going to tell lies tell lies that take more than ten seconds to fact-check. The last IP edits priot to the semiprotection were both, vandalism, and the "fine and perfect" edit you cite as an example was questionable at best (unless you're seriously trying to claim that "Wuhan pneumonia" isn't genuinely used as a synonym by reputable media; if you think it's "anti-Chinese" you may want to tell the South China Morning Post and the Taiwanese Central Epidemic Command Centre). ‑ Iridescent 23:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse: I just wanted to add that I support page protection to add to the consensus. With a page as busy and important as this one, we shouldn't risk dissemination of false, dangerous information simply because we didn't strictly follow the letter of the law.  Bait30  ^Talk? 04:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse because it's too urgent and there's too much misinformation floating around for our normal processes to work well. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endose. We have a deluge of IP's spreading misinformation on multiple Coronavirus-related articles (e.g. even this at Wuhan Institute of Virology). It is an unfortunate step to take, as we have many great contributions by IPs (and even in this area), however, things are too serious now (even the Wuhan Institute of Virology article is clocking over 20,000 hits per day), and we can't allow WP to be abused like this. Britishfinance (talk) 13:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• As we speak, here is another IP on the said Wuhan Institute of Virology article re-pushing a conspiracy theory about it [29]. Britishfinance (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the alert. That page is now protected thanks to The Anome. Please continue to call attention to pages that need protection, everyone. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Without going into detail on which pages should or shouldn't be protected, I think that, despite the extra work it makes, pending changes protection should at least be considered for some small number of pages where many good IP edits are being made. I know that the link to making edit requests is provided in the edit notice at the top of the page, but many otherwise constructive contributors may be discouraged from even trying when the button says view source rather than edit. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Even the smaller articles are edited too actively for pending changes to be effective. El_C 17:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Understood, it was just a thought, well maybe keep it in the back pocket as a possibility if not for small articles then for the tiny/obscure and tangential articles around the edges where misinformation needs to be kept out. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse semi-protection of the entire topic area. We cannot let these articles be turned into sources of misinformation that could result in grave real life consequences. - MrX 🖋 12:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. This is too serious a matter to take anything but the most cautious approach for now. -- The Anome (talk) 12:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have now semiprotected 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic by country and territory and 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States, indefinitely. El_C 16:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now also semi'd 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Italy, indefinitely. El_C 17:17, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Note for EI C, the article about the pandemic in US subjected to arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions (WP:ARBAP2), same as India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh specific article (which falls under WP:ARBIPA) and most of Eastern Europe articles (falls under WP:ARBEE). 36.68.165.222 (talk) 23:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While the coronavirus crisis has an impact on the political situation of the United States (especially the forthcoming primaries), I think it is a stretch to say the article is covered by discretionary sanctions. This is a medical crisis with political implications, it's not primarily about politics. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. What Liz said also represents my view. I've also adjusted the duration for Coronavirus (was set to expire in a few days) to indefinite. Anyway, our role in and reputation of being a vehicle that provides factual information (the encyclopedia) will always take priority, especially in a time of crisis. El_C 01:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. This is too serious a matter to take anything but the most cautious approach for now, particulary since there seems to be a campaign to vandalise these articles; this should be extended to all the related subtopic articles. -- The Anome (talk) 12:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Can you change the protection duration of 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United Kingdom become indefinite, because I suspect when the protection expire on 15 March 2020, IP edits return their distruptive editing and they adding more rumours and disinformation about the event. 36.77.92.39 (talk) 14:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 14:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forgot to do. Now done, for real. And logged at AEL. El_C 22:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We should also consider move protection (per today at Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic), as it is also very disruptive (given the links), and can cause the articles to drop off google's search rankings for a period. Britishfinance (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and please semi-protect this article too. It's the most controversial of all the article in this topic area. - MrX 🖋 22:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done and done. El_C 02:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am too worry that if the article about coronavirus pandemic with high-traffic views is unprotected, there are many edits by IP that reverted by a users, for example such as "Revert edits by xxx to last version by xxx" or "Undid revision xxx by xxxx". Because of this semi-protection needs in order to factual integrity and stability of the article 36.77.92.39 (talk) 03:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 coronavirus pandemic in Germany now also semi'd, indefinitely. El_C 04:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have all of the coronavirus articles on my Watchlist (but not the dozens of templates) and after two weeks of watching and spot-checking them, my opinion is that editing is happening so rapidly with the articles being updated continuously through the day, that we need all of our collective team of community of editors, accounts & IPs, to keep up with the massive rate of changes going on around the world.

I think articles should only be protected if there has been consistent vandalism or speculation. I see references being added regularly and I think considering the pace of change, overall, Wikipedia is doing a better-than-average job of presenting the crisis to our readers. My only concern are the templates which are trying to track the numbers, which can be tricky because Wikipedia is not a newspaper. JMHO. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 coronavirus pandemic in Croatia now is subjected to discretionary sanctions relating to topic about Eastern Europe and Balkans (WP:ARBEE) joined articles that subjected to discretionary sanctions such as pandemic in US, pandemic in India, pandemic in Poland, etc. I also plan to include Armenia and Azerbaijan specific article about the pandemic into the discretionary sanctions as well. 36.77.92.39 (talk) 04:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, that's a well-reasoned argument, to be sure, but my concern is if a disruptive edit on Wikipedia actually becomes public in the mainstream media, even if its lifetime is brief. I think a time of crisis, especially, makes Iridescent's approach particularly compelling. Our reputation is of utmost importance when it comes to the trust of the public, so an unusually cautious approach, protection-wise, is probably for the best in terms of minimizing risk for the project — again, as the top-rated vehicle for factual exposition and data on the pandemic. El_C 04:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP, if I'm reading the ARCA correctly, I think the Committee seems to be heading toward the direction of viewing these articles as being covered under ARBPS as well as ARBCAM. El_C 04:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would seem to be on pseudoscience and acupuncture topics. Is the intention to limit the scope to those areas? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, El C, safety first. I'm just seeing IP as well as some brand new editors making contributions. Especially in the country articles, where news sources are not in English, I think we could use all hands on deck as long as there isn't vandalism occurring. I was just recommending against a all-article shutdown but I see that this wasn't being proposed.

