Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Template:Active editnotice

Hi, it seems to me that User:SharabSalam might have made a WP:PERSONAL attack against me: diff. Normally, I would not care but because SharabSalam has already been blocked 4 times (and unbclocked twice), and personal attacks were a contributing factor once, perhaps some action is advisable; I want to draw others' attention to it. Also it seems he was to "avoid articles related to slavery" per one of the unblocks but from time to time he edits them: diff (NB he self-reverted this edit, and his other edits related to slavery seem to be reverting obvious vandalism, though I did not delve deep into the history of any slavery-related page). Generally, it makes me think SharabSalam thinks little of the (un)blocks. As for me, even though I found his comment offensive, I do not know what action would be adequate, and if no action is deemed necessary, I am OK with it. (Also not sure if another/longer block would improve his behavior...) I suppose he makes useful contributions but I am just not sure other editors need to put up with this kind of behavior as Wikipedia is not only about content. Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SharabSalam has a tendency to attack-by-implication and then later apologize, so multiple violations are forgiven, until the next round, at least. I, for one, am getting a bit tired of seeing him as either the OP or the subject of multiple admin noticeboard reports. El_C 18:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check what this report is about?...--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and I reverted your attack, to boot [1]. Anyway, so not even an apology this time? I'm sorry but that does not inspire confidence. El_C 19:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiHannibal, where did I call you a Saudi troll? I said the source [2] says that "sympathizer of Muslim brotherhood" is used by pro-Saudi and Trump bots. Also, I was not banned from slavery articles. I said I will avoid them for 6 months which I did and that was last year.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like in the first dif they gave where you said oh wait that's the same language that pro-Trump, pro-Saudi trolls use per [3]. How coincidental! PackMecEng (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And where does that says that he is a Saudi troll?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was the "how coincidental" part. PackMecEng (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No that doesnt say that. I was saying that there is no source available that says Jamal was a "Muslim brotherhood sympathizer" except according to the report, from Saudi bots, and that it was a coincidental that it was the same edit that was added by WikiHannibal.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SharabSalam, that is not at all what you said, and I for one am rapidly running out of WP:AGF here. You compared WikiHannibal's edits to pro-Trump and pro-Saudi trolls, then adding "how coincidental" in a sarcastic manner in order to imply that WikiHannibal is, in fact, such a troll. creffett (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wasnt implying that. I was implying that WikiHannibal got that from Saudi bots. Something is so innocent and I really didnt mean any personal attack against him.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SharabSalam, I have to agree with El_C here. Considering that you were just at AN/I a month ago for personal attacks, and you've gotten plenty of warnings regarding your interactions with other editors, I have a question: why shouldn't you get a temporary block for personal attacks? creffett (talk) 18:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Creffett, when did I make a personal attack here? I never made any personal attack. All I said is that "sympathizer of Muslim brotherhood" is used by Saudi trolls "[4]" You cant block me when I havent made any personal attack.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How dumb do you think we are?--Jorm (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a trick question? PackMecEng (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "Saudi Barbaria" belongs on Saudi-related articles. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yea. Now all the people who I had dispute with are going to gather in this thread. I have said that in the context of their press freedom in WP:RSN thread. Their regime is barbaric and there is no freedom of press, therefore all of their sources should be considered state-owned sources.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not taking issue with you calling it a barbaric regime. I'm taking issue with you wanting to edit controversial articles related to that regime when you feel the need to make characterizations like that. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fact that the Saudi regime is a barbaric regime. It is not not just my feeling. Its the consensus of acadmic scholars who are expert on the subject.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Possible boomrange?: Can someone also look at the history page? WikiHannibal made a bold edit, got reverted, he reverted, and again. I thought Wikipedia is about consensus-building not editwarring. When I warned him, he said it is especially valualbe, coming from someone who has already been blocked 4 times. Clearly making fun of me because I got blocked in the past. This was before that discussion.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  WikiHannibal, SharabSalam is correct here: that was an edit war, you should have gone to the talk page after being reverted rather than re-reverting twice. Please do not do that again. creffett (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SharabSalam:(perplexed frown) For someone who does not mean to make personal attacks, you certainly seem to make a lot of them. Perhaps you could better consider your remarks? Saudi ‘’Barbaria’’? You seem to have difficulties editing in a neutral manner about this subject. Perhaps things would be calmer with a TBAN on such a subject? --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 19:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question @SharabSalam: Do you still think that "Israeli sites are mostly unreliable" as you said here [5]? --Shrike (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shrike, in I/P area? Yes.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that person that think "Israeli sites are mostly unreliable" and affirms it[6] shouldn't edit IMO about ARBPIA conflict as he can't edit in neutral way but I like to hear more opinions about this matter --Shrike (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shrike, that’s probably better for WP:AE than here. Different discussions, imo. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To me it seems its just one of symptoms of same problem.The user cannot neurally edit about political issues and contemporary conflicts --Shrike (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note - This user got renamed, possibly courtesy vanishing. Interstellarity (talk) 13:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, everyone. What a bloody shame. starship.paint (talk) 01:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed topic ban from Saudi Arabia

Vanishing

• Note: User:Sotiale (not an admin) moved the user page and talk page of User:SharabSalam. I was able to undo the talk page move, but the user page, not so much. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Sotiale is a steward and global renamer. He was obviously doing it on request. You should revert.P-K3 (talk) 01:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Pawnkingthree: - I reverted already. starship.paint (talk) 01:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My subsequent follow-up comment was lost in an edit conflict. While I realize this is a courtesy vanishing, it’s a highly irregular one, given the ongoing conversation, and that it was requested from a WMF steward. I’d prefer Sotiale justify why they did so. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Global renames are often requested in private. Sotiale does not need to "justify" anything. ST47 (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ST47, for the record, I don’t have an issue with user vanishing. But as I understand it, these sorts of things are not to be done with a user’s conduct being discussed on a noticeboard. My issue here is with a WMF steward acting out of process. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Sotiale is Korean and doesn’t really edit this project. He had no reason to know that this was in the middle of a sanctions discussion or that the user was already under sanctions. The simple solution is to reverse the vanishing, because you are correct, he isn’t entitled to one while under sanctions or being discussed at a noticeboard. It’s not big deal. These things happen on a global website. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me tell you something: English Wikipedia is not the center of Wikimedia-sphere and we (S and GRNs) do not need to check for every project/every contribs every time to check stuff before acting on something. Vanish runs on honor systems: we assume good faith and act on bad faiths if found. — regards, Revi 03:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect a Steward to be familiar with policy and understanding that they may not be the best individual to process certain items at times. We have a plethora of renamers, especially ones whose home wiki is enwiki. There is hardly ever an instance where renames need to be processed immediately. I will be reversing the rename soon, unless anyone can think of a reason not to. Nihlus 03:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think if you reverse the rename that would be good and would also be the end of the discussion on it. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I know this is a tangent, but I'm confused; how is User:Nihlus going to undo the rename? They aren't a steward or a global renamer. Tony's reply makes me think they can, and I'm missing something. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why would anyone want to reverse his vanishing? He wants to leave. Let him go. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin, it is against global policy to rename someone who is embroiled in controversy and who may be using the rename to obfuscate their conduct. Floquenbeam, I am a global renamer and have been for sometime now. Anyway, the rename has been reversed. Nihlus 03:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, let us not only make English Wikipedia more myopic and parochial, but let's do it in the most tortuous way possible. Forgive me for actually reading WP:VANISH, but there it says: "Vanishing is not a way to avoid criticism, sanctions, or other negative attention, unless you really mean to leave permanently. As such, it might not be extended to users who have been disruptive, who leave when they lose the trust of the community, or when they are blocked or banned." That unless clause (combined with the 'might not' in the following sentence) tells me this is something you chose to do. That's fine. I am entitled to think you're a bad person for doing so. Dumuzid (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't "embroiled in controversy". WP:VANISH is poorly written, but my understanding is: don't do this to wriggle out of trouble temporarily; you do have to intend to leave. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the norm to be declining a vanishing in the middle of a sanctions discussion is that people who vanish in the middle of sanctions discussions usually aren't actually vanishing. They're usually trying to set up for an invalid clean start and will be back. Because of that, the vanishing policy both locally and on meta is traditionally read similar to the en.wiki WP:CLEANSTART policy since despite the wording saying vanishing is not a clean start, they tend to be linked in practice.

