Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive314

Hi all. I am concerned that there is a problem with a massive amount of articles (50?) brought to AFD by User:Softlavender without any responsible investigation into whether or not the individual articles are actually notable. All of the articles were created by User:Niggle1892, and are of recordings by the opera singer Frederica von Stade. Softlavendar brought the issue to a discussion at WP:WikiProject Opera where another editor expressed concerns about copyright problems on those articles. However, the consensus there seems to be, aside from the issue of copyright, that the articles in question are notable. Softlavendar went ahead and nominated all of them. I'm familiar with many of these recordings, some of them are actually Grammy Award winners, so notability through a quick cursory search would have been quickly established. Some help with copyright issues, and stopping an unnecessary flood of articles into AFD would be helpful.4meter4 (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I have investigated all of the articles, and they all fail WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. They all fail all of those criteria. Criterion 1 specifically says "Some of these works must contain information beyond a mere critical review of the recording. In other words, critical reviews in several publications are not enough in themselves to establish the need for a separate article. If all you have are reviews, quote them in the discography section of the artist's or work's article." Significant coverage is specifically not enough for a classical-music album article. One or two awards is also specifically not enough for a classical-music album article.

In fact, the user was warned on their talkpage several months ago by Richard3120 to stop creating these articles [1], but they went right on doing so. Softlavender (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

4meter4 is there some reason that you didn't ask Softlavender about this on her talk page before coming to the dramaboard? WP:AGF applies to long time editors as well as newbies. MarnetteD|Talk 21:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I came here, because Softlavendar wasn’t getting any support from the other editors at the project, and then went ahead and nominated a ton of articles for AFD anyway. We were already discussing the issue. There was no reason to discuss it anywhere else, after all these AFDs were posted without gaining any support (rather opposition). Being familiar of the works in question, it’s clear to me due diligence was not done. This comes off as a personal vendetta and not a rational decision. It’s going to create a headache at AFD for admins.4meter4 (talk) 21:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Personal vendetta against whom? MarnetteD is absolutely right about WP:AGF. I didn't even read the discussion at the project thread you mention. Once I found the notability guideline, I investigated each of the articles, and they all failed all of the criteria of the guideline, so I nominated them all, and then left a brief note about the guideline on the project page. Softlavender (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

4meter4 your post is full of assumptions and accusations for which you presented no evidence. Claiming someone is not acting rationally is a personal attack for which you should apologize. FYI admins deal with mass AFD nominations on many occasions without the need for aspirin. MarnetteD|Talk 23:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I think Softlavender was acting with good intentions, but I agree the mass AfD nom was not great. Since all ~50 albums have similar sourcing, and since the reason given for each nomination was identical, it probably would have been better to start by nominating 1-3, then based on the consensus around those, decide whether to nominate others. The copyvio issues are worrying, but I think the notability is there in most cases. Softlavender is focused on them failing the notability criteria at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Classical_music/Guidelines#Notability_of_recordings, but that's a Wikiproject advice essay, not a guideline. The articles do seem to pass WP:NALBUM/WP:GNG.

Also, it might have been nice to reach out to Niggle1892 first, instead of dropping a house on them in the form of 50 AfD nomination notifications. They seem to respond well to constructive criticism, and to be eager to improve their article writing skills. Colin M (talk) 01:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I think sticking 50 AfD templates on Niggle1892's talk page was just plain silly. It is possible to file a single AfD with multiple articles; if Softlavender believes all 50 fail roughly the same notability guidelines, there's no reason they couldn't have been managed in a single debate. For now, I think we should just let the AfDs play out and see where we are in a week. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to respond to Softlavender's proposal to delete almost all of my articles about albums. (I apologize if this is the wrong place to do so, but I've never been in this situation before.) (1) I don't think it's fair to characterize my articles as puffs. I've included negative critical comments as well as positive ones - indeed, I've tried so hard to represent critics' opinions fully that I've erred on the side of reporting them in too much detail. I have no personal or commercial interest in promoting record sales - my sole aim in writing my articles was to provide something that would be of interest to people like the four or five a week who, for the past decade, had been consulting Frederica von Stade - Mahler Songs. (It was the longevity of this article that made me imagine that others in the same vein might be acceptable.) (2) My album articles have been reviewed or edited by several experienced Wikipedia contributors - including Ser Amantio di Nicolao - without anyone but Softlavender asking me to stop writing them. (3) Softlavender has written that Richard3120 left a message on my talk page advising me to desist from what I'd been doing. In fact, after redirecting one of my articles, Richard3120 advised me what I should do to make them more viable: he said that it was mentions of reviews that were "the information that should be added to the articles as soon as possible - they certainly won't be put up for deletion with a couple of trustworthy reviews in them". (Little did he know.) (4) Wikipedia has many excellent articles about popular recordings, but very few about classical recordings, and most of those that do exist seem to be little more than stubs. Speaking as a Wikipedia reader rather than a Wikipedia contributor, I would love it if there were a dozen in-depth articles about different recordings of Der Rosenkavalier that would help me to decide which would be the one I would most enjoy. My hope was that when I'd finished my own little album project - which I'd almost completed when Softlavender intervened - other people would take up the baton and develop Wikipedia into as valuable a resource for classical record enthusiasts as it is for lovers of rock, blues and jazz.Niggle1892 (talk) 13:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

This the situation that WP:FAIT is meant to prevent. Softlavender may be right that the articles are non-notable, but didn't have concensus to proceed. There are a few of these I see as COPYVIO (eg: Mignon (Antonio de Almeida recording) or Die Schöpfung & Harmoniemesse (Leonard Bernstein recording) in that while they are sourced quotes from reviewers, they are far too long, and presented in Wikivoice (not quoted) and need necessary excessive trimming, paraphrasing, and quoting to be acceptable here, though the revisions with the copyvios are likely better dealt with by revdev rather than a WP:TNT approach as other parts of these articles are fine. But more importantly, did Softlavender ever give Niggle892 the opportunity to fix these or notice these may be problematic, before the AFDs? I'm not seeing that. That, coupled with the FAIT aspect (expecting Niggle1892 to address 50 AFDs at once) is extremely wrong. --Masem (t) 13:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

My suggestion for a compromise would be to take the following steps:

1. With SoftLavender's consent, mass-close the AfD noms per WP:SPEEDYKEEP criteria 1 (nominator withdrawal), this is a non-prejudicial close so they can be re-nom'd later if needed.
2. Discuss with Niggle1892 and others, preferably on an appropriate project page.
3. Following discussion, if consensus says that some or all of the albums should be deleted under similar notability criteria, open a single mass-AfD per Ritchie333's suggestion.

I don't think that SoftLavender is necessarily in the wrong here, but since there has been significant concerns about their actions I think it would be best to follow a sort of BRD cycle here by closing the noms and discussing further. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 14:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Support this proposal. The 50 AfD noms are totally unwieldy, and we need some centralized discussion. What's happening now is that those who care to participate in the deletion discussions are copy-pasting their comments over and over, so that we have 50 largely parallel discussions, which is totally intractable. Colin M (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Support this proposal. Many of these albums clearly pass WP:NALBUM (grammy-nominated, subject of multiple reviews, articles, etc.) Note that the noms are all copypasted with the sole rationale "Fails all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings." Additionally, those "criteria" are merely an essay while WP:NALBUM is an official guideline. It's impossible to give each nomination careful consideration when so many have been nominated en masse like this. A very poor move. If nothing else, the nominator should at least withdraw the AfDs that have zero !votes so far, without prejudice to renominating (at most two or three at a time) after the remaining AfDs have closed. In the meantime, I'm going to start participating in the 50 AfDs, carefully examining the articles and doing WP:BEFORE before making a judgement. I wish the nominator had done this, especially since there was an ongoing discussion at WikiProject Opera in which most of the participants disputed the rationale as well as an ongoing discussion on the "criteria" at WikiProject Classical music here . Voceditenore (talk) 09:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

• No comment on the proposals or the legitmacy of the articles on notability grounds, but if you want to get rid of articles with copyright violations, just blank them and list them at Copyright Problems. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 16:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support Masem's well-thought out proposal. @Softlavender: I too would request that you withdraw your AfD nominations so the user has a chance to address any shortcomings in the articles and/or effectively respond. As Masem said, WP:FAIT applies here and, IMHO, so does WP:BITE. Buffs (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I believe that is User:Creffpublic's proposal you see above, it's not mine, but I do fully agree with it as it matches what I think should have been done to start. :) --Masem (t) 17:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

(inject response). No, I meant what I said. What you posted is what I support. While that's largely what was said by User:Creffpublic, your thoughts were more specific to the situation/resolution of the matter + WP:AGF. Buffs (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to say thank you to everyone who has advised me how to make my articles better. After thinking about what has been said, I've cut out all my paraphrased reviews and replaced them with notes directing readers to their sources. I hope to improve my articles by adding a few short quotes from critics, but this will necessarily take some time - I have something like 150 reviews to work through, and it's obviously vital that the selection of excerpts is scrupulously fair to the reviewed, the reviewers and the readers. Some editors have suggested that I should remove track listings too, but I still think that these have some modest value - they're helpful for readers for whom, like my partially-sighted father, the tiny print on a CD booklet is just too small to see, and they're a handy way of providing links to other articles about different composers, librettists and compositions. On a related matter, I've only created one article on Wikipedia apart from those at issue here, namely a biography of Roly Drower. I noticed that Softlavender, who of course it was who put all my album articles into AfD, wrote about the Drower article too on Drmies's talk page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Drmies#Don't_know_what_to_do_about_this. On September 18, she wrote "Roly Drower appears to be a vanity article on a deceased loved one, who was notable only locally on the Isle of Man. All of this user's article creations are seriously problematic. Need someone to pull the trigger on some or all of them. Thanks." Later the same day, she wrote: "I agree that AfD is probably the best route. I would prefer that someone else do that on the bio article, if someone feels to...thanks..."[sic]. I thought I might explain that I am not a member of Drower's family and have never thought of him as a "loved one". I was a contemporary of his at university, where he and his friend David Jewitt were the outstanding graduates of the class of 1979. Googling them lately out of curiosity as to what had become of them, I thought that a pair of articles about the two of them would be a worthwhile study in contrast and similarity. The portrait that I painted of Drower was very much warts-and-all, mentioning his failure to take advantage of his elite schooling, his failure to complete his Ph.D., the failure of his marriage and his failure in the high-profile, internationally reported court case that was the tragic climax of his environmental activism. I wasn't attempting a belated funerary eulogy.Niggle1892 (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

You don't have to strip out the entire review (eg like you did here [2]), you are allowed to use short quotes (which generally means a short phrase, or maybe a sentence) as long as you include that in quotation marks and have immediate sourcing afterwards, and you can paraphrase and summarize other parts. See how most film articles cover the critical reception. --Masem (t) 19:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the encouraging advice. The reason that I stripped out the reviews entirely is that constructing fifty collages of quotes, summaries and paraphrases from some very long, complicated and mutually contradictory reviews would take many weeks even if I had no other business to attend to. I imagined that leaving things as they were for that length of time might be a serious issue for people who were concerned about copyright - assuming, that is, that the articles aren't all deleted anyway (in which case I'm hoping for a place in the Guinness Book of Records as the creator of the most Wikipedia entries ever erased in one go!).Niggle1892 (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support as the AFDs were based on an essay that was in direct contradiction to WP:GNG and WP:V. Also, quotes from reviews in even featured articles are often several sentences or small paragraphs not just one sentence, provided they are in quotation marks and have an inline citation. regards, Atlantic306 (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Could a willing admin address please address the comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David L Richards? Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 01:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