Regarding risk for the project, it looks like our good work on coronavirus articles is being recognized. Thank god for WikiProject Medicine! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Liz. I think edit requests are enough considering the circumstances, but fair point. Thanks for the link to that Wired article — that's pretty cool! El_C 21:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What should be done with examples like this at Miracle Mineral Supplement which currently spreads a claim that the miracle product cures COVID-19. I would be inclined to revert and warn the user that they will be blocked if the edit is repeated. However, there is no policy for common sense and the normal wikiway would be to argue on article talk for a month. Should WP:IAR be applied to stop edits like this (regarding this article, and any similar claims in other articles)? Johnuniq (talk) 06:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John’s analysis of the wikiway is accurate, and makes me sad. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 06:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per the ARCA, no need to really IAR anymore, even. Just protect under the ARBPS or ARBCAM DS, if you so wish and log it at AEL. El_C 06:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've just gone ahead and up'd the protection. El_C 06:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to make clear the following, I do not believe that MMS cures Coronavirus or any other disease, and I was not intending to spread false claims about it when I edited the MMS page. When I saw the notifications later on I realized the confusion that had been caused. If the language I used made it sound like I was spreading misinformation, I apologize for that and I recommend more experienced users in this matter fix the language to an appropriate manner. As well the sources I have linked to are only covering/debunking this phenomenon. As well this information was already present on the Misinformation related to the 2019-20 Coronavirus pandemic page, which I linked to in the new section I created in the article. Eons of Mollusk (talk) 06:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Eons of Mollusk, for the sensible comment. El_C 06:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from me as well (more on your talk). Thanks also to El_C for the links and protection but the IAR issue remains. If I revert the claims which are still currently in the article, that would make me WP:INVOLVED and unable to take admin action in any similar situation. Further, it's only a matter of time before an extended confirmed editor adds the claims to this or other articles. I suppose we can wait till then but I would like this noticeboard to decide whether to prevent the promotion of such claims, or whether to let a thousand flowers bloom as the issue is argued on multiple pages. Johnuniq (talk) 06:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq, I am of the opinion that we discourage the addition of material that falls short of MEDRS aggressively. El_C 07:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good but it's more subtle than that because the issue is not whether a mineral supplement can cure COVID-19. My concern is whether an article should proclaim that so-and-so has claimed it is a cure (see the first link in my OP above). When the pandemic is over, we can revisit the question and it might be useful to add refs that certain silly claims were made. However, what about now? I believe an IAR situation exists where people will turn to Wikipedia for information and while the panic is on we should not provide a platform to spread the claims because many people will skip the fine print such as refs which say the claim is bogus. Bear in mind that we only believe the claims are bogus as no one has tested whether Miracle Mineral Supplement can reduce the disease's impact. Johnuniq (talk) 09:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq, I appreciate you weighing this claim in-depth, but I'm just not sure it, for the moment, is more nuanced than simply that lack of testing equating with that claim falling short of MEDRS standards. And in the context of the pandemic, especially, I am arguing that we should be even more aggressive than usual about untested cures. El_C 09:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I predict that the quacks are going to have a field day with their claims for the various varieties of woo. It's bad enough that we allow them to edit at all. John makes a very valid point. Thinkers here may want to think about how we re-inforce our protection of the project. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 10:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quack claims that are not noticed by outsiders can be removed. Quack claims that are noticed by competent outsiders and are debunked can be couched as being false or incorrect in Wikipedia's voice per WP:ASSERT. It is not true that it is only a "belief" that MMS does not minimize the spread of diseases. Instead, what we can say is that it is false that there is any evidence that MMS helps cure any disease. I think that's pretty straightforward. jps (talk) 11:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MMS is not a "mineral supplement". It's a strong bleaching agent. The scum who started promoting it under that name came up with that name so people would think it's an innocuous "natural" thing. MMS is promoted as The Secret Cure They Don't Want You To Know About for literally everything. Treating every insertion of "MMS cures X" into articles as a good-faith claim that needs a bunch of discussion for consensus-gauging is suicide pact stuff. It should be treated no differently from someone adding claims that you can cure X by jumping into lava while wearing nothing. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although to be clear, the editor who made the edit linked up top was just documenting the latest conspiracy nuts flogging MMS. But like I said, it gets promoted as a magical cure for every disease, so I'm not sure exactly how much detail is warranted in the article for every separate instance of someone promoting it for something. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A little over 6 months ago, I was subject to a BLP ban arising out of some pretty cringeworthy behavior on my part (detailed here) at the conclusion of the discussion, I agreed to the imposition of an indefinite ban on BLP to be revisited in 6 months. I am unclear on how to make this request, apart from posting a new subject in the noticeboard where the ban was imposed. Help? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're in the right place, but I don't think this is your appeal. WP:GAB has helpful approaches (although it says "blocks", the same concepts apply to limited bans), or in a nutshell: you need to convince the community that lifting your restriction will not lead to further disruption. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:58, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how to do that, considering that I haven't been editing BLPs, and have been making a lot of effort to avoid those civility issues that arose before. If you disagree, then please point out what I haven't been doing that I should be doing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Sebastian, my standard recommendation for requesting unban: show us that you know what you did wrong, tell us what you're going to do to make sure it doesn't happen again. What will you do or not do when editing BLPs? Have you gotten into any disputes with any other editors in the past six months? If so, show us how you resolved it without any civility issues. creffett (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for illuminating the path, Creffett. My main problem with editing BLPs before is that I was using sources that were essentially unreliable. In retrospect, it didn't matter if they hadn't come up at RSN; I had needed to step back from the fray and devote more time to discussion when someone challenged the reliability of the sources. Furthermore, I forgot that BLPs here affect people's lives. We must be gate-keepers and ensure that only the most solid of sourcing makes it into a BLP. I had let myself forget that. After my wake-up call, I spent a lot of time looking at our FA and GA quality BLPs to look for common