It keeps things cleaner if you wait until after it is over, and easier to figure out who is under sanctions and who isn't if they do come back in another incarnation. Basically, I do agree with reversing this, but I think we could have better explained the reasoning behind it besides global policy says so. I think there's a good reason for that norm, but its not intuitive if you don't work in the area.

Basically, my understanding of VANISH is that if you wouldn't otherwise be eligible to clean start, you shouldn't be vanished. There is of course wiggle room and grey areas, but I don't think they really apply here since it isn't a real name account or one with privacy concerns. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: m:Global rename policy is a bit clearer on this saying that in seeking a rename The user is not seeking the rename to conceal or obfuscate bad conduct. which is another reason turning down requests during sanctions discussions has become more of a normal way of handling it. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TonyBallioni, so renaming and vanishing are now the same procedure? One sort of anticipates further contribution from the editor. One does not, no? Dumuzid (talk) 03:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vanishing is done using the rename function, so normally the global rename policy is applied. Like I said, there's also a sometimes spoken sometimes unspoken assumption that rage quits happen, and are more likely to happen when someone is under stress of being discussed at a noticeboard. Eventually a lot of the people who try to vanish when there's controversy come back. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Nihlus, where does meta:Global rename policy say anything that meant this vanishing had to be reversed? SarahSV ^(talk) 03:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict × 5) Dumuzid, there is quite a bit in WP:VANISH as well as m:Global rename policy that explains what renaming is not to be used for. The main takeaway though is that the user is a user in good standing and that renaming ... might not be extended to users ... who leave when they lose the trust of the community, or when they are blocked or banned. So yes, this is something that I, in agreement with the original renamer and Tony, chose to do in accordance with policy. I disagree with your need to personally attack me and request that you remove it. Thank you.

  SlimVirgin, the fact that a topic ban is being discussed on AN means a rename would be under controversial circumstances. And this is something that we avoid for obvious reasons, as mentioned in my previous comment. I left more comments on the user's talk page prior to renaming. There is nothing that said it had to be reversed. The original renamer said it was okay to reverse, and two global renamers agreed that it should be reversed. The original request had no mention of privacy concerns, so there wasn't any need to look into it further. Nihlus 03:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nihlus, I am sure you are a wonderful person in your day-to-day life, and probably on Wikipedia as well. I have drawn a conclusion regarding your specific conduct here. Do what you want with that. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nihlus, when this has closed, we should discuss at Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing how to avoid this kind of situation in future. The local guideline should apply. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin, the local policies should and do apply in this situation. If, after this discussion, SharabSalam would like to vanish and is eligible, then I will be happy to process it for him at that time. Nihlus 05:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nihlus, there isn't much point in arguing about it in this thread. According to my reading of WP:VANISH, he is eligible. According to yours, he is not. That means there is a problem with the way the guideline is written, and it would be good to resolve it. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Renamer note As a renamer, I can tell you that SharabSalam is probably "under a cloud" and probably should not have been vanished. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 03:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Reversing the rename/vanishing, while defensible by policy, was a mistake. Nothing is gained by keeping someone here who wants to walk away. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Then you should change the policy at WP:VANISH, until then it was the correct decision. A bit of nuance would explain that this policy is not about keeping people but letting obviously malicious editors ineligible for courtesy vanishes so they can resume their behaviour with a new account. Requesting vaishing in the middle of a sanction discussion is basically running away from criticism and community sanctions, hence quite clearly VANISH does not apply. --qedk (t 愛 c) 06:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, except that I don't believe we are dealing here with an "obviously malicious editor." Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm aware yes, but where do you draw the line on "malicious", that's the spirit of the policy and the only way to enforce the spirit is by enforcing the letter. If there was no sanction discussion where proponents supported the sanction, it would be per policy but again, that's not the case here. --qedk (t 愛 c) 08:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  the only way to enforce the spirit is by enforcing the letter What? WP:IAR and WP:5P5 seem to suggest that's not the case. This just sounds like wikilawyering for a reason to punish someone who wants to leave. Also, if anyone who argues too passionately and discourteously for a topic they care about is now "malicious" under your definition, you might want to go see our "malicious" community trustee that just got a TBAN for similar conduct. Wherever the grey line of bad faith editing is, we're clearly very far away from it. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not a grey line, it's a grey area - if we allowed a repeat evader to vanish would that be okay? What about an editor who has been blocked for a day? What about someone in the middle of an arbitration request where they are a party? If you wish to invoke WP:IAR, so be it, but presenting thousands of alternative cases and not applying policy as it's meant to be is your cross to bear (go for it, it makes no difference to me either way). Not once did I state that SharabShalam is malicious and I don't know why both of you would misconstrue it as so, I am simply stating the intent of why RTV is disallowed in some cases. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  QEDK, here's how I view it. Someone wants to vanish, fine, they get to vanish. As long as they're not some prolific vandal or something (and SharabSalam is not, regardless of whether any of us might agree or disagree with him) then let them go. Once. Whatever shit they may happen to be in at that point. "I choose to walk away" should always be an option.

  If they return with an attempted clean start, then they can declare that, and we can look at it case by case. Guy (help!) 20:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @QEDK: It's not that you said they were malicious, but you brought up a point about maliciousness in a case where it supposedly did not apply. If you don't believe Sharab is malicious, why do we need to argue about where the line is? Since Sharab was editing in good faith, if the spirit is avoiding harm from malicious users, then not following the letter better complies with the spirit. My point is and was that focusing on the specific letter of the policy isn't helpful. As Nil Einne explains below, it's not even clear that the wording you point to has particularly broad consensus.