There was an issue with punctuation (AFD didn't match article name), and an issue with AFD being tricky in general if you're not using Twinkle, and an issue with a lack of a deletion rationale. I'm trying to help them on their user talk page. In the mean time, I deleted the misnamed/malformed/incomplete AFD page, and removed the template from the article. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Something doesn't quite track here. I only briefly read the deletion page before it was deleted by Floq, but I could swear it said that User:Mrdavid1729 was the subject of the article. Now flashback more than 2 years, where User:Richardsdl!! also claims that they are the subject (and were apparently confirmed as such by OTRS [3]). Lost account? Or something fishy? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not that big of a deal if someone forgets about their old account. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh for sure, just wanted to make sure that it actually was the same person and not some elaborate troll. I was just at a loss for why, after waiting nearly three years, this guy was once again up in arms over his article. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Thank you for your posts. First, a reminder that "This guy...once again up in arms..." is a person, just like you. You don't know him and there may be dynamics in his life of which you are unaware. I gave up trying to get this page deleted because of the inordinate frustration a technically-incompetent person encounters when trying to do anything --no matter how earnestly-- in Wikipedia, because someone will come along and delete it for an innocent error. In response to the posts: 1. I am indeed the page subject. I forgot my old login and created a new one. 2. I followed the multi-step Wikipedia instructions on how to nominate a page for deletion to the maximum of my ability to understand the directions. I can't do any better. 3. I added a rationale to the page the instructions said to, but the rationale was deleted. My rationale is that I am a private, non-notable person who doesn't deserve a page. There are other security reasons not able to be discussed here that have lead even my employer to wash me from their webpages. You can observe for yourself at the following pages that my photo is gone and I'm reduced to a single line bio: https://polisci.uconn.edu/people/faculty/ https://polisci.uconn.edu/person/david-richards/ https://humanrights.uconn.edu/our-team-all/ https://humanrights.uconn.edu/joint-faculty/ https://humanrights.uconn.edu/person/david-richards/ I sincerely thank anyone for their help.Mrdavid1729 (talk) 10:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mrdavid1729: Thank you for clarifying the issue here. I have gone ahead and started a new deletion discussion (accessible here) per the relevant Wikipedia notability guideline: WP:NACADEMIC. There is no guarantee that the article will be deleted, but a process about a week long will now being where editors will determine whether the article is in fact notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:53, 24 September 2019

I very much appreciate that help! I'm OK with the decision process --it will be what it will be-- it's just terribly frustrating for a novice to navigate Wiki. Thank you. -David Mrdavid1729 (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Few AfC acceptances listed in New Pages Feed are in Un-reviewed status, even if they are accepted by AfC reviewers who are Autopatrolled and New Page Reviewers (not as like the articles supposed to be in 'Autopatrolled' status). Any solution? I posted a query with an example on the same in AfC talk page, which went almost unresolved. --Gpkp [u • t • c] 10:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The 5 examples listed at your query were all accepted by an editor without autopatrol. Do you have any examples of someone with autopatrol whose AfC accepts are being listed as unreviewed in the New Pages Feed? Otherwise things are working as designed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

User:CASSIOPEIA's AfC-acceptance: Deborra Richardson is the right example. In the query (which I mentioned in my prev. post here), the posts between me and User:CASSIOPEIA can be reffered for more details. Its just below the line of division soon after my chat with User:Nosebagbear. (The reason behind the line was just to create a division between query & clarification) --Gpkp [u • t • c] 08:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Gpkp, I must not be following. The fact that your accepts are autopatrolled and CASSIOPEIACASSIOPEIA's are not means everything is working correctly. You have the autopatrol PERM and they don't. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:, User:CASSIOPEIA has the autopatroll PERM verify. User:CASSIOPEIA got the autopatrolled flag on ′17:53, 26 December 2018 (UTC)′ and User:CASSIOPEIA AfC-accepted Deborra Richardson on ′03:15, September 21, 2019‎′.
--Gpkp [u • t • c] 11:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. Mz7 (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Requesting for ban/block of Object404 for insisting on preserving contentious content on RJ Nieto which are poorly sourced and cited. The article has sections that use citations irrelevant or not even discussing what it supposed to be a reference to. The article also cites Facebook posts and a website memebuster which both fails as reliable sources as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources Yet Object404 insists that memebuster is a "reliable source" refering to a Talk page he himself created. He argues that memebuster has been "cited by CNN" but that doesn't make it reliable. News outlets cite blogs but that does not mean they are verified sources. News outlets also cite social media posts of random people. Memebuster is a blog written by anonymous people of unknown credentials. I have edited the article to remove poorly sourced and contentious materials but Object404 insists on preserving the contentious and poorly sourced version of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by NoNDeSCRiPT (talk • contribs) 04:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Although this may be a BLP case, this seems way too premature for a block/ban. It doesn't even seem to be a discussion ripe for AN yet. AFAICT, it only involved a single revert. And they did point to a discussion which suggested memebuster may be an RS although in an unrelated talk page and with only one other participant I don't think it really establishes anything. It's possible Object404 was the editor who originally added the info, I'm not sure, but that was over a year ago. I don't zero recent attempt to discuss BLP with Object404. Heck they don't even seem to have been notified of this thread as the big boxes say you must do although I appreciate they are easier to miss on mobile. I suggest Object404 is reminded of our strong sourcing requirements and the need for being conservative and to discuss significant concerns before info is added /back for BLPs, and further help is sought at either WP:BLP/N or WP:RS/N if need be. Nil Einne (talk) 05:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

BTW, I wrote the above without looking at the disputed content, since it didn't seem necessary. Now that I've look at it, it seems even clearer cut a case of not something for AN. While it's true Facebook was cited, these sometimes seem to be posts by the subject themselves and are used simply as additional citations for when the posts have been criticised as covered in RS. Often quoting the original post in such instances, so it can be viewed in entirety, is fair enough and in any case can be discussed somewhere appropriate and doesn't seem the sort of problem requiring urgent removal. Some of the other cases I'm not so sure but still I didn't see anything close to being of concern from a single revert. Nil Einne (talk) 06:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC) 11:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Nil Eine. NoNDeSCRiPT has been repeatedly deleting properly cited content. -Object404 (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you guys take a look at the content he has been repeatedly deleting? He's been doing this for sometime now. -Object404 (talk) 14:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

No, you should be the one investigated. You re-reverted the article again when the administrator clearly stated that some of the statements are purely cited on Facebook alone, are considered original research and memebuster is not a reliable source. The discussion page you provided as a "proof" is insubstantial as it is only written by you per se (anecdotal evidence / also original research). Plus the Template in RJ Nieto article already prescribed that "contentious and libelous" content may be removed especially the poorly cited ones. So by insisting on reverting poorly cited version, and contentious content on a living person's article, you are both edit-warring and overstepping Wikipedia rules. As far as I can remember, the last time I edited the article (which was months ago) I've put some citation needed tags on the questionable content but until now the content remain uncited and poorly uncited. The article is clearly libelous. NoNDeSCRiPT (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

The page has now been locked due to continued edit warring. As I said in the first instance, this problem needs to be solved via discussion seeking help at BLPN or RSN if needed. Nil Einne (talk) 01:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

See talk page, Nondescript. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:RJ_Nieto#Social_Media_Entries_As_Citation -Object404 (talk) 02:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Both of you need to stop Discuss it on the talk page and let others join in via RfC. This is not the appropriate venue. A request for a ban over this is significant overkill. Buffs (talk) 22:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

 Handled

There has been some recent vandalism from neo-Nazi auto-confirmed troll accounts at Gas Chamber and Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege in case anybody with access to the magic 8 ball wants to have a look for possible sleeper accounts. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Some LTA or another. Blocked a sleeper. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, fellow admins! I have a few questions and thoughts regarding the situation where users request pre-emptive protection of their user page, or to subpages within their user space (excluding their user talk page), where no active vandalism, abuse, or disruption is actively in progress or occurring at the time of their request. A request was made today on RFPP by an editor who requested extended confirmed protection be applied onto their user page, where it has never been the subject to any vandalism or abuse, because he would like it restricted to only be able to be edited by extended confirmed editors. I responded by telling the user that ECP may not be doable due to policy, but that would go double check and review it to be absolutely sure. I'm certain that I've applied semi-protection onto user pages pre-emptively per their request in the past, and I honestly don't see a problem with it if the user is established and trustworthy, and hasn't had issues with violating WP:UPNOT.

However, I hadn't actually looked into this situation before, policy-wise. I had just granted these requests because I saw that other admins had always done the same thing; they were perfectly okay with applying pre-emptive page protection (usually always semi-protection) onto a page within an editor's own user space (but not their user talk page) if they simply requested it. I feel has been (or has become) the general "norm" regarding this situation and these requests. However, reading WP:UPROT (which references the closing statements on this discussion) state that any kind of pre-emptive or "automatic" protection of any pages within an editor's user space is not allowed, and that at least some level of need must exist before we can approve such user requests. I just feel like the general "norm", from what I've seen admins do consistently over many years, differs from what's stated within policy, and where I'd like to get input and thoughts from others and discuss this.

Do you agree that this is also what you observe when users make such requests? Should we perhaps be open to consider starting a discussion as to whether or not consensus may have changed in this area, and whether or not pre-emptive user-requested protection of pages within own user space should be okay? If so, what protection levels (or "maximum" protection level) can they pre-emptively request? Any kind of thoughts or input about this would be awesome and highly appreciated. I guess I kind of realized, following this request I received on RFPP, that I hadn't actually reviewed the policy on this, and I had been following what felt to be the "norm" and from what I've observed other admins do, and my thoughts went from there...

I'm going to decline the extended confirmed protection request on RFPP, but I'm going to be open to considering whether or not to start a discussion and proposal that semi-protection be fair to request and apply to someone's own user space pre-emptively (excluding their user talk page), but that'll depend on how this discussion goes and the input that others provide here. Thanks! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Speaking only for me, I fully protected my userpage (and have a very strong editnotice if someone thinks to try to edit it) just because of my personal preference. I have no strong feeling, just to note that at least I didn't think I was doing anything untoward when I did it in my userspace (and I have no intention of ever unprotecting it). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

The Blade of the Northern Lights - Good point. This is something that I know a handful of admins have done. Shoot, I self-protect pages within my own user space pre-emptively a lot (in order to prevent LTA abuse, vandalism, and other shenanigans that I often receive). I don't take issue with the admins who have done this. What I do take issue with is the fact that we consistently, routinely, and usually apply protection to user pages pre-emptively without much thought, and that policy states that we cannot do so. We self-protect pages within our own user space and a handful of us do so with full protection, then we turn around and tell editors "no" when they request a lesser-level of the exact same thing. That's not right of us to do that..... Either we have to stop this trend full-stop, or we need to open a discussion to have the relevant policies in this situation updated to reflect the changing consensus and norms, and how we actually handle it. I'm honestly thinking that the later is the right thing to do. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Oshwah, I don't mind full or semi protecting non-talk pages in my userspace, that see abuse. Those two options are generally good enough for me - and there's no real reason to use any other levels. Occasionally, I might TE protect a bot toggle or something. That being said - I generally hold off unless there's a history of - or at least a likelyhood of abuse. SQL^{Query me!} 03:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I fully-protected my user page because it has seen vandalism, not recently but in the past when I first became an admin and I think admin user pages are likely targets for vandals. I think I would refuse to protect a user page unless there has been vandalism (more than once) and then it would only be temporarily protected from unconfirmed or IP editors. You could call that a double standard and I couldn't deny that. I think admin user pages are more often targets. And if it is a persistent vandal, it is often better to give a short block to the vandal rather than protecting a user page.