threads of approach. There weren't any, except for the overriding concern that significant claims require equally significant sourcing. As well, I was made aware how I was creating a toxic and combative discussion environment that only made collaborative editing that much harder. I think that was one of the easiest parts to address; maintaining an non-personal connection to any article is a pretty solid way to not get invested in the outcome. For example, I was involved in a pretty long-term article discussion in The Mandalorian talk page about adding info to an article that I didn't think was sourced that well. Additionally, i didn't think it was that important to mention, and I was pretty much adamant that we not add it (citing different policies, guidelines and protocols). There was more than a little incivility sent my way, and I am kinda proud that I didn't return the snark in kind. I widened the circle on the discussion, which brought a lot of new eyes to the problem and a temporary compromise was found, which was really helpful in creating a more durable compromise a few weeks after that. I think its vital to point out that I didn't solve the problem; it was a collaborative effort from people on both sides of the issue. That wouldn't have been possible with a my-way-or-the-highway mindset. I had to learn how to be flexible and allow collaborative editing to occur. Honestly, I think that was the largest take-away from last September's noticeboard discussion. It hadn't mattered that I meant well. The way I had treated people before and during the dispute at the time had spent any good faith that was needed to Get Shit Done in a collaborative way. By stepping back, using BRD in a more holistic way instead of a traffic sign, the collaborative back and forth stays civil and people are more willing to work towards a common resolution. Almost all of us have used sources that were weak before; it required being willing to listen to others to help learn why they were weak. I think I'm talking in circles. Anyway, I think that the de facto intervention served to rewire how I approach my editing behavior in Wikipedia. I recognize how I screed up with BLPs and my fellow editors before, and have since then, tried to be more helpful and collaborative. Or at least, I hope I have been. What do you folks think? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. That hit pretty much everything I would want to see, and I definitely get the impression that you've learned from this experience. Support lifting of the TBAN. creffett (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was very thoughtful. Support, in consequence. ——SN54129 22:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - everybody makes mistakes. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - insufficient acknowledgement of the issues which led to the original block. While I appreciate the reflection on civility and the newfound approach to collaborative editing, there is no exploration here of the extremely serious ethical issues surrounding attempting to use Wikipedia to publish private personal information on living persons. The issue is not that the info is sourced to tabloids and gossip blogs, it's that the living persons involved have gone to great lengths to protect this information, for their own safety; publishing it is an unacceptable invasion of privacy, and that's why you have to turn to tabloids and gossip blogs to find it, because they make a business out of sensationalizing people's private affairs. Wikipedia must not participate in it. Based on the original discussion and the reflection here, I don't trust we can safely allow Jack Sebastian to edit BLPs at this time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I acknowledge that it was a mistake to utilize those sources; furthermore, while I pointed out that the sources in question had not been previously questioned at RSN, I should have reasoned the list of sources that are unacceptable for use within the wiki-en are more than could ever be listed or discussed at RSN. I should have listened to others who were calling them less than acceptable. I admitted that I was questioning their motives for challenging the sources instead of listening to the arguments as to why they were unsat.

Additionally, I acknowledge the complete right of BLP subjects to their privacy and to have material not germane to their life and career left out of their bios. The sole exceptions to these are legal proceedings and public admissions covered by multiple reliable sources. For example,stating that a celebrity had a baby out of wedlock or a meth addict is an evaluative assessment of an action of theirs (and therefore prohibited), whereas them stating the same information in an interview appearing in several RS outlets is more acceptable (though, of course, it still relies upon consensus and common sense for inclusion). My acknowledged failure was the consideration of the source of this information and the possible BLP subject. My additional failure was not listening to the entirely reasonable arguments offered by others as to why the sources were unacceptable. If anything, my biggest error was in not listening to others, because all of us make mistakes, but the wisest among us listen to others pointing out those mistakes so we don't repeat them. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate this well-thought addendum. Changed to support. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm writing with regards to edits on the page Ashokan (film director). Another user Bvatsal61 is persistently reverting edits made to the page without any explanation on the basis of promotional spam. He has done so multiple times despite attempts by me and other users to undo his reverts. I do not wish to engage in an edit war with him but this seems to be looming ahead. The information provided on the page may seem uncited but this level of citation is fairly normal within the domain that the subject mentioned in the page exists in ie film directors. References for this person's work exist in the rolling credits of a film. Because many of these films have release dates preceding the advent of the internet, it is hard to provide URL links. As a point of comparison, please find a similar director page Thaha that shares a similar amount of citation but is up and running well with no allegations of promotional spam whatsoever. I will appreciate if you could partially block the user Bvatsal61 from accessing this particular page and making any further changes on this page. Otherwise I would sincerely appreciate your advice on what the best form of resolution would be. Thanks very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmbuff91 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, we're not going to block Bvatsal61 for correctly enforcing Wikipedia's policies and reverting the three different accounts (including you) that have tried to add this so far. Biographies on Wikipedia are supposed to be neutral summaries of the person's life, not advertorial. ‑ Iridescent 02:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm sorry but I beg to differ. I don't see how the content posted is in anyway advertorial. It is simply a list of films which this individual has worked for as an Associate Director. This is factually correct information and not advertorial, which is why I consider BVatsal's actions unnecessary. Or perhaps I might not be understanding how Wikipedia defines advertorial and I request some advice from you on the same. As I mentioned, a similar director's page has an exact same table of information. So I do believe allowing one wikipedia page to have such a table and disallowing another on the terms that it is advertorial might be a bit of a double standard. If anything, I've gone in and deleted the picture and the two quotes which are the only information I can conceive of as fitting the definition of advertorial. I would appreciate any input. Thanks very much. Filmbuff91 (talk) 03:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PROMO, WP:FLOWERY and WP:BLP. "He mastered", "renowned", "garnered instant success and recognition" are things you should see. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I get the impression that some people are so accustomed to reading promotional writing that they can't see the difference between it and neutral content. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Filmbuff91, I agree with Gråbergs Gråa Sång and Phil Bridger about the promotional nature of these edits. I also want to point out that the two quotations that praise this director are unreferenced. This is a violation of policy. All direct quotations must be referenced per our core content policy Verifiability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Filmbuff91: Do you know whether Bvatsal61 has seen this discussion? Removing the notification you left them yourself is a bit strange, and could risk them not seeing the section unless you already know they did... (If your intention was to retract your comment in this section here, you could strike it and add a note to that effect at the end of this section.) If you know that Bvatsal61 already saw this section, though, feel free to disregard this comment, and sorry for the bother. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 22:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Goldenshimmer: Sorry I have never ever posted anything on the administrator noticeboard before so when I saw the response and realised that I was in the wrong I immediately removed the post here. Thanks so much for informing me. I must admit I was mainly put off by Bvatsal's persistence to a point where it almost felt targeted. He didn't seem to policing any other pages from the topic to a similar extent or frequency, in which case I might have thought that it was purely from an editorial point of view. Although I only recently made this account, I myself have contributed a fair bit on wikipedia mostly on film pages and I am totally ok with being corrected or edited. I began to become of the impression that he had something against me or against the director involved. In response to the discussion above, thank you all very much for all the information and clarification on what constitutes promotional content. As Phil Bridger mentioned, it is true that I'm extremely confused with what constitutes promotion and what doesn't. I copied and pasted the information from an old website that belonged to the director that me and some other film lovers archived. I now understand that it is the language that is extremely problematic and truly appreciate the clarification.

May I take this opportunity to clarify though, what exactly might be advertorial about putting up a table of films that this director has worked as an associate director in? As far as the Indian film industry is concerned, many directors earn their reputation and skillset through the films they are part of as associate directors as this involves working under another prominent film maker. It is an important aspect when writing about an individual's contributions to world cinema as a film maker. I was reading the information section for creative professionals and it says that "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." So I had assumed that the table would be significant as it definitionally constitutes co-creating. Perhaps it is partly a regional/cultural difference but in the Indian industry, associate directors contribute a fair bit to the film too and functions in the same way that academics provide bibliography of projects they did not have first authorship for. I noticed that this is common amongst many of the film director Wikipages in the category of Malayalam film directors so with regards to this aspect alone, putting all of the other advertorial content aside because I understand where I went wrong with that, would this table also be wrong? Filmbuff91 (talk) 10:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm no expert in either films or how the contents of lists are chosen, but here's my understanding in a nutshell: If independent reliable sources (see WP:RS for what would qualify) have written multiple times in depth specifically about the article subject's work as associate director (not just, for instance, writing about the film combined with a mention of the person's role as associate director), that might be a sign that it's worth including a filmography as associate director (I'd suggest opening a discussion on the article talk page with links to those sources to see if others agree, to be on the safe side). Otherwise, it might be attributing it more significance than it has relative to the other information about the article subject. Here are some links that discuss this a bit: WP:TOOMUCH and to some extent WP:DUE (talks about what is due weight in the context of ideas, but the premise is essentially the same). P.S.: If you have further questions about policies and such, you might find the Wikipedia:Teahouse helpful. I hope that helps! —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 07:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As listed at WP:EDRC, I am currently under an IBAN originally established almost two years ago and extended more than 18 months ago. I think that it is clear that the IBAN has served its purpose. I have scrupulously avoided any interaction with the other editor since the IBAN was extended and seen little editing by the other editor in question in articles on my watchlist, which has made it that much less likely that any issue would arise in the future. I think that the time is past to end the IBAN and ask community support for its termination. Alansohn (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I've notified the other editor with whom Alansohn is ibanned. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppoose- As the editor who Alansohn is banned from interacting with, I believe the ban serves a purpose and is the only thing keeping Alansohn from causing further disruption. Alan is arrogant, even now he refuses to recognize it was his poor behavior that led to the restriction and the request is misleading for several reasons. Yes it is true that the original iban was put in place roughly two years ago, but it was to only last 6 months. It was extended indefinitely with unanimous support just one month before it was set to expire because Alansohn blatantly violated it. And to show that the issue is still ongoing, just five months ago Alan accused me of stalking him. Nothing has changed.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The last "infraction" on Alansohn's part was 18 months ago (the question on Swarm's page Rusf10 links to does not count as a violation). But based on Rusf10's unnecessary personalized attack (to which Alansohn cannot reply), the unsubstantiated claim that "the request is misleading for several reasons" (followed by a simple rewording of the info presented in the request), and the likelihood that Rusf10 *was* stalking Alansohn's edits back in September, it seems the issue is still ongoing. I'd think a better idea would be to convert this to an indef 2-way iban. Following the edits of someone who is ibanned from you is not on, and it doesn't matter to me that it happened 6 months ago. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Just for the record (as sometimes people take comments from admins here as guidance), while I'm decidedly not saying that this is what's going on here, there are legitimate reasons for checking the edits of someone who's i-banned from you; keeping an eye on what they're editing so you don't edit the same page and put them in an awkward position where they disagree with you but can't discuss it would be an obvious example. That does not mean it's OK to follow people around for the purposes of annoying them or to send an "I'm watching you" signal. ‑ Iridescent 23:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, for the record, I was not saying that AlanSohn violated his IBAN again when he complained about me several months ago. Rather, I was using it as an example of why he is misleading everyone when he says that it is "less likely that any issue would arise in the future."