  Despite the page name, I (and perhaps others) view this as a right not a courtesy. The meatball:RightToVanish essay was the basis for our early vanishing policy and--along with Barnstars and Assume Good Faith--the right to vanish represents one of the oldest parts of our community. SarahSV created our RTV policy page in 2007, copying it from meta. Meta's right to vanish was created in 2004 and was spun out from our first privacy policy where it was added by an IP in 2003. People change, communities change, and risks change. Unlike social media accounts or blogs, if we change our mind and want to abandon our connection to the content we've created, Wikipedians cannot simply delete our accounts or content (and people used to do that on wikis: c2:WikiMindWipe). As a matter of privacy and decency, we should afford good faith editors the right to renounce their connection to their contributions through vanishing should they choose to leave our project permanently. If we need to reverse the vanishing later so be it, but either way all the important stuff is kept. We gain nothing from a weak right to vanish but stand to lose a lot without a strong one. — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm with NYB here. I agree this is all within the letter of policy, but I'm saddened that we couldn't just let him go as he apparently wishes. And no, this is someone who has problems with their interactions with others, but I really don't think there's any malicious intent. Oh well. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I am very much of the view that the harder we make it for people to leave with dignity, the more we stoke resentment and invite further abuse. If someone wants to leave, let them. Honestly. This is not some vandal we need to keep track of long term abuse. I've had my run-ins with him but this just makes us look spiteful. Sorry, I know that's harsh, but - well, just let the guy leave. Guy (help!) 20:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  All of you do realize that you can leave anyway right, without executing a RTV? If someone wants to leave, all they need to do is scramble their password. RTV is just so you can be renamed into some gibberish and possibly have a clean start, edit history and talk pages are always preserved anyway, so the fact that a few more things are retained has literally no bearing on a clean start and is mostly extended as a courtesy to editors in good standing (in case of SharabSalam, that's unclear, since they were the subject of a sanction discussion at the time of requesting RTV). Hope that clarifies it. --qedk (t 愛 c) 20:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @qedk: SharabSalam has had an active sanction against him since before this discussion started (linked above), so there is very little chance of him being an eligible for a clean start (without explicit invocation of WP:IAR or something).
  Regarding the RTV/leaving thing, I'd just let people say what they're going to say. If people want to express their positive opinion of an editor or opine that a certain and specific courtesy should've been shown to them on their way out, then I can't see that doing any harm. At the end of the day, the policy has still been followed. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  But people can have strong attachments to their user names, especially if they have been used outside Wikipedia, and often even when they aren't. So even when an account name cannot be easily tied to a real name, demanding that we keep unnecessary connections seems, well unnecessary. Both WP:RTV makes it clear that editors who have engaged in that process cannot undergo a clean start. If they want to return, their vanishing is liable to be reversed or at least their connection to the old account will need to be clearly disclosed and will be considered in any request to return to editing. I think that's fair enough too. And as others have said, when the it's necessary to keep that connection so help us in tracking them e.g. for a known sock, sure it's fair enough that RTV is denied. But I agree with others that it's not clear why it was needed in this case. There seems to be no benefit to us, but there is potential harm to both us and the editor involved. Note that I have no real feelings about the editor either way. I just don't see any reason why we need to keep the unnecessary stuff when there is no apparent need to track them anymore and we already make it clear that if you later decide to return you will need to come back under you original identity so your return can be properly assessed. But until then, if you want to stay away, and you do stay away, then we're not going to keep unnecessary connections. The edit history, AN//I discussions etc will be preserved as they need to be and always will be. The other stuff especially the username in the editor history, we can remove. The most confusing thing to me about this is I'm fairly sure I've seen RTV afforded to editors who are under strong sanction e.g. an indef block, or I think even a community ban or arbcom ban afforded the RTV in the past. Also some where the vanishing does risk causing problems i.e. an editor with a known sock history. And indeed a read Wikipedia talk:Courtesy vanishing/Archive 1 seems to agree with me. Have we gotten a lot stricter recently, or is it just that because this editor decided to RTV when they were under discussion and therefore additional scrutiny, even if it seemed clear that any outcome would be no worse than when we normally allow RTV, they were treated different? P.S. If you check out that page, User:Risker's comments back in 2016 [11] are similar to how I feel now. Nil Einne (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Wugapodes, Nil Einne, and MJL: As I've explained before, it's just how WP:RTV is written, do I have a personal opinion? Not really - because as I said, it's not a big deal. People's attachments to their usernames are also not a big deal, if you wish to execute RTV then that attachment becomes irrelevant. It's equivalent to wanting it both ways, ensuring that things you do aren't tied to your username as well being able to wipe your history (to a limited extent). The way I see it is WP:RTV is a courtesy and if you feel that's not how it should be then you should propose changing it, what's not OK is justifying written policy with arbitrary notions. Should the RTV policy be more lenient? Maybe, whether the community feels that way should be debated in a RfC and not at an AN thread. I'm sure there have been cases where RTV has been done on a indeffed account because someone didn't read through WP:RTV or just straight-up invoked WP:IAR but that's never a suitable reason to subvert policy. What I do agree with is what Wugs' said here, As a matter of privacy and decency, we should afford good faith editors the right to renounce their connection to their contributions through vanishing should they choose to leave our project permanently. And I believe the real question lies in identifying "good" faith and whether sanctioned or under-a-cloud editors apply for the same. So, the real crux of the issue comes down to the letter of the policy and as it stands now, it's not something we can or should resolve unilaterally. --qedk (t 愛 c) 08:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  We're not resolving it unilaterally; we're having a discussion about it because it was dealt with unilaterally when the renaming was reversed. I struggle to find in the text of that policy such a strict interpretation as you seem to understand. As Sarah has discussed above, nothing in the text requires we deny vanishing to those "under a cloud" or even indefinitely blocked users. Consider: Vanishing is not a way to avoid criticism, sanctions, or other negative attention, unless you really mean to leave permanently (emphasis added). From my understanding of what "unless" means, it seems plain that what I and others have said is squarely within the text. Similarly, it might not be extended to users...who leave when they lose the trust of the community... (emphasis added). From my understanding of what "might" means, it does not denote a requirement but rather a description of what could happen. The meta policy is arguably less restrictive. Saying that we need to propose a change is nonsense; we've advocated an interpretation that is squarely within the literal meaning of current policy text and given historical evidence for the spirit of the policy which led to the development of the current text. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Censoring

There's a rumor on the internet that George Floyd appeared in an adult film. This is being reported on some websites (including porn websites), but AFAIK, not in any actual RSes. I don't think we're anywhere near the level of RS coverage where we would even consider including this content, though I could be wrong about that. Editors have been adding this content to the various Floyd articles, and talk pages. It's been a bunch of different editors, but almost all new accounts or IPs. The articles themselves have been semiprotected, which has more or less stopped the addition of this content in mainspace. However, on talk pages like Talk:George Floyd and Talk:Killing of George Floyd, IPs and new editors are repeatedly making edit requests or otherwise raising the issue, sometimes not linking to any sources, other times linking to substandard sources (blogs) or really inappropriate sources (porn websites). My question is: can/should anything be done? First, should these talk page discussions be deleted, closed, or archived? (There is some mild edit warring, with some editors deleting these sections outright, and others restoring them.) Should the talk pages be protected? Should an edit filter be used? Should we just let it be? What is the protocol? Thanks in advance, Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per BLPTALK, at least one section where some discussion that explains why the information won't be included due to lack of RS, should probably be kept, closed, and then, if needed linked to via a talk page FAQ, so that if a new editor comes by to ask/add the same, the information or new talk page section can be removed and you can point to the FAQ/archived thread as to why instead of having to explain over and over again. I don't know why that information is even relevant (what info is specific to him on George Floyd can be summarized on the event page, making extraeous details like that even if sourcable not needed, per BLP) so just establishing the consensus against it once and being able to point to it should be sufficient to revert all future attempts to add or talk about it. --Masem (t) 18:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the one section is Talk:George Floyd#George Floyd a film actor, and El C dropped an admin note there laying out a protocol. Thanks, C! Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime, Levivich. Yes, my evaluation of the (unsourced or poorly-sourced) film career mention and its prohibition therefrom, applies across the wiki. El_C 17:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Oct13 has created several articles giving Catholic doctrine, entirely (or almost entirely) using primary Church sources. One such article Church Fathers and abortion, which was a POV fork of Catholic Church and abortion, went through AfD and was deleted 3 months ago. But there are others: Holy obedience, Miraculous plague cure of 1522, Christian Socioeconomics, Hell in Catholicism, and Catholic theodicy. The last two, created last Sunday, seem to be POV forks of Problem of Hell and Existence of God, respectively. How should this be handled? Bring each one individually to AfD? Or speedy AfD? Should User:Oct13 be asked to stop doing this? Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If the articles aren't up to standards, please delete them. I was actually thinking of making an article about Forgiveness in Christianity, but would it be allowed? Oct13 (talk) 03:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oct13: To clarify, I'm referring to two issues. First, your sources in several of the articles you created are almost entirely primary sources that you combine to create an interpretation (please read WP:RSPRIMARY and WP:OR). Second, instead of, for example, expanding the coverage of Catholic views on Hell in the main article Problem of Hell and interacting with other editors on the talk page of that article, you created a separate article on your own in which you synthesized the official statements of the Church without any perspective from secondary sources (which could be by Catholics or non-Catholics). There could possibly be good reasons to create a separate article titled "Hell in Catholicism" if there is enough discussion and debate in secondary sources and if an adequate treatment of the topic in the main article Problem of Hell would be unwieldy. But my point is that a separate article needs to be compliant with policies regarding excessive use of primary sources, original research, and POV forks. Note that the deletion process WP:AFD normally takes at least 7 days and involves an investment of time by many editors. It's not a good idea to keep creating articles that are likely to be deleted, since that wastes people's time. NightHeron (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarity! My main issue with problem two is that I have trouble finding non-primary sources for Catholic teachings that aren't self-published Catholic sites.Oct13 (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In that case you don't have adequate sourcing for an article on the subject. For example, concerning Hell in Catholicism, before creating an article based on primary sources you might have looked at several Wikipedia articles that already have material on the subject, and then interacted with other editors on the talk-pages to perhaps add material to those sections. See Christian views on Hell#Roman Catholicism, Christian views on Hades#Roman Catholic, Problem of Hell#Christianity, and Hell#Christianity. The same applies to other topics on which you've written articles based on primary sources. NightHeron (talk) 21:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that those article sections cite secondary sources. Since religious studies is a large field of scholarship, it should be possible to find secondary sources for any important notion in the history of theology (Hell, existence of God, forgiveness, etc.). NightHeron (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a large addition [20] by Oct13 from The Bible and violence with similar problems. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this where we have the content dispute? Where is the discussion centralized? Elizium23 (talk) 21:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a content dispute. This is a procedural question about how best to deal with a good-faith editor's repeated creation of new poorly sourced articles. NightHeron (talk) 11:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that where sourcing Catholic doctrine is the intent, primary sources would be just fine. After all, official Catholic sources tend to know how Catholicism works. But of course other sources would be quite the good idea, to keep things balanced - for Catholic sources of course tend to be biased towards Catholicism (I know, shocker). -- a lad insane (channel two) 18:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfD discussion: Miraculous plague cure of 1522