I think extended confirmed protection should be limited to areas under sanctions and that would not include user pages. But I'll admit that I only protect highly vandalized articles when I come across them on the noticeboards or alerts to my talk page and am not used to responding to editors' requests to protect user pages on RFPP. I'm surprised to read from you, Oshwah, that it is typical for admins to grant editor requests to protect user pages if they haven't been vandalized. I didn't think it was okay to provide pre-emptive protection. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Liz - It may be possible that my thoughts don't reflect what others have seen or believe, and that I'm just crazy. :-P This is why I wanted to start a discussion about it here and ask. I'd rather speak up about it and bring collective thoughts to the table than sit silent. My observations led me to believe the opposite, and that granting pre-emptive protection to user pages and user space was okay if it was requested and it was reasonable. But define "reasonable", and this is where I (and likely many others) will likely differ in that definition... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I personally decline protection unless there has been vandalism. If the user has been subject to harassment or vandalism in the past and requests preemptive protection of a new page in their userspace, I will grant it since there's no need to wait until the troll inevitably returns and trashes that page too. Reaper Eternal (talk) 04:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think anything should be preemptively protected. I would happily protect any page for a limited period if a problem had been demonstrated, but it would not help to start a trend where, instead of collecting user rights, people can collect user space protection. I have seen useful wikignoming of user pages, in fact I've done it. Obviously anyone who substantively changes other user's pages should be firmly opposed, but this is a wiki! Johnuniq (talk) 04:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

My own opinion, as cited at my essay User:MelanieN/Page protection: User talk pages can be protected briefly if they are under attack. A person’s main user page should not usually need protection, since they are automatically semi-protected by a filter. User pages and user talk pages do not get protected just because the user asks for it; there must be a demonstrated need.

This is policy per WP:Protection policy and I can't seen any need to change it. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN - I think you're absolutely right, despite my thoughts on this situation that I expressed initially. I'm open to applying protection to user space following a request, but having thought about this more in depth since opening this discussion, I believe that protecting users from further abuse, threats, vandalism, and trolling was my underlying reason for being so open to accepting user requests so loosely (other than what I observed to be the "norm"); the requests mainly came from people who needed it. Others have mentioned that past abuse is enough grounds to grant their request, as there is a need and there is a possibility that it'll happen again if they participate in areas that result in retaliation and trolling, such as recent changes patrolling. I think that this is the way that I've felt all along, but haven't self-reflected or self-evaluated upon, since I went with what I thought was the "norm" and what I believed to have observed. I'm happy that I created this discussion and expressed my thoughts and observations. This is an open project with the principle that you can edit anything, and (like you said) there's already an edit filter in place to prevent the typical disruption from occurring onto the user space. Thank you for your input here; it's helping me to self-evaluate my initial thoughts and opinion, and I appreciate it very much. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree that once a user in good standing has received abuse, any reasonable request for protection from the user should be accepted. By reasonable, I mean there should be a plausible reason to think protection is useful. A couple of random vandals would not qualify as abuse. Johnuniq (talk) 05:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Johnuniq - I agree; that's a perfectly reasonable threshold to use when deciding whether or not protection to another editor's user page is appropriate. Thank you for providing your thoughts and input. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I protect pages in user-space only if there has already been disruption (so there must be the "demonstrated need"), not preemptively. I also try to keep it short, especially on user talk-pages....all more ore less complying with policy. Lectonar (talk) 06:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I used to protect on request but no longer do so. As MelanieN pointed out WP:Protection policy exists and is clear. WP:Protection policy#User talk pages "User talk pages are rarely protected, and are semi-protected for short durations only in the most severe cases of vandalism from IP users." and WP:Protection policy#User pages "Base user pages (for example, the page User:Example, and not User:Example/subpage or User talk:Example) are automatically protected from creation or editing by unconfirmed and IP users." CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not a fan of preemptive protection in the general case. That said, I've observed one exception to the policy today which seems to enjoy consensus: WP:RIP protecting. --Izno (talk) 13:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'm happy to leave it to admin discretion. Most admins prefer to see some vandalism first, but I see no reason to make this a rule - we have enough rulescreep as it is. Likewise, if an admin merrily protects all userpages upon request, I'm not going to worry my noggin about it. YMMV. KillerChihuahua 13:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

  Sorry, but admin discretion isn't supported per WP:ECP. Buffs (talk) 15:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

  Nonsense, admin discretion is always applicable for virtually any admin action. There is nothing in ECP to say otherwise. It only states "where semi... (is) ineffective" and the admin must determine that. What is the threshold for effectiveness? etc. KillerChihuahua 15:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

  I would say it has to have been at least attempted, not just "I request it". Buffs (talk) 17:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I strenuously oppose any protection of any page where it isn't warranted. This is the encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit, not "well, I can protect things under my control"...no you shouldn't. WP:OWN addresses this in detail. High vandalism or pages crucial to WP operation = fine. But an emphatic no on ECP! There are VERY specific reasons that ECP should be invoked and they are spelled out at WP:ECP. ECP should NEVER be a first resort, but a last resort when all else has failed. Every time we invoke some sort of page protection, it takes away from "anyone can edit." Now, if we collectively change our minds about that, fine. I would support it, but a discussion here does not change policy. Buffs (talk) 15:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Buffs You are aware that this is a discussion about User pages, not namespace pages. Other than a collaborative effort to a future article, what reason would you have to be editing pages in another users space? Why would you feel so "strenuously" about it? — Ched (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ched: I'm aware.

• WP:OWN: "All Wikipedia content—articles, categories, templates, and other types of pages—is edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or how high-standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page...Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. Nevertheless, they are not personal homepages, and are not owned by the user. They are part of Wikipedia and must serve its primary purposes; in particular, user talk pages make communication and collaboration among editors easier... While other users and bots will more commonly edit your user talk page, they have rights to edit other pages in your user space as well. Usually others will not edit your primary user page, other than to address significant concerns (rarely) or to do routine housekeeping, such as handling project-related tags, disambiguating links to pages that have been moved, removing the page from categories meant for articles, or removing obvious vandalism and/or BLP violations."
• WP:PP: "Where semi-protection has proven to be ineffective, administrators may use extended confirmed protection to combat disruption (such as vandalism, abusive sockpuppetry, edit wars, etc.) on any topic. Extended confirmed protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against disruption that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used to privilege extended confirmed users over unregistered users in valid content disputes on articles not covered by Arbitration Committee 30/500 rulings. Extended confirmed protection may be applied by an administrator at their discretion when creation-protecting a page."

No where in our policies is what is described permitted. In fact, by such omission, it is specifically excluded. As stated above, if we change our policies, I'm not all that against adding an exception for User pages within some narrow guidelines, but it still needs to be spelled out as an exception and the circumstances under which we're making an exception. Buffs (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not an admin thinks that protecting their own pages is within admin discretion, the optics are bad. Adminship is supposed to be "no big deal", and is granted so that the admin may help the encyclopedia by carrying out tasks for which the community is not willing to grant permission to all editors. An admin protecting his own pages or pages he has been actively editing, no matter what the provocation, is not appropriate. If protection is needed for a page where an admin may have a conflict of interest, then another uninvolved admin should be asked to look at the situation and decide whether protection is appropriate. I also think admins should also avoid protecting any page that has not been the subject of recent vandalism, disruptive edits, or edit warring. - Donald Albury 21:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

"An admin protecting his own pages or pages he has been actively editing, no matter what the provocation, is not appropriate" (emphasis mine). I have a pretty thick skin, but I doubt there would be many members of the community who would think it was inappropriate for me to protect my own user space when a serial sock is detailing their rape fantasies involving me on my talk page, or when an administrator's family members are being explicitly threatened. To say it's always inappropriate makes me think you've never actually experienced the depth of abuse that can be levied upon some of our admin corp and functionaries. If anyone thinks I'm going to just allow such threats to be levied at me and wait for another admin to come save me from my "conflict of interest", they're wrong. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd second that. I've literally been accused of murder here on WP. If I'd been an admin, WP:IAR and a page protection would have been up instantly. That's reasonable and NOT what we're talking about here. Buffs (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2019 (UT

All I am saying is that an admin should ask another admin to protect their user pages (or other pages where they are involved) rather than doing so themselves. Non-admins cannot protect their own pages, why should admins do so? If one of your personal pages is being attacked, there surely is another admin who will be willing to protect it. But, leave that judgment up to someone else. - Donald Albury 23:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

No thank you. There's nothing in policy or practice that requires me to do so.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• We give people wide latitude over their user pages, and any half-reasonable request to protect seems to be in line with that. User talk pages would only be protected against ongoing trolling or vandalism. That's also in line with how admins have historically managed their own pages (and admins are just users with extra rights, not special people). I am OK with semiprotection of user pages, but not user talk pages unless they are subjects of long term abuse. Thanks, Oshwah, for bringing a genuinely interesting and novel question here. Guy (help!) 23:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

JzG - You're welcome, and I appreciate the gratitude and the kind words. Thank you :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I have no use for them as I have no intention of returning to editing and will be scrambling the password on this account shortly. Mélencron (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done, sadly. We're sorry to see you go. GAB^gab 14:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

This is heartbreaking. You have done fantastic work in the elections sphere Mélencron. I hope you will reconsider before scrambling your password. - MrX 🖋 18:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, fellow administrators! It's that time of the year again! :-) I try to post a yearly reminder to this noticeboard for all admins, and ask that you take a few moments and go through the list of indefinitely blocked IP addresses and ranges, locate any indefinite blocks that you've placed, and review them. If there are accidental blocks that you've placed on any IP addresses or ranges indefinitely (heh, I know that I've done this a few times in the past), please take a moment to remove those blocks. If there are indefinite IP address or range blocks that you've placed intentionally, please review them and verify whether or not the indefinite duration is still necessary. Obviously, if they're not, you'll want to either set the duration to expire at some point in time, or remove the block completely. Taking the time to review the indefinite IP and range blocks you've placed will help assure that we only apply and maintain blocks and other sanctions and restrictions if they're correct, accurate, and necessary, and avoid collateral damage and having any old or outdated blocks affect innocent users. Thanks for taking the time to do this, and I wish everyone an excellent day and happy editing! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder, Oshwah! -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Ponyo - No problem; always happy to help! ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

There are a number there created by Admins who are no longer around or are no longer Admins, including a couple who are blocked. User:Xeno you're obviously still around, do you want to comment on yours or just let other Admins deal with them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 13:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Except the one placed at request of the school district administrator, these all appear to be modifications of existing indef blocks (mostly converting talk page protection to talk page restriction). I personally have no issue with those being lifted, but you might want to check with the original blocking administrator.

Also in general I have no issue with other administrators modifying my past administrative actions, except those marked as done in an arbitration capacity (in which, consult the current committee). –xeno^talk 14:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Someone asked at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge (which is the wrong place, but that's neither here nor there) for Draft:Bad Apple!! to be moved to Bad Apple!!. The problem seems to be the double exclamation marks match an entry in the MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. Is there some reason why I shouldn't complete this move for the person? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 02:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

It's matching an entry that is meant for generic vandalism page moves. If that's the legitimate name for the article, then it's totally fine to move it to that title. ST47 (talk) 03:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done by JJMC89. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Dear sysop, I got a request:

Can you delete the user page User:AbdulZakir? Reason: Spam-only account: Spambot. Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker (talk) 09:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for finding this. It looks like everything has been taken care of. By the way, on English Wikipedia, you can report spam-only accounts to WP:AIV. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

In the future, you can request page deletions by applying a speedy deletion tag on the page if its actually meets at least one of the criteria. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

This notification is to report behaviour by Snooganssnoogans (S) on the Brexit article and request a topic ban.

A few days ago I had an edit to that article reverted several times by S. I took it to the relevant talk page and the discussion about it is here. I added my edit was back in, there being a clear majority in my favour. 4:1, no-one was on S's side. I made the point that S had lied in his or her edit summary of one of the reversions. [here]. This falsehood continued in the discussion. When S said "There was a RfC (the most embarrassing one I've ever witnessed on Wikipedia) where editors decided not to include a peer-reviewed study on this very subject." s/he was referring to this But editors didn't decide one way or another - there was an even split, followed by administrator judication.