--Rusf10 (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Assuming you meant Rusf10's comments in this thread, I don't think it's accurate to say Alansohn cannot reply. The iban specifically says it is subject to the usual exceptions WP:BANEX, which of course includes appealing a ban. If someone is trying to appeal an iban, and one of the other parties replies, it's accepted that the the person appealing can reply back. (And of course, if the other party is also subject to the iban, them replying to an appeal of the iban is not an iban violation. In fact most commonly people want to hear what they have to say.) This doesn't mean it's a good idea, while it may not be an iban violation, most commonly it doesn't help the appeal. This is especially the case when people ibanned start to engage in length back and forths during an appeal. Nil Einne (talk) 15:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I generally think Wikipedia’s tendency to take a sanction working at preventing disruption as proof that we should stop it from working at preventing disruption to be counterintuitive. People don’t usually start getting along by not talking to each other for 18 months. I see no reason any lifting the IBAN would be beneficial, especially with the other interested party opposed. Oppose from me. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TonyBallioni:, I am not sure if you have seen Alansohn's comment below regarding the onerous steps he has taken over 18 months, but I felt he was sincere. That comment, in addition to Rusf10's initial reply to this appeal, suggests to me that if the interaction ban should remain, it should at least be converted to a 2-way restriction so that both editors are treated evenly to prevent any disruption. Would you support that conversion an alternative? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have. I still oppose lifting a sanction that's working, especially when the other party opposes lifting the sanction. Also, no, I don't support expanding it. People are allowed to comment opposing someone being allowed to interact with them again. That's not an issue. If anything, I'm more convinced by Alansohn's reply that this should stay in place. An IBAN is simple: don't reply to or post on the talk page of someone who you are banned from interacting with. It's extremely simple. Their comment reads disingenuous and like it's designed to get sympathy for a sanction that's not a big deal. That's not a good sign. This should not be lifted. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think what you've said is fair except for the way in which you've described the iBan as 'extremely simple'; this is not just about talk page edits as the content of the other party's opposition demonstrates. Merely opposing the appeal is reasonable, but that is not the issue I am referring to. (1) Rusf10 made this edit ("Edit") a few hours after Alansohn edited the article (which you can see in that diff) - if the iBan was mutual, I don't think the Edit would have occurred. (2) Rusf10's first reply to this appeal brought attention to the Edit; "evidence of the ongoing issue" consists of this query about Edits to the admin who imposed the sanction. There was a pattern which might reasonably raise concerns of wikihounding by the other party. Whether or not that was the other party's intention, the talk page query and the Edit would not exist if the restriction was mutual. To the extent there is disruption, it is not sufficiently prevented through a 1 way restriction. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • IBANs are really simple. You don't reply to another person. You don't revert them. You don't post on their talk page or comment about them. There's absolutely nothing about editing the same pages in there, except the revert rule. Neither of the edits you point out would have been banned under a two-way IBAN, so I don't see how that's the solution here, unless you're proposing a more extreme IBAN that prohibits editing the same page. We've tried those before. They don't work precisely because they're too complex. I'm not neccesarily opposed to making it 2-way for simplicities sake, but I'm not overtly in favour of it either. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Floquenbeam whole-heartedly. Oppose lifting sanction, but convert to 2-way I-ban. That, hopefully, will sort out the entire problem. Black Kite (talk) 01:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Alansohn: Why do you need to interact w/ Rusf10? Are you simply trying to have a black mark removed from your name? If so, what guarantees can you give that you will not have any reason to be dragged back here for even stricter sanctions against you? Status quo may be your in your best interests. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 05:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good question by Bison X. While TB is accurate that an IBAN working doesn't/can't show the issue is being resolved, that does set up sanctions with no generally viable way to show they should end. I want to hear Alansohn's extended reasoning, before I give a support/oppose/2-way thought. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - To be honest, if the other user doesn't want the interaction ban to be removed, then it probably shouldn't. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• See below. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose and convert to 2-way per Floq and TB, and I also agree that Bison X's question is a good one. Waggie (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to two-way IBAN per Floq and others. Miniapolis 22:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Waggie and Miniapolis:Why are you supporting a 2 way IBAN when the current ban is working? What have I done to deserve this? Alan has been falsely accusing me of stalking him for years. I already defended myself against his false allegation when it was brought to my attention here. Alan believes that he has WP:OWNERSHIP of all New Jersey-related wikipedia pages and that's the core of the problem. Putting me under an IBAN would give him an advantage because of the sheer amount of pages he has edited in that topic area. He could simply claim he edited the article first (which in almost all cases he has) and then go to the noticeboard and claim that I'm stalking him like he has done countless times in the past. I encourage you to read the ANI discussion that imposed the IBAN and understand it was Alansohn's repeated false allegations and personal attacks that brought on the IBAN in the first place.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning? I'm sorry, but there is non-trivial evidence in the previous ANI discussions that, to paraphrase Icarosaurvus in the first discussion, leaves neither of you smelling like roses. Alansohn is clearly a sore spot for you (as you are for them) and is continuing to be so. An IBAN doesn't prevent you from editing the same articles, provided there isn't interaction (ie: you're not editing their content, reverting their edits, a insufficient amount of time has passed between edits, etc.). Simply having edited the article at some distant point in the past doesn't give them ownership of the article. That's my understanding of consensus regarding IBANs (someone please correct me if I'm wrong). Waggie (talk) 01:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, what you're saying is you don't agree with the previous consensus, so now you want to overturn it despite the fact that nothing has happened since then to warrant a two-way extension. If we're trying to overturn a previous consensus then I think its only appropriate to notify everyone who was involved in the two discussions that imposed and extended the IBAN. @SarekOfVulcan, Reyk, TonyBallioni, Jbhunley, Power~enwiki, Nyttend, Icarosaurvus, Gatoclass, Swarm, Dennis Brown, Calton, Nil Einne, Spartaz, Beyond My Ken, Softlavender, Jacona, Only in death, Robert McClenon, Lugnuts, Davey2010, Abequinn14, John from Idegon, JzG, Byteflush, and Jayron32:--Rusf10 (talk) 02:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Floquenbeam, Iridescent, Nil Einne, Black Kite, Bison X, Nosebagbear, Miniapolis, Foxnpichu, Waggie and all those who have participated in this thread. Eighteen months ago, in this edit, User:Swarm extended the IBAN with the other editor indefinitely. Since then, to avoid any further blocks, I have scrupulously avoided any potential interaction of any kind. I have checked the edit history of every single article I edit, both before and after each and every edit, to make sure that I am not inadvertently violating the terms of the IBAN. For every single one of the more than ten thousand edits in the past eighteen months, I have had to obsessively monitor to make certain that the IBAN is not violated. I have demonstrated over those 18 months and ten thousand edits that I have no interest in interacting with the other editor.