The article Miraculous plague cure of 1522 has been nominated for deletion here. NightHeron (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Miko2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As if adding OR to articles wasn't bad enough, Miko2020 has decided to slowly but surely take it to the next level with personal attacks, escalating from this (see edit summary), this (see comment) to this and culminating with this comment left on my talk page.

Here's a quick look at some of the edits of the user who's attacking me and accusing me of vandalism:

• Tajine. [21] Unjustified sourced content removal.

• Couscous. [22] This speaks for itself and was reverted by another editor.

• M'semen. [23] Same as above.

• Ras el hanout. [24] Same as above.

• Baghrir. [25] OR reverted by myself.

• Maghrebi mint tea. [26] Unjustified change and a personal attack to boot.

• Kaftan.[27] Sourced content removal, addition of factually incorrect OR and content based on a misrepresented source, which I explained on the talk page. Instead of addressing what I said, they created an article that they filled with OR and introduced the same misrepresented source. You could be forgiven for thinking that they are new and maybe don't know about WP:VERIFY, but this edit of theirs on another article leaves no doubt that they do.

In fact, their edits are almost undistinguishable from that of another editor (Jamaru25) whose edits consist mainly of adding OR, misrepresenting sources and even using fictitious sources. While I don't mind cleaning up the disruptive edits, unwarranted personal attacks such as this are not something that I'm willing to tolerate. M.Bitton (talk) 22:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, Miko2020 left a message on my talk page complaining, falsely, that M.Bitton had been replacing Morocco with Algeria. I looked at a couple of the articles Miko2020 mentioned to me and saw that, on the contrary, there were cases where Miko was removing references to Algeria and Tunisia so that only Morocco remained, or else was replacing North Africa with Morocco. In a case where I'd reverted one of Miko2020's edits, I was restoring Tunisia and Algeria based on sourced information. Largoplazo (talk) 23:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Sms2sms (talk · contribs) is only active in the English Wikipedia to continue the conflict of the deWP on discussion pages. See his contributions (German)-131.117.153.103 (talk) 05:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• They had been using their enwiki page to talk to the .de administrator that blocked them, but on 26 April posted that any further discussion should be on their meta page (since when there has been no activity) so I don't think there's anything to do here at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If a new editor, who did not receive any warning for disruptive behaviour, personal attacks, edit warring, adding contentious unsourced content and vandalism, then giving them Discretionary sanctions alert on first day is biting the new editor.

This should not be done on first day. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zubisko&oldid=951918392

The editor has not edited since then.

It's like RegentsPark identifying a potential opponent and scaring them off.

User:Slatersteven and User:SerChevalerie interacted with the editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.110.247.116 (talk) 06:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This is a no-fault alert that aims at informing users of the discretionary sanctions regime. El_C 06:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^^^Thus spake El_C: arguably, too, alerts are even more important for new users as, while an established editor might be assumed to not need reminding of the restrictions (yet still is), a new editor will have no idea. By not advising them of the sanctions in place, in fact, you're making it more likely that they'll be breached. Which results, possibly, in an even less friendly welcome for the new editor. ——Serial ^# 07:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How are we defining "new" exactly? I suggest 2–3 years. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss}

] 07:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Suggest 6 years, 7 months and 25 days... at least. ——Serial ^# 07:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

↑What they said. It's a lot better to issue a neutral "you're dealing with a topic where the usual rules don't apply, if you're not confident that you understand all the rules around NPOV, sourcing, and inter-editor interaction, we suggest you start off in a less contentious area" warning from the outset. The alternative is that someone in good faith tries to add something they read on the internet about homeopathy/climate change/gun control, or thinks in good faith that they're improving Wikipedia by adding/removing an infobox on every page, and promptly gets themselves blocked. I do agree that the wording of the templates is incomprehensible and intimidating, but thus far nobody has come up with an alternative; that big gobbet of Bradspeak is unfortunately necessary if we're to convey precisely what "discretionary sanctions" does and doesn't mean. ‑ Iridescent 08:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's less bitey than the alternative, which is a rapid move to blocking. Guy (help!) 09:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Levivich Don't go for the heading only. The editor in question was one day account only. What harm would happen if the sanction alert is given after one week of non-disruptive editing? What did I say? Don't warn them ever? Warning should be given if they show signs of disruptive editing at the beginning. You gave them welcome message, then even before they have finished reading the welcome message properly, you give them sanction alert. Within one second he will read the links mentioned in welcome message? What is he going to read first? Discretionary sanction alert or welcome message? Welcome message given at 16:04, sanction alert given at 16:05. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zubisko&action=history Can't you people have some patience? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.110.218.253 (talk) 10:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With edits that are likely to blow up into a war? No. Guy (help!) 13:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I often DS template new editors. But, I always preface with a welcome if one doesn’t exist. As the welcome says their contributions are welcome and we hope they stay, it further softens the warning. Experienced editors are regularly sanctioned on DS articles. If they run into difficulties; new editors need some sort of heads-up that they’ve jumped into the deep end. O3000 (talk) 10:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The very first thing the box says is "This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date." It absolutely, positively identifies itself as not a scolding. It's an alert to someone who's entered a particularly fraught topic, that's all. It's like worrying that someone is going to be scared off of driving at all by a "one-way" sign at the beginning of the one-way street, and asking what harm could come from placing it where it won't be visible until a driver has already covered the first 100 meters of the one-way section the wrong way. Largoplazo (talk) 12:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The notification is neutrally worded and contains information that any editor, new or old, wading into the topic should be aware of and I don't see this as a problem. In particular, it would be wrong not to let someone wading into that particular controversial article that their edits will receive extra scrutiny. I'm sorry that the editor chose to not return but it doesn't follow that they should have been kept in the dark about the sanctions. Technically, it is not correct that they dropped out after the warning because they appear to have made two edits before the warning (and the welcome!) and two edits after.--regentspark (comment) 14:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Assuming that you're talking about User:Zubisko I think you've misread the edit history. There were 3 edits before the alert, and 1 after. Nil Einne (talk) 07:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  You're right. I guess I misread the time. Probably not important anyway since it is likely that they either saw the notice after their last edit or have never actually seen it.--regentspark (comment) 13:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It's bitey in that it's a huge warning with incomprehensible text. Only someone who is already familiar with how Wikipedia works can even figure out what it's warning you about. I want to point out that the linked page WP:ACDS is completely unintelligible to a newbie, and that both of the terms "discretionary" and "sanction" just seem like arcane legalese. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) I strongly disagree. It's not a warning. It's explicitly says it's not a warning. It's unfortunate that some people interpret it that way, but there's no real way we can avoid that. So the idea we should wait for misbehaviour goes completely against the purposes of alerts which is not to warn but to alert. This doesn't mean we should give alerts for every editor who makes one edit, IMO this generally isn't necessary although it will also depend on the topic. But you should guide yourself mostly by "is this editor editing enough in the area that they probably need to know?"