Brexit is a highly contentious subject, which makes it one over which editors must pay special attention to fairness and their allowing information to be presented which they disagree with. Unfortunately, with the edit under discussion there, S appeared to disagree with that concept, writing that "a working paper, which flies in the face of the broad assessment by economists, should not be included..." But the working paper was not just a snappy judgement by whoever, it was a survey undertaken by the Central Bank of Ireland. Therefore. the fact that it came to a conclusion contrary to information already presented in the article and supported by academic surveys (forecasts) is not relevant. Wikipedia is all about fairness and balance. We all know this.

So there were major problems with S's arguments.

Now all this would be something not unheard of it were not for the following. Other editors have raised the question of WP:OWN in relation to S. Octoberwoodland did so in the discussion linked above, while the comments of PaleCloudedWhite in the same place also relate to it. Futhermore, PCW drew attention to this unsolicited post by another editor on his Talk page, which says: "Don't bother editing the Brexit article, Snooganssnoogans will revert you. He owns the article (WP:OWN). Just look at his talk page to get an idea of his conception of a collaborative encyclopedia. The only way to shut him up would be to make a consensus building talk, as I think that most people agree that the Brexit page cannot only rely on academic studies..."

Not surprisingly, S refuted the idea of him or her being involved in WP:OWN, but then said "As someone who has added pretty much every academic study to this Wikipedia article..." - which kind of flies in the face of that refutation.

I also draw attention to the last comment on the Talk discussion about my edit, wbich says: "Got to laugh about the warnings on the talk page. I did a similar thing in User:Knox490's talk page when he started editing saying "Just to give you a heads up, there is a long history of people raising similar points to you about this page.....and a long history of people giving up due to the aggressive a relentless push back from a small group of editors. Not to discourage you, but be prepared to put in a lot of time and effort if you want to change anything." " Surely Wikipedians should not have to put up with the kind of behaviour being talked about? It is wearing. It puts good editors off of Wiki, sometimes permanently.

A day or so ago, in that same discussion, I wrote: "I feel that should there be the same kind of activity again here on the Brexit article, it really should be reported." S duly "obliged" with more reversions. I had by then read a lot of S's talk page, which shows this (discussion with an Admin about avoiding a ban) and a multitude of 3RR warnings.

I am of course far from being the only editor who has had edits to the Brexit article reverted by S. Asarlaí has also experienced it. See here. And I should add that IMO Asarlaí's contributions are exemplary, far superior to mine.

I would like it to be possible to make good edits to the Brexit article without there being any risk of reversion for spurious reasons by S.

Two more edits by me were reverted by S overnight. One in particular I am bringing to attention. This is the comparison. S uses wording in his or her edit summary which frankly I find distasteful. But much more important is the problem with the reversion. A study which makes a forecast of something is a forecast. It cannot be anything else, no matter how reputable the people or organisation responsible. So the phraseology "It forecasted that Brexit would ..." (my words) is correct. Whereas the statement "The study found that Brexit would..." (S's words) cannot be anything other than incorrect, because the study is a forecast, and therefore saying that something would happen, when it is only what the study says, is a misrepresention. This may be considered a minor point - I disagree. I wouldn't and couldn't of course make the following point in the article, due to SYNTH , (although if I noticed an RS that made the point I'd include it) but there were a multitude of pre- and post-referendum forecasts and studies which said that a pro-Brexit vote would be next to cataclysmic. Yet employment in Britain has as it stands right now never been higher. So study after study turned out to be so much waste paper. And therefore to say that something will or would be the case in the future wrt. Brexit is itself a contentious thing to say. But saying something is forecasted, no problem with that. I have not taken this to Talk:Brexit as talk discussions take up a lot of time. This has, too, but it's far more important.

I feel that there is a major issue with S. By coincidence, at the very top of this noticeboard, in this discussion, yet another editor is alleging harassment by S. And that's on top of all that I have already written about. How many reports are needed? There are probably more that I haven't seen. I regret that I have to ask for a topic ban on Snooganssnoogans for Brexit-related articles. Thank you. Boscaswell talk 08:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• I haven't examined all the points raised, but it's hard to fault the revert by Snooganssnoogans at 12:07, 12 September 2019. The edit summary was "remove partisan commentary used as a rebuttal to academic research" and examining the edit suggests that summary is very accurate. From the ref, "new analysis was conducted by researchers at Wageningen University & Research (WUR) in the Netherlands, rated the world’s top university for agricultural research". The ref also said that a fisherman who had founded the Fishing for Leave group, disagreed. Articles should be based on the best available sources. Johnuniq (talk) 10:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I haven't time to post anything of substance, but would request that this thread is not closed down quickly without thorough examination of the situation. As I have stated on the article talk page, my belief is that Snooganssnoogans is only interested in the Brexit article presenting a negative view of Brexit, and is hostile to material contrary to that perspective. I suspect that there are several editors who no longer edit the article due to the aggressive stance of Snooganssnoogans, who, in my view, edits the article so it is not "Brexit", but rather "Wikipedia's assessment on whether Brexit is a good thing or a bad thing". PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Significant investigation would be needed to check that, but on this one point (which I found by looking at recent edits), it is standard procedure for an article to state X where X is an assertion backed by academic research from (according to the ref) a leading authority on the topic. Johnuniq (talk) 10:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
    • This is rich. In a recent RfC, PaleCloudedWhite argued that a peer-reviewed study on this topic should be excluded.[9] However, when a working paper on the very same subject that reached an opposite conclusion was being considered for inclusion on the talk page, PaleCloudedWhite failed to stick to his principled position and he did not advocate for the exclusion of the working paper.[10] A principled consistent editor would stick to the same position, regardless of whether the research in question reached a pro- or anti-Brexit conclusion. One example why editing on the Brexit article is dysfunctional. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• I am happy to topic ban Boscaswell as requested for advocating barely-sourced polemic in a contentious article. Yes, the Brexit article is, overall, negative towards Brexit. When the government's own research shows the likelihood of massive disruptions to trade, interruptions in the supplies of key medicines and food, and inflation, and every single mainstream economist puts the impact at between 5% and 10% shrinkage of the UK economy, and when there's a risk of reigniting the Troubles and the Cod Wars, it's really quite hard to say much positive about it (unless you arte a tax exile hedge fund investor and are have massive short positions on the pound and UK companies, of course, in which case it's looking pretty rosy). Guy (help!) 11:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• The WP:OWN accusations stem from the fact that various editors hate the fact that the Brexit article clearly and comprehensively explains the consensus in the economic literature that Brexit will harm the British economy, and have forcefully argued that the article should omit this relevant fact - when they try to scrub this content in the absence of consensus, I revert them. When editors are not arguing for scrubbing peer-reviewed research, they want to include rebuttals by politicians of the peer-reviewed research (e.g. "Studies XYZ say Brexit will adversely the British economy, but Boris Johnson says it will make the British economy stronger") - when they do in the absence of consensus, I revert them. See this Wired article for a decent summary of the discussions on the Brexit page.[11] That Wikipedia should rely on peer-reviewed research and academic assessments, and that academic research should not be rebutted by partisan actors are long-standing principles that I've applied consistently across Wikipedia. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• As for the specifics in OP, my stance is very simple: We cannot include a working paper that reaches conclusion A on issue X if we exclude a peer-reviewed study that reaches conclusion B on the same issue. That's a brazen violation of WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. Either both are included or neither. I explicitly said in the talk page discussion that my preferred position was to include both. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I regret that Snooganssnoogans is continuing to cloud the issue, by re-stating his or her anger about the exclusion of “a peer-reviewed study that reaches conclusion B on the same issue”. I made the point several times in the Talk page section above-mentioned that the peer-reviewed study under contention was one of the possible effect on investment values. Yet the subsection that it was eventually excluded from was the UK financial sector, which an industry - not the same thing. At least one editor made that point in the discussion of whether or not it should be included. Further, there was no uconsensus in that discussion, so no precedence was established. Ergo, the argument is invalid. Boscaswell talk 17:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

You should stop regurgitating comments made by random Wikipedia editors (OP is full of 'random users XYZ said this about Snoogans"). This study[12] is about the UK financial industry, regardless of what some random editor who did not read the study claimed on a talk page once. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Guy, you wrote “I am happy to topic ban Boscaswell as requested for advocating barely-sourced polemic in a contentious article.“

1. I wasn’t aware that any such request had been made?

2. You would topic ban an editor for one such transgression?

Or was the comment a curious case of sarcasm? I’m confused. Boscaswell talk 17:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

1. Could be referring to the heading of this thread. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

^This, and/or Guy could be referring to the Boomerang; as for the OP, without prejudice to either position at this time, I'd refer you to the fact that we needn't give equal validity to viewpoints to satisfy NPOV, nor should we as it appears in this case. In any event I still think this is mostly a content dispute. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

But then the over-riding concept must always be, as stated in the guideline you quoted, John M Wolfson, Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. Thinking along those lines, of fairness in particular, in the case of the legal establishment in the US, judges who have strongly-held views on a subject must disqualify themselves where their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Does the same principle apply in Wikipedia disputes? Boscaswell talk 20:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, fairly as described by reliable sources, not by politicians or the general public. And there is a form of recusal here on Wikipedia, but it applies only to actual conflicts of interest, paid editing, and/or close personal connections, rather than merely having a strong opinion on something. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, WP:INVOLVED for users with advanced permissions or acting as such. Uninvolved users may also be summoned to close RFCs, and depending on the contention in the RFC, should generally be the ones to do so. --Izno (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

None of which situations apply to the underlying dispute at hand, IMO, which is about potentially-tendentious editing and nothing more. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The fundamental problem is one of false balance. The supermajority view of professional economists is that Brexit will be economically damaging to the UK. There are, to be sure, a handful of dissenters, and some primary research which lies in the long tail of the normal distribution of estimates, but there's no way to argue that the median is anything other than a substantial economic detriment.

Leavers have discounted these predictions since day 1, calling them "project fear". Before the advisory referendum it was predicted that some major UK car makers - Ford, Honda, JLR, Mini, Nissan , Toyota and PSA/Vauxhall all of which are foreign-owned - would scale back UK operations. This was dismissed as "project fear". Since the vote, investment in the sector has fallen from a run-ate of £2.5bn per annum or thereabouts to £90m, according to the SMMT. Honda is not jusrt scaling back, it is closing its Swindon plant. PSA is closing Ellesmere Port. Ford is closing Bridgend, the largest engine plant in Europe. Nissan has dropped plans to build new models in the UK. JLR is moving Land Rover production to Slovakia. So the realities, even before the deadline, are actually considerably worse than original forecasts. And that will affect, for example, the University of Birmingham, a significant proportion of whose engineering graduates go to Ford and JLR.

So yes, you can cherry-pick the occasional rosy estimate, but when the government's own Yellowhammer documents, the IMF and numerous other sources all predict 5%-10% shrinkage oft he UK economy, you don't get to offset that with a single document by the Irish central bank that thinks maybe UK banking won't be that hard hit for example. Especially when the big accountancy and consulting firms are all predicting large profits helping banks to move out of London to Dublin, Frankfurt and Paris. No passporting? No deal. The determination of hard Leavers to be outside of the free movement zone is a killer for international banks with European hubs in London (i.e. my customers), and you can bet your life that Frankfurt and Paris, especially, will be falling over each other to offer them deals, because they have been eyeing these prizes for a long time.