My goal here is to end the time wasted in double-checking, triple-checking or quadruple-checking every single edit out of fear that there might be an inadvertent violation. I have *ZERO* interest in beginning interaction after the IBAN is ended. I have *ZERO* interest in seeing this turned into a two-way IBAN.

The extension of the IBAN came with an offer of reconsideration of the provisions after six months. I have complied for six months, then another six months and then a third period of six months. In these nearly eighteen months there have been *ZERO* violations; there have been no potential violations If anyone has any evidence of any violations, please bring them forward. But in the absence of any evidence violations I ask for a good faith elimination of the terms of the IBAN to save me from the anxiety and wasted time of dealing with the risk of blocks of increasing length. That's all I'm asking for. Alansohn (talk) 01:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, also oppose conversion to 2-way, i.e. leave as is - There is no indication that a change is necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beyond My Ken, is there any evidence that you can provide that the standard offer of reconsideration after six months should not be available? What would you need to see to satisfy you that the IBAN should be ended, particularly as eighteen months have elapsed? Alansohn (talk) 03:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not BMK, but I'll reply: first, the standard offer only applies to blocks. Second, the standard offer is the single most self-destructive essay on Wikipedia, followed closely by WP:ROPE, and any reasoning based on them rather than how this would actually improve Wikipedia is flawed reasoning. You haven't actually showed how removing this would improve Wikipedia. Until you do that, it shouldn't be lifted. At this point, I'm fairly convinced you won't be able to show it since I can't find a good argument for it improving Wikipedia, even under the most sympathetic of circumstances. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Huh. I could be persuaded that lifting the ban is OK, since it can be rapidly reimposed if Alansohn resumes the problematic behaviour. If it remains in place, then it should be two-way. Guy (help!) 09:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• 1st choice remove, 2nd, 2-way. I do get the reasoning made against removing IBANs and such, however they are a sanction and they do hinder the editor - and so unless an alternate, viable, route to measuring when IBANs should cease can be offered by the opposers, then I'm inclined to back its removal. Please insert the usual threats about rope and all that jazz. In the event that a majority for that opinion can't be gathered, then a change to 2-way is preferable. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support lifting IBAN if both editors will promise to leave each other alone. GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support lifting per Nosebagbear. Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 15:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Not a fan of one way bans, nor two way bans, although rarely they are helpful. It's been long enough to test the waters, and blocks can be used if either party harasses the other. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose leave things as they are. If Rusf10 has not been interacting with Alanson to this point and is not causing disruption then it is against policy to place an IBAN 'just to be fair'. As I remember the thread that placed the IBAN on Alansohn only it was because he did not accept that he was contributing to the disruption. If there is some indication that some degree of CLUE has been gained ie understanding why the earlier behavior patterns were disruptive, I can be persuaded to reconsider my opinion. Jbh ^Talk 15:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Note: I was pinged to this thread by Rusf10 above. Ping me on reply. I am not checking in here regularly but I have email notification for pings turned on.[reply]
• In light of Alansohn's recent comment, I will change to Support. I don't think the editors ignoring each other is necessary (they may have to at some point), just to not continue what caused the IBAN to be implemented in the first place. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support removal or convert to 2-way interaction ban per Nosebagbear, Goodday and Dennis Brown. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose simple removal. My comment when the ban was imposed was a recommendation that Arbitration Enforcement fashion a remedy if the community was unable to reach consensus on a remedy, but the community imposed a one-way interaction ban. I see no reason to remove the remedy. My long-term observation has been that User:Alansohn has a long-term pattern of ownership of articles about New Jersey including politicians in New Jersey. An alternative to an interaction ban would be a topic-ban, and I am sure that Alansohn would find a topic-ban more problematic than the current interaction ban. No opinion on whether to make the IBAN two-way, but in the absence of evidence that a two-way ban is needed, it can be left alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and oppose extending to Rusf. Nobody who has supported the latter has bothered to show any diffs or what the extension should prevent, therefore widening is purely punitive. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• From the discussion that extended it to indefinite: "Rusf10 will be, of course, expected to not engage in any behavior that could be construed as "baiting" and is strongly encouraged to continue to avoid any interaction with Alansohn unless absolutely necessary." - diffs linked by Ncmvocalist are examples of why this shouldn't be one-way. Probably better to remove the restriction now; if disruptive behavior resumes, it will lead to reinstatement of the restriction, or a block. Peter James (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That definitely sounds the most fair. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and convert to 2-way per Floq - Given Rus's PA/comment above I see no reason why that should be allowed to continue, Perfect example of how to shoot yourself in the foot. –Davey2010^Talk 18:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support lifting per the other supporters, oppose 2-way as moving in the wrong direction. Two years is too long. Partial sanctions should always be a temporary measure; they can address acute problems but not chronic ones. There is no such thing as an editor who is here to build an encyclopedia, an asset to the project, a net positive as long as they are subject to an IBAN, but if you remove the IBAN, then–poof!