Which gets into my next point, new or old, editors need to take care when editing DS areas. In fact, DS areas tend to have admins more sensitive to problems even without using the DS process. In other words, behaviour which may earn at worst, strong rebuke may earn a block if it's happening in a DS area even if it's not through the DS process. It's good for editors to know quickly that they need to take special care, consider carefully what they are doing, listen, read our policies and guidelines, seek advice and be far less bold then we normally encourage editors to be.

Also, in some areas we get a lot of SPAs, or worse socks. While there are measures which could be put in place for specific articles e.g. long term ECP or even long term semi protection to reduce problems, these can be controversial themselves and they can't be applied to all articles. To give one specific example, consider Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:777 persona 777 and Talk:Christopher Langan#Intelligent design. While okay, ECP could probably be applied to the article, I don't think it would be a good idea to do it to the talk page. But there are a lot of SPAs who keep popping up. Often these don't last very long. Giving them alerts quickly ensures that they are aware they need to take special care, and also that if necessary, they can be restricted quickly. AFAIK that hasn't even happened yet (there have been some blocks, but not under DS). Note that while me and others have alerted some of the editors, others haven't been alerted yet have disappeared, so I don't think there is even compelling evidence that they are being scared off. Frankly, in this particular case, I'm not sure if it's even harmful to scare off an editor who seems to only be here to push for or against the theories of some random person with a high IQ. To be clear, if these editors would be welcome to branch out into other areas, but most of them have only done a small amount in other areas, and even there it's often highly related.

Note that as I've said before, personally I greatly prefer it when editors alert someone who is on their "side" (for lack of a better word) because as I said, we can't stop people misinterpreting it as a warning so it's better if it's someone who may come across as "look I agree with you, but you need to take care when editing this area". However for a new editor it may not be so obvious anyway, plus I'd still prefer someone to alert. So provided editors are consistent in when they alert, I don't see any harm.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I also disagree strongly. (1) As noted above, the alert notification is neutrally worded. (2) Not allowing newbies to be alerted, while continuing to alert other editors, puts the newbies in a unwarranted protected class. (3) Further, if the newbie has been misbehaving ina DS area, and continues to misbehave, admins would not be able to impose DS sanctions on them because they had not been alerted.
  In my opinion, the proposal is ridiculous on its face. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Let's face it: many articles under discretionary sanctions are haunted by WP:SOCKS. A sock will pretend to quit because an editor threatened him/her with discretionary sanctions, but in fact it is a circus acts merely done as trolling. Everyone who has access to a botnet could create lots of usernames in order to accuse an established editor of WP:BITE and harassment. If one knows when an editor is online and which articles he/she edits, it is very easy to pull out this trick. Yup, botnet access is for sale on the dark web. Being honest means that the rules of the game are spelled out in advance. I do not see how hiding the knowledge of those rules from newbies would help them. E.g. a creationist POV-pusher, who only comes to Wikipedia in order to spew out creationist memes, will pretend that he/she did not know that that's against policies and guidelines. Someone has to tell them as it is: not in an offensive way, but in a clear and honest way. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whether they support or oppose, but let other participants in this thread see this comment by Tgeorgescu, "If one knows when an editor is online and which articles he/she edits, it is very easy to pull out this trick." There are many editors who can give discretionary sanction alert. User:Tgeorgescu is saying that the new user was able to control who will post welcome message and discretionary snaction alert on his talk page. Socks can create new accounts, but you are saying that the editor wanted to trap RegentsPark, by editing when he was online. This is like you belive in fortune teller, soothsayer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.110.228.164 (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am agnostic about whether it was the case for RegentsPark, but, yes, it would be easy for socks to game the system if such restriction upon placing notifications of discretionary sanctions would be enforced. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tgeorgescu I don't support full restriction. I am suggesting that the new editor should show at least one trait of disruptive editing. If you are not happy with that, then give some time(more than one second) to the new editor to read the welcome message properly and then give sanction alert. 42.110.228.164 (talk) 04:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I give them to new editors who make good edits as well. I try to be impartial and prefer not to even know the content of their edits, although sometimes it's blazingly obvious. I also think that it would be in a sense unfair not to alert people asap, it might help them avoid ever making bad edits and perhaps gaining a bad reputation. Doug Weller talk 10:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing with Doug Weller. Why do people assume that a warning message is some kind of punishment or dunning? It is just a warning, like not to drive over the speed limit in a construction zone or use a hair dryer in a bathtub. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

Add a Twinkle notification to alert new users that they have stepped into a controversial area along the lines of:

Hello. I notice that you have edited $ARTICLE, which is in a controversial topic area on Wikipedia. As a new editor, it is probably wisest to discuss any changes on the article's Talk page prior to making them. There are special restrictions around many such articles, and this can lead to a frustrating and intimidating experience for newcomers. Feel free to ask for help at the tea house if you need guidance on how to edit this topic.