In fact, I have yet to see a single tangible benefit of Brexit proposed. Even Leavers coned it could be 50 years before the economy recovers. There are no sunlit uplands to be had. A few businesses will profit by lower wages and destruction of employment rights, and perhaps the more speculative goal of Leavers to set up Europe's offshore tax haven might come to fruition, but Europe is clamping down on that and I don't see them giving us a free pass. The Russian mob will be happy to hoover up some London real estate, of course, but for the majority of Brits it's going to be brutal, and the currency markets agree: the pound is at a historic low against the Euro and the US Dollar, albeit on a slide that started with the manifestly ineffective Austerity policies.

Now, you can still decide that you hate the EU so much that it's a price worth paying. That would be an ecumenical matter. Straight bananas, and all that. But Wikipedia is about the mainstream view, representing all significant views according to their weight, and the mainstream view, for all that half of the UK is in denial about it, is that Brexit is an economic clusterfuck. So this is really very much akin to the creationists arguing for equal weight in evolution articles. Guy (help!) 21:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @JzG:, I agree with the policy related part of the above (on a personal basis I agree with all of it, but the latter part is not particularly relevant to the TBAN discussion), but dear god...paragraphs, man! Nosebagbear (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Soz. Kept getting ECd and shit. @Guy (help!) 21:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I have inserted paragraph breaks into Guy's long comment, to increase its readability. Guy, if you object, feel free to revert. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

As Nosebagbear commented, that spiel was not particularly relevant. It also clouded the issue of that one content dispute. And was misleading. Unless one wishes to blame every problem concerning UK industry on Brexit.

Clouded the issue? Yes, because that one edit was pertinent only to the UK financial sector, not to the rest of UK industry, service or otherwise.

Misleading? Yes. Taking some of those vehicle manufacturers one by one, JLR had to close plants for long breaks some time ago, due to collapsing demand. Nothing to do with Brexit. Nissan models: it is manufacture in Sunderland of their luxury Infiniti brand which is to be shut down - it hadn’t been a success and they are pulling out of Western Europe altogether. Again, nothing to do with Brexit. PSA: this company took over the Vauxhall brand and plant. This has had falling sales for years, decades even. Very little to do with Brexit. Ford closed down its UK vehicle manufacturing operations years and years ago. I presume that this was because some execs with incredible foresight realised that Brexit was inevitable. See what I mean?

Again I ask, is it legitimate - as asked on my next previous edit - for Wikipedian Admins with very, very strongly-held views to make judgments on those with whom they disagree strongly on content matters? This question was not the purpose of my original post. I thought that there was going to be a “fair hearing”, I had some faith in the “judicial” machinations of Wikipedia. As things stand at the moment, it looks as if I was wrong. That faith I had has been severely shaken, if not completely destroyed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boscaswell (talk • contribs) 19:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Please make a substantive response to the points raised above. I was the first to comment and mentioned a recent edit that I had investigated. Do you agree with what I wrote? If so, please state that so we know the boundaries of the situation. If not, please respond to the substance of what I wrote. Similarly for JzG's comments—respond to the substance rather than using debating tactics to deflect. Johnuniq (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not about content, it's about conduct. You came here to complain about Snoogs and showed evidence that he had made unambiguously correct edits. That suggests to me that Snoogs ain't the problem here.

My views on Brexit are not exactly a secret, but have nothing to do with the well established fact that anything claiming benefit or zero detriment to the UK economy from Brexit is an outlier. Just watch the FOREX markets. Every time exit is pushed out or becomes less likely, the pound rises, and when no-deal became a real possibility after BoJo took over, the arse dropped out of it completely. The huddled masses can be fooled (we know this from the history of early 20th Century Russia and Germany). The currency markets are much harder to hoodwink. That's why George Soros is a billionaire, that's how Rees-Mogg is cashing in right now, and the truly bizarre thing is that the Tory Party, the party of the Blessed Margaret, can see the market positions and is putting its fingers in its ears and chanting "Laa laa laa I can't hear you" - the last time we tried this was withthe ERM, and that did not end well (though a friend of mine bought an E-type with the bonus he made betting against the pound that week).

As one who grew up in the late 70s and 80s, at one of the oldest and most conservative schools in the world, I find this stunning. About the only thing on which Thatcher and Ted Heath agreed was that membership of the EU was a good thing for the economy. Thatcher got us far and away the best deal of any member state, in fact. And the most troubling part for me is that it is not actually possible to work in or close to any area directly affected by Brexit without realising it's going to be bad. I work around banks and fintech. My friends are musicicans, doctors, professionals in IT and the motor industry. All these areas have seen brutal impacts already and expect far worse once we actually leave. Again, you can take the view that this is a price worth paying, that's not our problem to fix, but to deny that the price will be paid, and is already being paid, demands intellectual dishonesty, and that is our problem. Guy (help!) 14:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

JzG: It is not an encyclopaedia's job to seek 'The Truth' - either one way or the other - about a subject matter that, as part of its very nature, is a debate. It doesn't matter from an encyclopaedia's point of view if one position is right and the other wrong, or if one is more right than the other: unless the debate is framed in its entirety, readers will be left short-changed. That is one part of the issue here. The other is indeed the conduct of Snooganssnoogans. I posted here because I was pinged, and because more than one editor has, independently, commented that Snooganssnoogans 'owns' the article. I am not necessarily here because I wish to see anyone topic-banned, however I do believe that Snooganssnoogan's conduct should be questioned. In my view they are far too aggressive in seeking to make the article say certain things. The incident I give below is an example: how is it consistent with Wikipedia's processes for there to be a general support for forking a section of the article, then when the section is forked, Snooganssnoogans almost immediately reverts it back in? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:03, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

PaleCloudedWhite, This is not about WP:TRUTH, it's about reflecting the supermajority professional view of a subject. Per WP:UNDUE, we doo not give outliers more prominence in the name of "balance". That's what Boscaswell is demanding. In fact, he goes further and demands that Snoogs is topic banned for adhering to our policies against giving undue weight to minority viewpoints. Guy (help!) 10:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Of course the general view of economists should be stated and summarised, but the article is already very long and should not devote a significant portion of its text to what are still, despite people's professional standings, essentially predictions and forecasts about what may or may not transpire. Also, you have not addressed the second part of my comment, regarding the conduct of Snooganssnoogans. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

JzG, I wonder if you could be kind enough to offer a comment from Wikipedia's administration regarding the specific actions of Snooganssnoogans that I refer to above (namely edit warring against consensus)? Thankyou. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

PaleCloudedWhite, My response is, discuss it on Talk. This is what RfCs are for. Guy (help!) 11:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

JzG, it has already been discussed on talk, that is the point. Are you saying that when editors vote by eight to one to fork an article, then that counts for nothing because it hasn't been strictly formatted as an RfC? Is that your statement on how talk pages work? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

During that discussion, the section in question was trimmed by 40% and the content was forked to the other articles. What you're talking about is just a desire to scrub the article entirely of any text whatsoever on what the peer-reviewed research and academic assessments have to say. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The consensus was that the article was too large and that the impacts section should be split off. The article is now even larger than it was then, and the 'impacts' section (something of a misnomer, since Brexit hasn't happened yet) still occupies about 30% of the article, so the argument for splitting it off has not diminished. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

The argument that has gained traction at the Brexit article (espoused particularly by Snooganssnoogans) is that academic economic literature is the 'best quality' and must be used in preference to other sources regarding predicted economic effects of Brexit. This sounds very reasonable to the average Wikipedian, but it is a false narrative here, as Brexit is not a purely economic entity; indeed, it is primarily a political one, albeit with economic implications. But the insistence on citing economic studies has helped create an unbalanced and unwieldy article that is not likely to answer the fundamental question of readers as to why people voted to leave despite all the predictions of doom and gloom. That is the heart of Brexit, and this article barely addresses it. It should not be the purpose of the Brexit article to make an assessment on which side of the Brexit debate is 'right' by focussing on predictions of economic outcomes - particularly as economics is a social, not natural, science. Currently about 30% of the article is taken up by an "impacts" section, with significant text about the economic 'impacts', even though the UK hasn't actually left the EU yet. There was general support to split much of this off into a separate article, yet when it was split off recently [13], Snooganssnoogans reverted the text back in, stating that "this text should not be forked" [14]. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 03:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

It's hard to take Boscaswell seriously after the first couple of paragraphs. That RFC that's being referred to concluded with "maintain the status quo until a consensus is formed", which was to keep the peer reviewed study out. To accuse Snoogs of lying because "well ackshully there was no consensus and that's why the study can't be included" is at least as misleading. So then we get to the banking scenario. It does not fill me with confidence that in a dispute over reliable sources and neutrality, Bos cited a press release instead of the actual study. And looking at that study, the way it was included definitely makes Bos look like a tendentious POV pusher. In brief, that study was clearly included as a counter to dismal estimates of Britain's economic future. "Early estimates predicted [bad stuff]; however, a new study predicts the financial industry will be okay." However, by citing only the headline finding that "London will remain a large global financial center" and probably not even reading the actual study, key context is being missed. What the authors are concluding is that London's GFCI ranking will barely change, reflecting that it will remain one of the world's top financial centers in terms of competitiveness, even if 20% of its clients flee the country and/or the economy contracts by 3.8%. Using this as some kind of contrast with earlier research, Bos is either trying to push a POV or he didn't actually understand what he was citing. I'll allow him to let us know which it was. Either way, to have gotten so far as to drag another editor to ANI for disputing the inclusion of such indefensible content, I have to support Guy's suggestion that Boscaswell is topic banned from Brexit. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

So it looks like I’m gonna be topic-banned for an edit for which I didn’t actually read the survey, as proposed by an admin who abhors Brexit and brings up inaccurate bleuuggh about it, seconded by another who also misleads (this is WP:AN and not WP:ANI; I raised a series of points, not just one.) Anyway, my raising a series of points has been conveniently ignored. Into the too hard basket with it, let’s penalise that confounded bugger who dared raise the issue, eh? WP:OWN? Not just raised by me, there are several editors who did so, and are most likely, like me, completely over it. Anyway, go ahead, topic-ban me for a. having the nerve not to be a remainer while b. kicking up a fuss over a steamroller editor. Disgraceful behaviour. And by the way, if you’re gonna start topic-banning editors who don’t read surveys, there’ll be virtually no-one left. Snooganssnoogans, self-confessed king of the survey-citing editors, will be kicked out the door before you can say ‘Remoaner’. (Though I doubt that any of you guys will use that word.) So maybe this hadn’t been such a bad thing after all. Boscaswell talk 06:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your “consideration” of the points raised. Please don’t imagine that I’ll be responding further, or even reading any further comment here. It’s not possible to close my Wiki account, but if it was I would. As o said, my faith in the probity of Wikipedia has been destroyed. It was fast diminishing, and is now no more. All that having been said, it would be good if investigation could be given to the points raised by PaleCloudedWhite - who expresses him or herself exceedingly well and therefore deserves credit and an ear that both hears and listens - in addition to those raised by me re. Snooganssnoogans. “It would be good” I write. Go on, surprise yourselves. Boscaswell talk 07:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

As a point of information, it's not possible for anyone at Wikipedia to "close" your account, but you always have the option of scrambling your password. And, of course, you can always just walk away and do something else.