–they suddenly become disruptive and a net negative. No matter what the disruption is, every case of disruption comes down to this: either an editor can control themselves, or they can't. Either they modulate their behavior to conform to community norms, or they don't. If Alansohn has abided by an IBAN for 18 months, it's enough to convince me that they are in the former category and not the latter. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support lifting as first choice. Alansohn seems to have complied reasonably well for a long time and their comments make lead me to believe they understand the problems they caused, and will do their best to avoid them. And they have a point that an iban does place a burden an editor especially when they often edit the same areas. If Alansohn doesn't take sufficient care after the lifting, I feel that some sanction can be reimposed. support 2 way as second choice. The comments by Rusf10 here do give enough concern that I feel a 2 way is justified if the iban is to continue. Nil Einne (talk) 11:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Morning, I'd like an independent admin to have a look at the merge discussion at Talk:2020_stock_market_crash#Merging_Black_Monday_(2020)_and_Black_Thursday_(2020)_into_2020_stock_market_crash. It was snow closed as merge yesterday, by Benica11 but then the merge of Black Thursday was later unilaterally undone by Feoffer and the Black Monday article later unmerged by Locke Cole, who initially undid the action, but then redid it again after seeing the Black Thursday revert. All the above was done in good faith, there's nothing untoward in those actions, but as an involved participant I think the original close should have stood. The consensus is almost unanimous at the merge discussion, and there seems little point dragging it out when these are high visibility articles right now. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The original close should have stood. There are procedures in place to challenge it. This was not the right way to go about it. El_C 08:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two merge proposals mere days apart with SNOW closes (one keep, one merge) I think is what might have lead to this. At least that was the concern for me. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

+1. Please do revert this. We do seem to have a problem with new(ish) editors moving the busy coronavirus-related articles around in a disruptive way (e.g. Misinformation related to the 2019–2020 novel coronavirus outbreak). thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 11:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My concern was that we'd just had another merge discussion a couple of days prior that was a SNOW keep, so I felt editors involved in that discussion should at least be given a chance to see the new proposal. Once I saw the other page had been restored, I reopened the discussion. I have no objection to it being closed again after a short time (24 hours from when it was reopened?). —Locke Cole • t • c 16:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Locke Cole: thanks for that link... it looks like that was a merge proposal between the Black Monday article and Socio-economic impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, which I think was correct to reject, because the stock market crash is notable in itself. That discussion was held when "Black Monday" was the only thing that had happened though. The new proposal was between the three articles that all cover the stock crash itself, and is practically unanimous, so I do'nt think the snow close was wrong. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was premature as it hadn't even been open for 24 hours IIRC. Other than that, I actually agree with the merge, but I've given my concerns in the discussion there. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to report User:Jingiby and his reverts of my sourced edits on pages. The most recent case and the one I would like to bring to your attention is the one taking place on the page Bulgarian Folk Songs. Namely, this user removed my entire contribution to this page just because it doesn't seem to be in accordance with his views (or his country's views). That can be seen on his arguments on the talk page: "Studies in North Macedonia are far from neutrality... Moreover especially this book is a subject of different attempts of falsifications, mystifications and political manipulations in North Macedonia". All of the sources I added are Macedonian books by prominent/university authors and professors who write reliable information and present a view that cannot be neglected and that will contribute to the neutrality of the article. As it is, the site currently only presents one side of the story. This user furthermore, adds information that does not even mention the book and belongs elsewhere - that can be seen in the super lengthy excerpts from the books he inserts in the reference list which usually talk about the perception of Macedonian history and nationality and NOT EVEN ONCE mention the book in question. He also adds many sources that do not belong to the article (example "The Brothers called Macedonia Western Bulgaria, because they disliked the first name as too Hellenic term" for which he uses 6 sources to support the claim; this type of information unnecessarily clutters the article and does not belong). I would really appreciate it if some user takes a look at this dispute, as this user and other random users constantly revert my edits of reliably added cited content (example: this user (which might also just be another account User:Jingiby uses. His only contributions are reverts of my edits on disputes with User:Jingiby). And I also want to point out that similar biased articles that purposefully omit the Macedonian view on the topic are also heavily edited and constantly supervised by this user. DD1997DD (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After a request to the committee, the Oversight permissions of Someguy1221 (talk · contribs) are restored.

In addition, NativeForeigner (talk · contribs) has voluntarily relinquished the CheckUser permission. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks NativeForeigner for his long service as a CheckUser and functionary.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katie^talk 22:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Changes to functionary team

I'd like to file a formal request to review the closure of this RfC in relation to the Ronan Farrow article to determine whether said closure accurately sums up the discussion as having generated no consensus.

My reasoning for the request is that the RfC's proposer–Gleeanon409 (talk · contribs)–asked the closer–Sjones23 (talk · contribs)–to revise their closing statement. I, on the other hand, believe that the original closing statement remains a more appropriate summary of the discussion. I have since reached out to the closer, but no change has been made.