How would that be? Guy (help!) 11:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good proposal Guy; not at all bitey but doesn't dance around the point, would take the sting out of any DS notice, and offers a friendly place to get help ~ if nothing else on all the acronyms which must surely puzzle the new user; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 18:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A few hours ago I made this close, and an editor has indicated on my talk page that they feel my close was mistaken. I invite community scrutiny and, if I have erred, I will be delighted to self-revert.—S Marshall T/C 13:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Looks like a well-thought-out, detailed and comprehensive close. El_C 13:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close, as neutral who took no part in the RfC. A well thought-out, nuanced close of a pretty obfuscating discussion. ——Serial ^# 13:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A masterpiece. You closed the discussion with the only possible result, and you gave some helpful hints for next steps from a neutral third party. You may take the rest of the day off if you like. Guy (help!) 13:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. "No consensus" is the only possible result there, and those uninvolved helpful suggestions are above and beyond the call of duty. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, as the only logical choice. The added suggestions seem quite helpful in starting a discussion towards compromise. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Typically we have responded to WP:ENGAGE problems by blocking until the user begins to engage on their User talk page. Given that we now have partial blocks, I wonder if we should adopt a recommended practice of partial blocking from main space in such cases? I have it in mind that this could become a templated response with the aim of being less bitey than a full block, especially because it allows them to do the exact thing we want them to do, which is to discuss their changes on article talk pages. Guy (help!) 13:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've already been doing that. It is a sound approach that minimizes damage to the editor in question, leaving avenues of communication and dispute resolution more open-ended. El_C 13:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Paul August ☎ 13:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, sounds like a good approach. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, Sounds like a good idea to me. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, absolutely agree. Glen 18:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds good to this non-admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has opened the anti-harassment RfC, and invites discussion from interested editors. Maxim_(talk) 13:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Anti-harassment RfC open

The RfC is here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been making edits about Looney Tunes Cartoons, but has had a really rude attitude in their edit history when it comes people who disagree with their edits. I just want this user to understand that it's really not cool to have this attitude. c 14;51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Please provide evidence in the form of diffs. El_C 14:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_%28season_1%29&type=revision&diff=960970798&oldid=960970723 , title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_(season_1)&diff=prev&oldid=961088536title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_(season_1)&diff=prev&oldid=961088536 , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boo!_AppeTweet&diff=prev&oldid=960973304 , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters&diff=prev&oldid=960601738 , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters&diff=prev&oldid=959726277

Hope this is enough Noelephant 15;01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Noelephant: There's now a report at WP:AN/EW over this, so if you wish to comment there... There's also a discussion on the relevant article talk page, which is the best bet to resolve this without any further drama. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, I'm just going to let this settle, was really not trying to edit war but I can see where it can be assumed as such, thanks again. Noelephant 15:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evelynkwapong539 was not informed of this report, Noelephant. I have done this for you. I did, however, issue a warning to them to remain civil. El_C 15:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance an admin could restore Derek Chauvin to this edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Derek_Chauvin&oldid=960677089 . Also, could you remove the edit protection? I think it will make the AFD more objective and allow editors (who are interested) to work on the article. No evidence of behavior problems here, I don't think.Casprings (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Casprings, that version has a speedy tag on it, so probably not the best? My suggestion is to leave it as-is, per WP:BLP, and link to an old version in the AfD so people can read it. Just my $0.02. Guy (help!) 20:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "regulars" at WT:RFC have been talking about some common problems we see in RFCs, and we are going to try a bit of an experiment this month. This month, you can ask for help with writing your RFC question at WT:RFC.

This is not required, but it may be helpful. If you are all lucky, then having us provide a little experienced advice may reduce the number of RFCs that get mentioned here. I particularly recommend this when:

• a group of editors is already in conflict or someone is saying that a proposed RFC question isn't 'neutral' enough,
• you're starting a "major" RFC (e.g., significant changes to a policy or to a contentious article), and
• someone wants to hold a vote on what the wording of a sentence should be.

Feel free to refer any and all new/future RFCs our direction. If editors want this service, then we may make it permanent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This certainly looks like an excellent idea, as long as the people giving the help are better placed than the people asking for it in terms of neutrality, and knowledge of Wikipedia processes. Many RFCs don't get past one of the first hurdles of having a neutrally worded question. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User has recreated deleted articles many, many times and created pages and contributions with little/no refs many times, as you can see on their talk page. Worth looking into. Doublah (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I need help/guidance about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaitabare. I would like opinion on whether a category can ever be included in a bundle at an AFD. More importantly though, if the AFD can not be salvaged, it should probably be closed by an admin, summarising things I absolutely should not have done, and advising the proper procedures. Especially, about alleging socking, it looked fairly WP:DUCKY to me but how do I go about establishing that, if I should do it before I can bring that up at AFD? I understand ANI doesn't take stale cases, and SPI has told me once or twice not to report stale accounts. There are surely better places to ask these questions one at a time (like I probably should have done the AFD), but it's a sort of an against the clock issue, since it pertains to an ongoing AFD. So, please forgive me the things I have done wrong, and can we please discuss this here? Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO the cat. should not be in the AfD; strike it and proceed with the AfD containing articles only. If the articles are deleted the cat can then be speedily deleted as a C1 CSD. Cats should never be brought to AfD, UnitedStatesian (talk) 07:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UnitedStatesian, thank you for responding. I have removed the category from my nomination. Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CFD for categories. Sorry, when I initially saw your nom I thought it was of legit VDCs created by me. Unfortunately Nepal has now become like India and Pakistan and are subject to crappy edits and hijacking and they're off the radar.† Encyclopædius 14:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was prohibited from generating User talk:𝐼𝐿𝒾𝓀𝑒𝒯𝑜𝐸𝒹𝒾𝓉0 because of prohibited characters. Error message was: ""User talk page modification: Failed to save edit: The title "User talk:𝐼𝐿𝒾𝓀𝑒𝒯𝑜𝐸𝒹𝒾𝓉0" has been banned from creation. It matches the following blacklist entry: " .*[^\0-\x{FFFF}].* <casesensitive> # Very few characters outside the Basic Multilingual Plane are useful in titles"

It obviously doesn't make sense to permit characters in the creation of user names which aren't allowed in page names. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that we control page names locally on the English Wikipedia but user names are global across all Wikimedia projects. Either a discussion needs to take place on meta to restrict user names (where I'm sure you would come across the objection that there may be a language/script where such characters are valid) or we can decide to change the blacklist here to allow such pages, at least in User and User talk spaces. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the number of users blocked, or with no contributions, in this list, a reasonable heuristic would be to indef anyone with a similar user name. Johnuniq (talk) 10:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If an indef becomes the standard, that should probably be added to the username policy. I'm personally a fan of the taking off the blacklist for userspaces, then having some sort of notice about it anyway. -- a lad insane (channel two) 11:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't quote me on this, but I believe edit filters can work for detecting usernames meeting certain patterns. Unsure what happens if you disallow creations, though. CC User:MusikAnimal, who wrote Special:AbuseFilter/1023 (by the way, should 1023 match "autocreateaccount"?). --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes edit filters can be made to disallow account creation matching any pattern. However you could argue this case is just a social problem, while Special:AbuseFilter/1023 is a workaround for a bug. Using an edit filter is an option but I probably would just update the username policy and block when these come up, as Johnuniq suggests. Other wikis may not agree and will permit these kinds of usernames.