Just be careful, though, if you scramble your password and come back to edit with another account, you have to either declare who you once were, so that you won't be accused of sockpuppetry, or stay completely away from articles and subject areas you edited with this account, as well as avoiding old disputes with other editors, as you would be making a "WP:Clean start", and those are the conditions for that. If you walk away, and then come back and continue editing with the same account, there are no conditions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose all Tbans here First, Snooganssnoogans's editing style can be abrasive. They seem to work in topics with a few other like minded editors in such a way that editors without a compatible POV are shut out. That doesn't mean they have broken any rules or even that they won't listen to alternatives. Like minded editors are allowed to work on the same articles. If they are shutting out good edits then we have dispute resolution procedures to help. Like representatives democracy it's not always perfect but it's so hard to find a benevolent dictator these days. Boscaswell certainly should not be Tban'ed. There isn't strong evidence here of anything other than understandable frustration combined with inexperience. Sadly my feeling is the Tban suggestion had more to do with silencing a voice that didn't agree vs any reasonable protection of Wikipedia (the reason why we have tbans). From the outside looking in it seems like you have a group of experienced editors who don't want their view of the subject challenged. That challenge is coming from an editor who has much less experience navigating the Wikipedia ways and thus is both getting frustrated. That frustration, combined with less experience may be getting near a problem but our first resort should be understanding this is a good faith editor thus give them a hand rather than push them off the ladder. This complaint is a great example of needing a hand. I would suggest we close it, let them talk to an experienced, uninvolved editor or admin then decide how to best get consensus to fix the things they see as wrong with the Brexit article. If their posts on the Brexit page are like the opening post here, well I can see why they aren't getting any traction. Springee (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Springee wrote: “Snooganssnoogans's editing style can be abrasive. They seem to work in topics with a few other like minded editors in such a way that editors without a compatible POV are shut out. That doesn't mean they have broken any rules...”

Thank you, Springee, I agree.

So - forgive me for this plain-speaking comment - but it would be very, very helpful for the ongoing improvement of Wikipedia if all you Admins were to work out what you’re going to do about it. Work out how the rules can be changed such that what is grossly unfair editing behaviour can be stopped or even prevented. The status quo is failing, because it not only allows this behaviour, but Admins with the same POV cheer it on.

Being condescending to someone who in effect has brought this very important point to your attention is not a solution to anything. Lecturing that same someone about his point of view is not a solution to anything. Saying well done to the one lecturing with his POV is beyond useless. Admins responding to my OP have done all of those things; the lecturing happened repeatedly.

If you were to do that successfully and fairly, you would not only put Wikipedia in a far better light, but also gain some respect. Boscaswell talk 23:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, I just attempted to split down the size of the lede in the Brexit article, and as expected, User:Snooganssnoogans reverted the entire change and posted the following vitriolic edit summaries which are completely dishonest and threatening."restore the lede. it's bonkers to have a two-paragraph lede for something as massive as Brexit, but the desperate attempts to scrub the page of peer-reviewed research and academic assessments knows no bounds" and "the kind of in-the-weeds nonsense that some editors want in the lede out of desperation to shoehorn some pro-brexit propaganda in there". [15][16] What's disturbing about these statements is that I changed NO CONTENT WHATSOVER in the article. I simply moved the bottom three paragraphs into a section titled "summary" and moved the Table of contents up since the lede is way too large and other editors have tagged the article as needing liposuction performed on the lede, which contains a lot of materials which is too much for most readers. I did not at any time insert any "pro-Brexit" materials as alleged by this user. I don't plan to edit war, but it's time for someone to reign this editor in and stop their hostile, contentious editing style which prevents other more consensus based editors to be able to edit this article. Their constant edit warring and reversion of just about every edit made to this article by other editors is absolutely ridiculous, as well as their failure to observe any reasonable standards of working together with others and trying to get consensus. Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts but these edits were not useful because the lead should be a summary of the article—hiding part of the lead in a new "Summary" section defeats the purpose of the WP:LEAD. People like to fiddle with articles like this, and adding a "too long" tag is a perfect example. However, it is obvious that the topic demands a long article so trying to squeeze it into someone's idea of an ideal length is not helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 06:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

And what did you think about those edit summaries John? – Levivich 14:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

The second one is remarkable - an admission that Snoogans is adding text that they describe as "in-the-weeds nonsense", in response to text added by someone else that Snoogans tried to revert out and described as "too in-the-weeds for the lede"[17]. So, either they are being pointy and making an edit that they believe to be detrimental, or they were being dishonest when they criticised the other editor's addition, and really they don't care about anything other than ensuring the article pushes a particular political position. Either explanation is indicative of a problematic approach to editing the encyclopedia. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

You seriously can't comprehend the following? This is not rocket science[18]: (1) The lede should not contain a discussion about the implications of Brexit for UK and EU law (because of WP:UNDUE), (2) If the lede is going to contain content on that issue, it should reflect the totality of RS content on that issue and not just some misleading unnuanced pro-Brexit propaganda about how the Brits are "taking the law back". In other words, if it is to be included, it should be WP:NPOV-compliant. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

We all comprehend and the general consensus is that you are adding extremely POV materials and positions to the Brexit article and will revert and edit war with anyone who adds content which contradicts your view of the world. The Brexit article is extremely slanted due to your editing and POV pushing of "academia only" and negative Brexit viewpoints. I have a suggestion -- how about you take a break of let's say a month (30 days) from editing the Brexit article so consensus based editors can add balanced content to the article without constantly having you revert and edit war with anyone or everyone you disagree with. As it stands, that article is inferior and unbalanced and it's mostly your doing. And you may want to review what an editor actually has done with an article in terms of edits before posting the types of dishonest edit summaries you did when all I did was move the table of contents around to break up the excessively long lede for cosmetic purposes which was suggested by another editor on the talk page who said the lede was too long. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

You think that your absurdly poor edit which removed all the content that you personally disliked from the lede (because "experts are idiots" or something along those lines), placed it in some bizarre new section just below the lede (to make it less visible), and turned the lede for Brexit (the by far most substantial issue in British politics since the end of the Cold War) into two meager paragraphs, is a good example of a great edit that was cruelly and unfairly reverted? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I removed NOTHING from the lede and I changed NO CONTENT or the order which the content appeared in the article. The edit I did was cosmetic only and was no different than placing a tag. One way to pare down the lede and make it concise is too determine a cutoff, split the text into a lower section, then other editors can come back and refine and reinsert relevant content and rework it. Most of what is in the lede doesn't all belong there without some refinement, but this process which should naturally occur as other editors review the content cannot happen when a lone wolf editor runs over everyone constantly and prevents any edits they disagree with from being placed in the article and completely ignores consensus of editors. And then when an editor disagrees with them they post this type of comment, "The lede is very large, so let's add some misleading nonsense to it." Can't make this shit up."[19] Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

"I removed NOTHING from the lede". This is just pure brazen straight-up lying.[20] Perfect example of why the Brexit page is dysfunctional. It's getting very tired to respond to these confused and deceptive comments. If anyone needs me, ping me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

As is pointed out above, a section called "summary" is the same as the lede. My edits moved the TOC to split the second paragraph and it left no substantive changes to the order of any text or comments in the lede. The article had exactly the same text and the same order, and I did that by design so that the main points raised in the lede could be individually addressed. None of your pet text was touched. The decision to split the content after the first two paragraphs was entirely arbitrary and based on the natural ordering of lede materials. And your bait and switch diff you displayed above does not support your allegation that I am lying about anything [21] Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

It seems that according to Snooganssnoogans, if Editor A adds text that Editor B thinks is undesirable, Editor B can revert it with an edit summary that says, "if this gets included, then it'll have to also include this", and just by virtue of saying that, it automatically comes to pass. Think of it as a kind of insurance policy, or future-proofing the article. I wonder why it's not mentioned at WP:BRD.....? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Octoberwoodland's above comment at 23:48, 21 September 2019 started with "I removed NOTHING from the lede". That is obviously untrue—compare the lead before and after this edit. Anyone denying that Octoberwoodland's edit removed text from the lead, appropriately enough in the context of Brexit, is using dishonest debating tactics, or is blatantly lying, or is clearly not sufficiently competent to be editing a complex topic. Johnuniq (talk) 23:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The diff you posted shows I just moved the TOC tag up. I tagged the remaining lede as "summary" which you yourself stated is the same as the lede. The way mediawiki works is there has to be some sort of anchor or the TOC won't show up in the right place. My apologies for posting the summary heading. Anyway, I'll try do to better next time. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

And at no time did I post any "pro-brexit" materials as alleged by Snooganssnoogans in his edit summaries, nor did I "purge academic assessments" from the article. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

And Brexit is not a complex topic, as much as people from the UK want everyone to think so. All the various peoples and governments in the UK have a long history (thousands of years) of fighting among themselves and with each other and the current Brexit situation, especially the position of Scotland in the Brexit mess, is a reflection of hundreds of years of infighting. I have spent many hours watching the House of Commons live debates on the issues of Brexit, and all the fighting and disagreement trying to understand all the points of view. The UK was very smart to retain their own currency system rather than go with the Euro, which has primed the UK economy to exit with a strong economic position. Post-Brexit the UK will be just fine. The Irish backstop issue is just another reflection of the infighting and historical conflicts. I understand Brexit very well, so all the negative studies and economic forecasts are not helping people to understand the world after Brexit. It's a tempest in a teapot as near as I can tell, the people in the UK should have hope and not being fed constant negative viewpoints. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

This comment is something everyone here should read, because this is a perfect encapsulation of what these disputes are about and the kind of editing I'm up against on the Brexit page. In other words, this is just "My own feelz and original research should supersede RS content, peer-reviewed research and expert assessments". Wikipedia policy, principled positions and consistency get thrown out of the window because editors believe they have a unique understanding of the subject and have a duty to make sure that the British people are "not being fed constant negative viewpoints" on the subject. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth. At no time have I ever placed any original research in the Brexit article, in fact, I have refrained from editing the article and worked through other editors on the talk page for the most part. So this is just another one of your misrepresented comments. I stopped directly editing the article after you reverted me twice.  :-) Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that the text that Snooganssnoogans added to the lead here wasn't in the body of the article at that time - is that correct? I've scanned the article as it existed then, but haven't found that text. Indeed, it was later added to the body by a different editor (here). Could Snooganssnoogans either point to where that text was within the article body, or confirm that it wasn't there? Thanks. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 12:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Seeing as Snooganssnoogans hasn't responded to my request, it seems right to assume that they did indeed add material to the lead that wasn't in the article body at that time. This leads to two further points. First, Snooganssnoogans claimed that the material they were adding to the lead had to be added for the reason of balance, but if this were the case, why did this only concern them when the other material had been added to the lead, and not when it was just in the body of the article, where it had resided for 2 weeks [22]? Secondly, there is a double standard being operated here, as shown by Snooganssnoogans' instructions to other editors generally to respect that the lead should only have information that is in the body e.g. [23], [24], [25], [26]. It is this kind of conduct - the twisting around of Wikipedia processes to suit their own argument at the time - that I believe is problematic with this editor. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: 30-day article ban for both editors

Proposing that both Snooganssnoogans (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Boscaswell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) be banned from editing the Brexit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article for 30 days. – Levivich 16:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support as proposer – Both editors continue to edit this article in a very WP:BATTLEGROUND way. Forget the edits themselves–forget the content dispute part of it–and just look at recent edit summaries:

  1. Bosca [27]: "Converse view on one of the fish studies *gasp* This is called balance ;-)"
  2. Snoog [28]: "this is a study. not random-ass speculation"
  3. Bosca [29]: "re-word sloppy phrasing...this is patently untrue and tbh ridiculous"
  4. Snoog [30]: "...this is not the place for incoherent partisan rhetoric..."
  5. Bosca [31]: "...Stuffing the article or any section with more opinions..."
  6. Snoog [32]: "removing unattributed fringe nonsense..."
  7. Bosca [33]: "Reverting another of Snoogans' edits, which had the effect eliminating any positive potential outcome and replacing it with overwhelmingly negative ones"
  8. Snoog [34]: "of course it's fringe nonsense..."

  Note that they're not just reverting each other, but also other editors. The high number of reverts and snarky edit summaries are part of that "red team/blue team" BATTLEGROUND method of editing. Look at Talk:Brexit and you see the same thing: a high number of edits, very few of them collegial or productive towards consensus-building.