It would be wonderful if we could get an administrator's perspective on this. Thank you in advance! KyleJoan^talk 13:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KyleJoan managed to Wikilawyer from beginning to end hopelessly bogging down constructive dialogue. Now that the closure didn’t bludgeon their viewpoint further they seek justice of some sort. Meanwhile the article is left inaccurate and guarded by their reticence to allow others to make substantial changes. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KyleJoan The close is correct as is. There's no consensus to include the bit about Ronan Farrow's sexuality, just on a vote count alone, however, most , if not all of the media is either op - ed or fails our check for reliable sources or is considered an unreliable source. Drop the stick ! Necromonger...Arbs were wrong, Resysop BHG! 11:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask you this, @Wekeepwhatwekill: do you believe there's a consensus not to include the bit about Farrow's sexuality? Aside from that, I also would like to highlight how an editor stated that the portion of the proposed content that's not already an article is an unambiguous BLP violation and cannot be included regardless of consensus here. Does that statement not warrant emphasis in the close? KyleJoan^talk 14:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When a consensus fails to form to approve an addition, then it is assumed that there is a consensus for the old version without that info. The close is fine as is. Accept it, move on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee is working on a Request for Comment to focus on how harassment and private complaints should be handled. A draft RfC is posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft), and interested parties are invited to comment on the structure and wording on the talk page. Once the draft is finalized, the RfC will be posted for general discussion. – bradv🍁 18:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Draft RfC posted

Hi everyone! I'm creating this discussion in order to provide everyone with some information regarding edit filter #51. As a highly-watched filter that many users look to for LTA pattern hits and early detection and intervention, I felt it was important to make sure that the changes I just made are announced, communicated, and made available to the admin community so that users who rely on this filter can adjust their links, scripts, log search filters, etc accordingly.

As of about 30 minutes ago, edit filter #51 is now split into two filters - edit filter #51 (the same filter ID always used), and edit filter #53. Moving forward, edit filter 51 will now handle the LTA new username pattern hits, and edit filter #53 will handle the LTA content edit and edit summary pattern hits. This split was necessary due to the total size of its regex code. Since I published its first revision years ago, I've worked to add, improve, fix, tighten, and resolve holes with it in order to make it an accurate and reliable filter log for the community to use. Unfortunately, these efforts have resulted in the regex code becoming massive in character count and size. This morning, I exceeded the maximum character size allowed in a single edit filter's regex code when I attempted to save a new revision of the code. This results in the bottom-most characters being chopped off of the end of the regex code, resulting in a malformed mess being saved. Splitting this edit filter into two separate edit filters was the best way to resolve this issue moving forward.

In a nutshell, you'll just need to watch both edit filter 51 and edit filter 53 moving forward if you wish to be provided with the same logs that you're used to seeing. If anyone has any questions, please let me know and I'll be happy to answer them. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: Shouldn't norm/ccnorm be used here? I know not all character mappings are accounted for, but you should be able to use bracket tokens containing just the normalized character alongside the unsupported ones, and let norm/ccnorm handle the rest. This would make the filter code a fraction of the size it is now. — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MusikAnimal - It certainly could be done... I just don't know which letters are supported by norm/ccnorm and which aren't... Fully implementing it will take some time... If this split ends up becoming a temporary solution while this is in the workflow, great! I'd much rather not have to split the edit filter up... ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MusikAnimal - How practical would it be to open a phab ticket with a request to have the list of characters used in ccnorm expanded to include the many characters I've found and have listed in these edit filters? Having these characters implemented would be the best solution here, as it would benefit the many scripts and regex rules that use ccnorm in addition to resolving the issue here... Could I get your input and assistance on this? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: I don't believe there is much involved in adding new character mappings, just a gerrit patch and someone to +2 :) However you should be aware there is only one-way mapping right now (the leftside of the mapping must be unique), and fixing that is not a trivial change. But I think most of what you've found can be added without worry. So yes, if you could come up with a list in the same format, preferably including the hexadecimal codepoint (this site or a simple script can help with that), and create a task requesting these additions, I or any developer can take care of the rest. Even better, consider creating a patch yourself! :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MusikAnimal - I don't mind doing that. ;-) Do you have an example patch that I can reference so that I have an understanding of what's expected? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: gerrit:479970 is a simple example. Add me as a reviewer to your patch! — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know that WP:ANRFC is the place to go for requests for closure. I have actually already placed a request there. However, since the RfC in question concerns a navbox that is on the most visited article on the site (and probably will be for a while), I feel like the RfC should be closed as quickly as possible. So I've come here because WP:ANRFC is not very quick.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 23:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bait30: Anything that concerns...the most visited article on the site sounds very much like an argument to keep the RfC open for as long as it takes to get a fully-rounded cross-section of opinion. To put it another way, you want a discussion which has attracted the attention of about fifteen editors to decide what happens on the aforementioned most-visited article? ——SN54129 14:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: that’s a good point. I just felt like it was a timely matter considering thee charts are being updated multiple times per day, so therefore I felt should be closed out as soon as possible. When would be a good time to close the discussion then? Because there hasn’t been any comments in the past three days. You’ve made me come to the realization that I’m trying to rush this, but I still feel like timeliness should be balanced with thoroughness here.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 15:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd seen this discussion listed at ANRFC but concluded that it would be premature to close the discussion at that time; my view still has not changed. I suggest you withdraw these closure requests, relist the RfC as of today's date and await more input. Hopefully with more editors considering everything and commenting accordingly, your RfC can result in a meaningful outcome. I do not see any benefit from the haste in closing now or inevitably redoing the RfC exercise soon thereafter. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remove the listing from WP:ANRFC, but I'm not sure how to relist the discussion. Could you or someone else help out in that regard?  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 20:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin move lock the article and all associated articles, there are a fair few, driving my watchlist a bit nuts!! Govvy (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move protected indefinitely. I don't know which other pages you mean should be protected. @Thomediter: please discuss your proposed move on the article's talk page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please move Madala (disambiguation) to Madala--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1: this doesn't look like a clear-cut primary topic to me. You should propose this move (see WP:RM for instructions). Let us know if you need help with the process. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(2A01:4C8:0:0:0:0:0:0/32)[31] is probably a UK school. I look every hour or two and find vandalism and some good edits. Doug Weller talk 18:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SithJar666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now community banned under WP:THREESTRIKES for evading their block as King of Scorpions (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpgordon: Do you mean SithJarJar666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? I think you missed a jar. =) Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 19:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]