I did change 1023 to use "contains" rather than "==", which should account for auto-account creation. Which reminds me, this should really be implemented at meta:Title blacklist rather than a local filter. — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• In any case, @David Biddulph:, I've created the talk page, so you can post to it now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On Churchill war ministry No Great Shaker made edits that deleted the entire ministerial section of the article. I re-added the ministerial table that the editor had deleted, for no apparent reason, however I then saw that the reason they have for deleting it was ‘moving horrendous and unnecessary list’ meaning they deleted it because they didn’t like it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Churchill_war_ministry&diff=927805078&oldid=927796948, therefore showing that he deleted a huge chunk of vital information for no reason and with no consensus. The table was deleted in November 2019 and NGS said he was going to redo it but as of June 2020 he had not done. When I re added the deleted info, No great shaker then attempted to delete the info I had readded but was fortunately stopped by another editor called GraemeLeggett who got involved and stopped his vandalism. No great shaker had now used personal attacks, such as blocked user, when I have tried to stop him from reverting the information again, and has now changed the article again so it no longer matches the similar ones at List of British governments. If you look at the articles about ministries, eg National Government (1935-1937) or Asquith coalition ministry you will see that the layout is: Office, name, date took office etc yet no great shaker has tried to change the article for no reason and is vandalising it, by changing the format and by deleting the table altogether. Please stop him. SallyWho (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• SallyWho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On Churchill war ministry: actions evidently indicate a vandalism-only account. Suspected block evasion, perhaps the User:HarveyCarter syndrome again as at Winston Churchill recently. Personal attacks and removal of content. Can take this to WP:AN if you prefer. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No Great Shaker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On Churchill war ministry made edits that deleted the entire section of the article. I re-added the ministerial table that the editor had deleted, for no apparent reason, however I then saw that the reason they have for deleting it was ‘moving horrendous and unnecessary list’ meaning they deleted it because they didn’t like it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Churchill_war_ministry&diff=927805078&oldid=927796948, therefore showing that he deleted a huge chunk of vital information for no reason and with no consensus. No great shaker then attempted to delete the info I had readded but was fortunately stopped by another editor called @GraemeLeggett who got involved and stopped his vandalism. No great shaker had now used personal attacks, such as blocked user, when I have tried to stop him from reverting the information again, and has now changed the article again so it no longer matches the similar ones at List of British governments. If you look at the articles about ministries, eg National Government (1935-1937) or Asquith coalition ministry you will see that the layout is: Office, name, date took office etc yet no great shaker has tried to change the article for no reason and is vandalising it. Please stop him. SallyWho (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I fully protected the article for three days. Both of you, SallyWho and No Great Shaker, need to carefully read WP:VANDALISM, followed by WP:NPA, to realized that you are engaged into a content dispute, and there is no vandalism involved. If you continue calling each other vandals, blocks can follow pretty quickly. Please return to the talk page of the article and settle your dispute there.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Though SallyWho will likely be the first one, given that they have no positive contribution.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• As the named third party in all this, I'd better say something. From my vantage point both sides are using "vandalism" when actually it's a content dispute. The Churchill war ministry page had since 2013 and until a while back had the same section ("List of Ministers") as other ministries from 1707 to 2007 - a list of the positions and the ministers who filled them. In November 2019 the list of ministers was removed by No Great Shaker as an "unnecessary list" and ended up in Draft space as it was uncited. SallyWho it to the Churchill war ministry article yesterday (7 June) , No Great Shaker removed it again on the grounds of still unsourced, and SallyWho put it back shortly after. As I thought it belonged in the article, I decided to add to add some cites as that was the reason for previous removals. Since then No Great Shaker has made corrections and additions to the table. No Great Shaker then edited the table to remove any Ministers already covered in the preceding section which lists the members of the cabinet in the ministry , renaming the disputed section "Ministers outside the War Cabinet". SallyWho reverted that change and after that it's a back and forth with No Great Shaker calling SallyWho's reverts "troll" and SallyWho calling No Great Shaker's reverts "vandalism". GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ymblanter, I'll accept your decision on this but I think I would like you to adjudicate at the article talk page. I'll go there now and explain how I have been trying to improve the article. The account by GraemeLeggett above is a fair summary of what has happened. I may have overstepped the mark by suggesting that SallyWho is a probable block evader but it seems very odd to me that someone with a mere handful of edits should be so passionate about how another editor is trying to improve an article that has not, lets face it, been in very good shape. I cannot see how such an extreme reaction can suggest anything other than a vested interest in the article through past involvement. That's my opinion. Anyway, I'll say no more about that and will go to the article talk page to discuss the state of the article and how it can be improved. Thank you. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmmm. SallyWho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a "brand new user" whose early edits Right Great Wrongs committed in 2019. Am I the only one who thinks that's a bit sus? Guy (help!) 08:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Just to note that No Great Shaker added a retirement template on their talk page and accused me in driving them out of Wikipedia. Sorry, I find this accusation completely out of place and can not accept it. --Ymblanter (talk) 08:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I figure you mean this conversation. Apparently they think you protected the WRONGVERSION and blasted you for it. Seems to me like you fulfilled your volunteer duties as an admin and paid the price. Situation normal. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article for Derek Chauvin be shown while Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Chauvin is ongoing? Please {{ping}} me when you reply. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jax 0677: I kept it hidden out of an abundance of caution (since some in the DRV raised BLP issues), but I have no opinion on the matter. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Jax 0677: I'm the one that suggested that it not be, but that we have a link to to a version of it in the AfD. It's unusual but not unreasonable. DRV often has discussions of material that has been "temp-undeleted" where people can look at the history. I don't think it should be SOP, but I think it's a good compromise (have the discussion but don't have the article until we decide to). Hobit (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Jax 0677: Yes, keep it visible unless there are really serious content problems with it. It should be unprotected too. There's really not much we can write that can damage the guy compared to the beatings (I don't know what other word to use) he's taking in the general media. So I wouldn't freak out about it. I looked at the last substantial version in the revision history and it's pretty tame, all the same stuff that's been everywhere in the news, all well cited, and missing some updates.[28] A drastic step like hiding the content is sometimes warranted when there's agenda pushing or scandalizing going on, or if the person doesn't otherwise have much notoriety. This isn't one of those times. The article content is quite mainstream and the writing is staid. That said, I'm always in favor of {{noindex}}ing articles about living people. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 10:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't seen this, but FWIW I declined a G4 request at Talk:Derek Chauvin earlier today. I'd consider this section done with, but YMMV. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, but isn't a post like this [29]? some kind of policy breach? Govvy (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted; user warned. DrKay (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I indef blocked. I can undo this if i stepped on toes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Haz revdelled as well. Guy (help!) 22:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

k, I thought a post like that was suppose to be striked, cheers. Govvy (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Govvy, it contains contact details. Guy (help!) 08:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: If the edit you revdel'ed is the same as their others, then they have 6 other posts to revdel. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 00:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bison X, done. Guy (help!) 08:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