  Though a broader TBAN was originally proposed in this thread, I think we should try something smaller first. I suggest a 30-day article ban to give both editors a "time out" from this article. Remove the primary combatants from the battlefield, and hopefully it'll stop being so much of a battlefield. Let the other editors work through the content issues without all the reverting and without the battleground environment. See what happens. Both Snoog and Bosca, upon returning after 30 days, will be unable to revert whatever consensus developed during their absence. Hopefully, that will encourage them to find a new way of editing the article–one that is built on collaboration rather than confrontation. – Levivich 16:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

What a shock: Levivich calling to get me banned for nothing? Every time someone a brings a complaint against me, no matter how meritless and weak, this editor must enter the fray calling for sanctions on me. Levivich has been on my case ever since he sought to scrub RS content from 2018 United States elections (because he personally disagreed with what the RS were saying - pretty much the same behavior that makes the Brexit article dysfunctional), and the dysfunction went so far that he even brazenly removed content[35] shortly after it was approved in a RfC (started by me).[36] Ever since, he's been in every discussion where someone raises a complaint about me to argue on behalf of the filer of the meritless complaints (when those filers are inevitably boomeranged) and/or saying I'm a huge problem that needs to be dealt with. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I think this is the second time I've entered the fray calling for sanctions against you. – Levivich 17:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose simplistic "solution" based on false equivalency. --Calton | Talk 17:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• Although I disagree with the tone of Levivich’s contention regarding my editing of the Brexit article - I saw myself as being loquacious and giving a helpful and healthy level of explanation of my edits in my edit summaries, which is rather different to the snappy and in some cases rude summaries of Snoogans - it may surprise you to learn that I’m OK with the proposal. If that’s what it takes to have Snoogans t-banned, then so be it. Time and again s/he’s been in a minority of one in Talk page discussions, time and again s/he continues in the same manner, making it very wearing and very difficult for other editors to proceed. Boscaswell talk 20:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• Not only do I NOT care if you're "OK" with a two-way article ban, the fact that you say explicitly that your intention is to get Snoogans t-banned means that not only I oppose it even more strongly, I would support topic-bnning YOU from the page. --Calton | Talk 00:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• General observation Imposing a 30-day restriction on any editor for something Brexit-related at this time is a singularly bad idea; that means that (depending on exactly when the sanction is imposed) the restrictions will expire either on or immediately before B-Day itself on 31 October, which is precisely when we don't want anyone remotely problematic touching what will on the day be Wikipedia's most-viewed article by multiple orders of magnitude. ‑ Iridescent 20:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support 40-day topic ban Extend it to 40 days per Iridescent. Edit warring isn't about being "right" but about how one goes about editing. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
• No action — understanding that you're trying to address snarky comments and repeated reverts on both sides Levivich, reading through the diffs it doesn't seem like things are that bad. Maybe both editors could just agree to take a break for a few days, try to calm things down when back, and then get 3O or dispute resolution after that. -Darouet (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Calton: simplistic "solution" based on false equivalency. Johnuniq (talk) 23:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I stated in the section above that the problem with Snooganssnoogans is their twisting of process to suit their argument - what I have elsewhere called a kind of disingenuous gerrymandering. But it doesn't just occur at the Brexit article. I looked at their recent contributions and selected this one at random, because the edit summary was a bit confrontational. Could an administrator who doesn't hold strong views on the article subject (Tulsi Gabbard) offer a possible explanation as to why, under the edit summary "she supports nurses?", the sentence "she supports GMO labeling" should have the link changed from the straightforward and obvious GMO to the strangely specific Genetically modified food controversies in Ghana? I did a quick google of "Tulsi Gabbard GMO Ghana" and nothing came up. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• ^A perfect example of the kind of clutching-at-straws mindset that motivates complaints against me in this discussion. The link should have obviously been to [37], but yes it's an outrageous crime, and an admin needs to "offer a possible explanation" for this completely unexplainable, outrageous behavior. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

The fact that you haven't described any of my other comments as "a perfect example of the kind of clutching-at-straws mindset" shows that you don't believe it can be applied to them. I ask administrators to look again at my complaints above, in which Snooganssnoogans:
- fights against an 8 to 1 vote to ensure their preferred text remains in the article
- counters the addition of what they regard as 'too detailed' text by adding more of what they call "in the weeds nonsense" in order to 'balance' it
- pre-empts the outcome of a discussion by saying - in an edit summary - that 'if you succeed in adding that, then I'll have to add this' - and then acts on it
- adds material to the lead that isn't in the article body, despite many times telling editors elsewhere that such actions aren't permissible.
Snooganssnoogans uses such aggressive tactics because - they like to claim - they're only acting to keep the article 'balanced', but this has always been in only one direction, and the result is that other editors - editors who have neither the time nor inclination to interact with such aggressive tententiousness - stop bothering to edit the article. One editor, who hasn't commented here, even posted on my talkpage to tell me not to edit the article - "Don't bother editing the Brexit article, Snooganssnoogans will revert you. He owns the article" (see here). "Don't bother editing" - is this what administrators want Wikipedia editors to be advising each other? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Agree with Calton that this is a false equivalency. Neutrality^talk 14:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I just swung by the requests for unblock category page and noticed that a lot of the entries have a block expiration of 49 years. not really a pressing matter, but thought I would just mention it. --Blackmane (talk) 07:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I already raised it with the bot operator. Presumably, he'll get around to fixing it when he has enough spare time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Looks like the blocks expired in 1970. Κσυπ Cyp   10:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

An RfC[38] has been closed on Tulsi Gabbard by Red_Slash, yet one editor, SashiRolls, refuses to acknowledge the validity of the closure and edit-wars to remove content agreed-upon in the closure. What should be done? (I posted about this on two other boards before being instructed that this was the right board for this) Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

First of all, @Snooganssnoogans: please notify SashiRolls (as required). Second, please provide diffs when making accusations. Thirdly, the main question here seems to be whether Red Slash's closure of the RfC is correct. Based on what was said at the Help Desk, it seems several users disagree. If SashiRolls has edit warred, then you should file a report at WP:AN/EW.

I didn't advise you to come here, but I advised SashiRolls to do so (sorry if I wasn't clear). According to WP:CLOSE, WP:AN is the venue that should be used for challenging RfC closures. Therefore, I propose that you file a report at WP:AN/EW if you wish to do so, but otherwise, that this section is used to discuss what seems a point of contention: was Red Slash's closure of the RfC a correct determination of consensus? I will notify Red Slash. --MrClog (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

IMO especially since it's been ~12 days, there's no point us having a discussion on the whether the closure was fair until and unless someone actually brings it here to challenge. Since Snooganssnoogans does not appear to disagree with the closure, there's no reason for us to discuss it solely due to their concerns. So either SashiRolls or someone else who disagrees brings it here then fair enough. The one exception would be Red Slash since it's well accepted that closers can bring their closure for discussion if they feel there are concerns or if they're unsure or just want a sanity check. Nil Einne (talk) 08:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

If SashiRolls want to challenge a close, they should first speak to the closer, then bring it here. If they are edit warring over the close, this would be a problem, but as MrClog said, we need diffs and frankly I'm not seeing the problem. They did undo the close once about 12 days ago [39] and as per my earlier comment I don't think this was the right way to challenge the close, but given it was a single time, not something us worth worrying about on AN even if it just happened. Someone could have just told them it's not the right way to challenge the close and revert which ultimate is I think what happened. After they reverted the close, they added some further comments [40], if the close had been properly undone this would not be a problem but since it wasn't really they shouldn't have but ultimately this stemmed from the way they undid the close so not worth worrying about. They posted one addition after the close was redone [41], again not worth worrying about especially since it seems to have been part of challenging a hatting. (I assume changing nbsp of someone else's comment was either a mistake or they were replacing a unicode one with that.) Since then, there has been little on the talk page. Recently there was this Talk:Tulsi Gabbard#WP:SYNTH problems [42] but whatever it is, it's not part of challenging or disputing the previous RfC. I had a quick look at the article, and none of the recent edits by SashiRolls seem to be related to the RfC either. E.g. [43] [44] mention India and Modi, but are not something dealt with in the RfC. I didn't check the edits on 15th or earlier since they're too old to worry about. So yes, I'm very confused why this is here, as I'm not actually seeing any active problem. If SashiRolls does not wish to properly challenge the close, then they will have to accept the result, but they don't seem to have really done anything on either the article or the article talk page that we need to worry about in recent times. (At least as viewed in the scope of the problem you highlighted.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne, SashiRolls has challanged the outcome at the Help Desk, which is not the proper place. I told them AN was the right place, but they haven't challanged it here. I agree that the situation is stale unless SashiRolls explicitely challanges the RfC closure here. --MrClog (talk) 08:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I added part of my full opinion on the talk page at the time. But I think the close, the re-close, any reliance on the close, and the RfC in it entirety, are all sub-par. If anyone specifically requests it, an admin should probably jump in to do a proper close. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

(EC) @MrClog: Well I would put Wikipedia:Help desk#What to do when an editor refuses to abide by RfC closure? a bit different. Although SashiRolls did comment there, like this thread it was started by Snooganssnoogans. I don't understand why Snooganssnoogans feels the need to bring this up at all since as I said, I see no active editing against the RfC even if SashiRolls appears to disagree with it. SashiRolls, is ultimately entitled to keep that POV, they just can't act on it until and unless they properly challenge the close.

Snooganssnoogans mentioned bringing this to multiple boards before finding the right one, but ignoring they're still at the wrong board since there is no right board, when I see the Help Desk discussion I'm even more mystified. I thought maybe when Snooganssnoogans first brought this up it had only been a day or 2 since the RfC closure undone etc so they thought it was pertinent and didn't reconsider when they finally thought they'd found the right board. But that discussion on the Help Desk was only about 1 day ago. I didn't bother to find the first discussion, but I now think Snooganssnoogans really needs to clarify what they mean since they've accused SashiRolls of edit warring against the RfC yet it doesn't look like any such thing has happened for at least 10 days.

Even ~10 days is a stretch. I had a more careful look at the article itself, and the only thing I found which could in any way be said to be possibly against the RfC is [45]. A single edit. So all we really have is a single attempt to revert the close and a single revert to the article all over 10 days ago. So yeah, I really have no idea why this is here. Or at the help desk.

I would note in any case the RfC closure specifically noted at least two of the proposals needed to be reworded so ultimately some more discussion is needed somehow. Even for the final one, while it did not say it had to be re-worded it did not say there was consensus for the proposed wording so discussion on that also seems fair enough. I'm not necessarily saying reverting that edit was the right way to go about it, but it is even more reason for me to go, why are you wasting our time by bringing this here?

Nil Einne (talk) 09:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne, I didn't bring this here originally, I only commented on it after Snooganssnoogans brought it here, based on what was said at the Help Desk. --MrClog (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

P.S. To be clear, I have no problem with your attempts to guide the editors. My only concern is that Snooganssnoogans seems to be making claims which don't seem to be well supported all over the place, and IMO wasting our time in so doing. Nil Einne (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne, true, which is why I asked for diffs. Thanks for looking into the issue. Take care, MrClog (talk) 09:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I brought this here, because I don't want to edit-war with SashiRolls on the Gabbard page (which is covered by DS, 1RR and enforced BRD), which was inevitably where this was heading. I wanted to make sure that I was in the right to follow the closure of the RfC before I reverted SashiRolls's revert of the RfC text. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I have been harassed since Aug 2016 by Snoogans, it seems to me to be their methodology whenever they want to force their views on BLP through despite significant opposition to their one-sided negativity. This was and has been the case on Jill Stein, which they have largely written, this was and has been the case on Tulsi Gabbard. If administrators wish to discourage such harassment, I would appreciate it. (In the past two days, I've received notifications from them from the Village Pump, the Help Desk, AN, and my talk page. I have also received threats of imminent DS actions for reverting a sloppy reversion they made of another editor's contribution related to Jill Stein where I see frequently blocked Calton has come running to help restore Daily Beast in wiki-voice to 3 sentences in a sequence of 6 sentences. This strikes me as promotional editing for a corporate entity. Neither Snoogans nor Calton has discussed on the TP... but that's the usual order of business...)🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 11:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

This strikes me as promotional editing for a corporate entity.