heh, didn't realise there was six other posts, bit strange to post that on wikipedia when there are dark web noticeboards for that! Clearly it was amateur day for that editor! Govvy (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Back in February, I closed an RfC at Talk:Ronald Reagan. In my close, I found rough consensus to include a concise mention of some remarks, but suggested further discussion regarding the precise wording. Earlier today, Springee opened another RfC asking the same question of whether or not the remarks ought to be included. After I left a comment indicating that I consider their formulation of the RfC to be inconsistent with my prior close, they replied raising several objections to the close. Could an admin look over my close from February, decide whether or not it is valid, and then help organize the follow-up discussion that is starting to take place? Thanks, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note that I and another editor both found the previous closing to be problematic. First, the non-admin closing conclusion of "rough consensus" was questionable based on numbers. Sdkb said it came down to numbers and they felt it was 10:5 in favor. As a personal rule of thumb I feel consensus by numbers is anything over 2/3rds so at best they are borderline. However, there were 19 !votes; 9 yes, 5 no, 5 were "wait". That means only 47% of the !votes were yes. More importantly, the closing editor's neutrality on the matter suggests a strong POV for inclusion. I will repeat that I don't think their POV is inherently problematic but upon closing the RfC the Sdkb became involved with other aspects of the Reagan biography page in a way that suggested a clear POV on what sort of material should be in the article. They initiated a RfC here [[30]] . After several months no editors had actually acted on the closed RfC. Sdkb pinned the RfC so it wouldn't be archived[[31]] and solicited other editors to make the changes they felt the RfC dictated[[32]]. Based on the evidence that the closing was not handled in a neutral fashion and the mathematically questionable determination of consensus I considered challenging the original closing. However, since no editors had decided to act upon the RfC it seemed a moot issue. Now that it is 9 months later and a number of editor's replies were "wait" I see no issue with opening a new RfC that can be closed by an uninvolved editor. Springee (talk) 04:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have not expressed any opinion about the inclusion of the remarks, and I do not think it would be my role as closer to do so. I invited two editors I noticed working on the article a month or so after the close (I don't know the political tendencies of either) to participate in the follow-up discussion about the wording since that discussion wasn't really happening; that is different than "solicited other editors to make the changes they felt the RfC dictated". {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into this a bit more as I had always assumed this was a formal RfC. It never was. Rather it was an informal survey that simply died out. That might explain why nothing happened between the end of discussions in October 2019 and the Sdkb's "closing" in February 2020. Springee (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it was brave of you to decide to close that, and I think it was very brave indeed to close it as "consensus to include". I would most certainly have called that discussion a "no consensus".—S Marshall T/C 08:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I presume you are using the word "brave" in the Sir Humphrey sense. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, Minister. ——Serial ^# 09:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Positively courageous, Minister.—S Marshall T/C 10:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By an admin or experienced editor here. Although only an informal discussion, it's been open about a week and the consensus is pretty clear. If you could then action your decision too. Thanks in advance! ☕🍟🍰 ——Serial ^# 09:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, with assistance from Atlantic306. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for having two of these open at the same time; it's because I've been going through the more contentious unclosed discussions on ANRFC. Anyway, a few hours ago I made this close, and an editor has indicated on my talk page that they feel my close was mistaken. I invite community scrutiny and, if I have erred, I will be delighted to self-revert. The complainant concurs with my determination that there's no consensus, but disputes my view that the status quo ante is the version without the disputed graphic.—S Marshall T/C 15:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@S Marshall: I hope you don't mind me being blunt? And no criticism of that (or any other) close. But just file at RfA please: it'll be a piece of cake. All the best, ——Serial ^# 15:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Totally out of the question.—S Marshall T/C 16:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close The summary was an accurate reflection of the discussion. I had been looking into the same discussion and would have posted nearly the same one myself. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Eggishorn: I agree with S Marshall's conclusion that none of the two sides of the dispute managed to reach consensus. I discussed with them on their talk page on what version of the article constitutes status quo ante. As I see things, the version with the pic in the lede is that version. After the pic was added to the lede, several months passed and, if I am not mistaken, some 30 edits were made on the article with nobody challenging that edit. Is not that counted as "silent consensus"? After "silent consensus", is not a new consensus needed to make a change? Those two questions are what I am not persuaded about in the RfC closure. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. What counts as longstanding text should ordinarily be determined by local consensus, where the level of activity of the article would be a key component in determining WP:SILENCE. Because this time the status quo ante was decided by the closer (which is to say, singularly), perhaps an explanation by them as to their respective determination to that effect is due. El_C 16:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ktrimi991:, might I suggest reviewing WP:CHALLENGECLOSE? The close was ... a reasonable summation of the discussion and the closer has no history that would make them involved in the discussion. If the close accurately summarized the discussion, even if that discussion was based on faulty premises, then the discussion is still closed. It is not up to the closer to correct the participants. Doing so results in a WP:Supervote. I can see your point about the sequence of events but I feel S Marshall also accurately summarized those in your challenge on their talk page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn: I am aware of what is said on WP:CHALLENGE. I came here after the proposal to do so by S Marshall. I thanked him for his review process, and I have not asked him to correct any participant. The point I would like clarification about could probably be summarized this way: If I challenge an edit made 1 year ago, and after discussion there is no consenus, then the version I support should stay as a pre-dispute one? If that is the rationale applied, then one can easily remove content added years ago and those who disagree should not revert but just seek a "new consensus" on the talk page per WP:BRD. Is that the right way of action? Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if one today decides to remove content that was added a year or several months ago, can we say that the dispute started a year or several months ago? Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. As the principal admin who has been attending to the article in question, I'd like to thank you, S Marshall, for once again taking on these difficult closes. Your efforts are greatly appreciated and I hope you keep up the good work. El_C 16:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The default position should be not to include contentious content. This was a brave close, in the proper sense of the term "brave". Phil Bridger (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil Bridger: On what Wiki policy is your opinion that contentious content should not be kept on the article based on? Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's based on common sense, which is more important than any policy. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Common sense" can cause disputes rather than solve them in controversial Balkan topics. No wonder Balkan topics on Wikipedia have so many problems and conflicts. The rationale of that "common sense" implies that one can remove content from an article and they do not even need consensus because "contentious content" should not be on the article. I was aware of the fact that editors in general tend to support decisions such as RfC closures, but I expected some justification based on well-defined rules, not that kind of "common sense". It is no wonder then that Wiki has lost so many editors during the years. Anyways, I do not see any reason to further continue this discussion, as it has already become pointless. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• After reading all the input on this discussion, I do sympathize with Ktrimi991. The effect of the decision I made is to crystallize what Ktrimi991 feels is the wrong version of the article -- and I can see why, when I have sat the "stable version" such a long time in the past, this user might feel as if I've played a bit fast and loose with the rules.
  My position is that encyclopaedia-writers are educators, and that puts us under a basic duty not to mislead people. Properly analyzing sources is fundamental to what we do. In this case, independent and normally-reliable sources like the CIA World Factbook do seem to use the figures on this 2011 census -- but there are other, also independent and normally-reliable, sources that describe it as wildly inaccurate. We're dealing with research that's disputed, or even, suspect. In those circumstances, I took the view that the last "stable" version was the one that doesn't include an infographic based on the disputed research, and my view on that was certainly coloured by the possibility that the infographic is wrong.
  Please note that in doing so, I've backdated the last "stable" version well over a year from the start of the RfC. In that respect my decision was unusual, so Ktrimi991's outrage is understandable. We need to be fair, and although I'm grateful for all the "endorses" above, I do feel that some more careful, sober analysis from uninvolved editors is called for, and I'm completely open to being overturned if I was wrong.—S Marshall T/C 00:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya pals,

ProcrasinatingReader dropped this in front of me after noticing Paolocmartin (talk · contribs)'s confusing and slightly messy contribs in the RC feed, apparently in assocation to the linked project.

I've dropped a note on the talkpage of JenOttawa (talk · contribs), who appears be associated with the project's organisation and also seems to have a clue.

No admin-y action required from anyone yet: I just wanted to put this on your radar because I expect Paulocmartin might end up being blocked, and this provides a little bit of context that's not immedately obvious from the first page of their contributions.

On a more general note, we've really gotta do something about the intersection of academia / education and Wikipedia. Although this isn't necessarily one of those cases, I keep seeing very low quality content from WikiEd participants - it would suggest we're not communicating well enogh, or providing enough resources. Perhaps this is something that the WMF should be spending money on.

Cheers,

-- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 21:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JenOttawa is handling - cheers all. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 22:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems mostly cleared up. Thanks for looking into it Allie!

An admin may wish to do a final clean-up by deleting/moving pages like Wikipedia:Welcome/Research and Wikipedia:Welcome/About etc as appropriate. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! The vids were just restored to a playlist I can access, which means my vandalism is actually done. What's more, here is a big long list of socks you can block now since I won't be needing them, in numerical order (the number before each is not part of the name, just my way of organizing it in a Google Doc which was too much trouble to remove for the copy and paste, but the same number at the end of each username is):

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.94.194.11 (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a hoax. After checking a dozen of the user names, none of these seem to be real user's name. CBS527^Talk 22:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the overall validity of this every one I've checked is a genuine account created over the last 3-4 weeks. Check the log for each user. ~ mazca ^talk 22:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are real accounts, but haven't made any edits. But I don't think blocking them would be necessary now that the vandal is off Wikipedia? TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 22:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See the BRFA at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MusikBot II 4. — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]