And this rationale strikes me as nuts -- or, given SashiRolls long history, a clumsy throw-it-at-the-wall-and-see-if-sticks excuse. --Calton | Talk 07:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

You've been blocked recently for similar aggressive comments about contributors rather than content. If you wish to comment as to why you think is it not promotional editing to include the names of muckraking newspapers in wikitext instead of attributing the opinions expressed in an article to its author, the discussion you ignored is at Talk:Jill_Stein#We_cite_the_news_outlet,_not_the_reporter. This is not the place to continue that debate; I invite you to comment on the TP if you wish to defend the multiplication of references to the Daily Beast on a BLP rather than sticking to the facts, as proposed.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

NORE garbage thrown at the wall to distract. ...blocked recently for similar aggressive comments about contributors... is particularly rich because a) that's exactly what you're doing; and b) you were blocked indefinitely for your behavior, so you don't get to gas on about that.

If you wish to comment as to why you think is it not promotional editing to include the names of muckraking newspapers in wikitext instead of attributing the opinions expressed in an article to its author

Nope, because that's a false spin of a standard "attribution to reliable sources", no matter how many pejoratives you lard it with, a speciality of yours. It's the "promotional" part that's a new --albeit ridiculous on its face -- twist. --Calton | Talk 11:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior by SashiRolls noted: [46] (The arbcom case was rejected as premature and referred to ANI.[47]) Related: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive303#Unblock appeal by SashiRolls. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Whatever. There is a double-standard at the Signpost. People criticized in mainstream publications have their pseudonyms protected, whereas those brought up on frivolous charges at ArbCom (quickly rejected) are pilloried in the first sentence of the Arbitration report. For those interested in what Wikipedia is actually supposed to be about (i.e. verifiability) here are three examples of wikitext Snoogans has added in the last two weeks that are unsupported by the sources (2 of which are whoppers): [48] I will walk away from Snoog's ownership behavior for their TP section title, despite it being a violation of Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable as noted on the TP. For someone who doesn't want to edit-war... there they are bullying, again. Anyone want to tag-team me? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Your altering of the header[49] makes my comment completely and utterly incomprehensible. Furthermore there is no legitimate reason for altering the header (it's an undisputed RS description). Your altering of the header is a perfect example of disrupting and harassing behavior (not even mentioning the creepy rambling "can someone please get Snooganssnoogans sanctioned?" collection of off-topic disputes that you dug up on off-wiki forums for disgruntled Wikipedia editors about me and decided to spam on an unrelated article talk page), yet you're now here whining about it? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the #1 whopper listed is one I discovered last night checking something you were edit warring with someone else over on the Tulsi Gabbard page: the arrest of an Indian consular official. That had been in the article for so long I just assumed it was true, that she must have criticized the arrest. But in fact I'd been led astray by your spin. She did not criticize the fact that the official was arrested. Not at all. She criticized how she was arrested (strip-searched despite consular immunity), because it threatened to lead to quite a diplomatic rift between India and the US.

The arrest and strip search of the Indian diplomat escalated into a major diplomatic furor Tuesday as India's national security adviser called the woman's treatment "despicable and barbaric."

source: AP It is true that your deliberate misreadings are attracting attention and making many a good Wikipedian ashamed that such behavior is seemingly tolerated encouraged by the power structure here. That said, I probably wouldn't have pointed it out had you not been rude to yet another person on the TP. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Request for reclosure of RfC on Tulsi Gabbard's BLP (Assad/Modi)

I would like to formally ask that an administrator determine whether the RfC closed by Red Slash on 11 July 2019 properly analyzed the consenus or lack thereof and provided sufficient guidance for editing the text going forward. On the talk page, I asked Red Slash to justify the close which took no account of at least half of the written opinions, but was summarily dismissed. I apologize for not having had the time to look for the proper bureaucratic procedure to properly revert a bad close. I assumed the matter was settled when 2 people agreed with me, but apparently there is a need to have the proper paperwork done...

I see that the person championing the addition of negative phrasing (Snoogans) has already been reverted by an IP from Ireland. (I am not in Ireland.) It is true that in 2017, Gabbard expressed skepticism about Assad's use of chemical weapons, which -- as I understand it -- she walked back once sufficient information became available. The use of the present tense (has expressed) rather than dating the skepticism to 2017 and using the past tense seems to me transparently disingenuous. This is what NPR does in the citation:

In 2017, she expressed skepticism that Assad had used chemical weapons, and in a CNN televised town hall in March, when asked whether Assad is a war criminal, she hedged, saying, "If the evidence is there, there should be accountability."

source

As stated above (previous section) and in the section devoted to the RfC one admin has reviewed the close and found it lacking. Another opinion is requested.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 11:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

My determination would be as follows:

• A: The main question seems to be whether A adheres to the NPOV policy and is properly sourced. Snooganssnoogans, LokiTheLiar, Kolya Butternut and MrX support the current wording of A. Scottmontana (an SPA), TFD, SashiRolls and Darryl Kerrigan oppose the wording. Msalt says the wording is acceptable, yet could be improved. What I find particularly important here is that TFD brings an argument as to why it is not NPOV. TFD states that, despite A being possibly accurate, it is presented in a misleading way ("The problem with using the quote, which presumably could be reliably sourced, is that saying it is an expression of support for Hindu nationalists is synthesis. Obama, the Clintons and Trump have expressed more praise for Modi than Gabbard, yet it would be misleading to say they expressed support for Hindu nationalists. That's the sort of writing one would expect in polemical writing. It would be accurate however that they like Gabbard supported normal relations with the Indian government."). This is particulrly important because, if true, it would be a violation of BLP (WP:BLPBALANCE). This has not been responded to. Because it seems that opinions are fairly balanced regarding A, and !oppose brings a compelling argument based on one of Wikipedia's core policies, which is not responded to, I am inclined to say that there is no consensus to include A.
• B: Snooganssnoogans and Darryl Kerrigan support the wording of B. LokiTheLiar and Kolya Butternut support B if it were to be reworded. MrX, SashiRolls and Scottmontana (in part—I discarded their comment about Vox, as Vox has been determined to be reliable, see WP:RS/P) oppose B. It remains unclear how such a rewording should look and when it becomes acceptable for inclusion without violating WP:NPOV. NPOV is a core policy and it is vital that all text in the article adheres to this policy. I would as such say that this should be closed as no consensus for inclusion of B without prejudice to a reworded text, if there is conensus that that version does adhere to NPOV.
• C: Snooganssnoogans, LokiTheLiar, Kolya Butternut, MrX and Darryl Kerrigan support C. SashiRolls and Scottmontana oppose C. While Scottmontana brings a reasonable argument which is not responded to, the clear support for C shows that it was not strong enough to convince other reasonable Wikipedians. The rest of the comments are mostly "NPOV" and "not NPOV". As such, I would say there is consensus to include C.

I invite other editors to share their view as well. (Non-administrator comment) --MrClog (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding #A, TFD presents nothing to support the argument that other political figures are more supportive of Modi and Hindu nationalists than she is. The language is supported by reliable sources such as the LA Times[50], Guardian[51], NY Mag[52], Vox[53], and Intercept[54]. Why is it incumbent on other users to rebut TFD's unsupported arguments? And even if other political figures are, what does that have to do with Gabbard? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

The argument's central premise is that the text is biased (failing WP:BLPBALANCE) because the text suggests she expressed support for Hindu nationalists in a way that can convey the wrong message (that her support is more than just "standard diplomacy"). Regarding the sources: I was only able to find the Guardian source, Vox source and the Intercept source brought up during the discussion, but if I missed the others, feel free to point me where they were. If they haven't brought up during the discussion, I won't consider them, because I am judging the debate that took place at the RfC. About the sources: the Guardian only mentions "nationalists", not "Hindu nationalists". Vox says that reports mentioned "worrying ties" to Hindu nationalists (not support) and that she is supported by Hindu nationalists (but again, not that she supports Hindu nationalists. While the Intercept mentions that she supports Hindu nationalists in the title, it seems to be more nuanced in the article. The main point of criticism from TFD still stands, by the way, that the fact that she supported certain Hindu nationalists is presented in an unfair way in the sentence, suggesting she supports all or most Hindu nationalists. (Non-administrator comment) --MrClog (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

MrClog, I do not see A: "Gabbard has expressed support for Hindu nationalists, including Indian prime minister Narendra Modi" as suggesting she supports "all or most" Hindu nationalists. In context it sounds like there were specific instances of expressing support for particular Hindu nationalists. Jacobin, which The Intercept linked to, was brought up in the RfC discussion in response to TFD: "Gabbard has been one of Modi’s most prominent boosters in the US. 'He is a leader whose example and dedication to the people he serves should be an inspiration to elected officials everywhere,' she said of Modi in 2014."[55] And why is the title of The Intercept story, "TULSI GABBARD IS A RISING PROGRESSIVE STAR, DESPITE HER SUPPORT FOR HINDU NATIONALISTS", not enough? Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• There is nothing in the RfC close that prevents editors from improving upon the proposed wordings. It just says there's consensus to include, and actually explicitly encourages rewording. So when looking at Sashi Rolls objection to #C (that it incorrectly implies that Gabbard still doubts chemical weapons were used in Syria) that can be remedied by a slight rewording. By the way, I opened the source (from 2019) at the end of the sentence, and it confirms that Sashi Rolls is correct on this point. It says: "Gabbard has also expressed skepticism about the Assad regime’s widely reported and confirmed use of chemical weapons against its own people. As an Iraq veteran, Gabbard said, she wants solid evidence before weapons of mass destruction are used to justify intervention, citing the false reports of WMD in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003...Gabbard said Wednesday she does believe chemical weapons were used in Syria." ~Awilley (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• No, the body of the article clearly explains that since February 2019, she has changed her opinion on whether Assad used chemical weapons (I added that content as soon as she made the change[56]: she doubted that Assad used chemical weapons until February 2019). If someone holds a view at one point and changes it later, we cover both and delineate the chronology. We wouldn't remove that Hillary Clinton supported the Iraq War just because she later said that the Iraq War was wrong. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
• @Awilley: I doubt that a reworded version won't lead to another dispute, seeing that apparently there is the need to organise RfCs about whether to include certain sentences. --MrClog (talk) 11:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• This RfC was started because Snoog failed to get consensus for their edits to the BLP back in February and March 2019. TFD, in the first comment on the RfC, characterized it -- in my view correctly -- as a biased attempt to enforce a particular POV. To respond to the previous comment, I do *not* believe that a version of C which accurately represents her position before the facts were established would be contested as long as it is made clear that once the facts were established her position changed, precisely because the facts were then established. As I said in my initial oppose, the only problem with C was that it misleadingly used the present (perfect) tense. I agree with your reading of no-consensus for A & B. I agree that if we change the wording of C to reflect that it was a position taken until evidence was established, for me at least, the problem with C is resolved.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• I am incredibly disinterested in the whole ordeal and frankly uninterested at this point. I closed a long-overdue RfC, checked back and noticed that the close was just reverted out of thin air, and re-closed. I have no opinion on Ms. Gabbard as a person or as a candidate, and I only tried to determine a consensus based on logical arguments and reliable sources. Is there anything y'all need from me? Red Slash 16:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• Red Slash, I would suggest giving a summary of why you believe consensus was the way you assessed it to be, unless you already provided such at a talk page (in which case a link is fine). The current closing statement only mentions what the consensus is, but not how you came to that conclusion. --MrClog (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I felt that consensus was clear that A and C were accurate, concise, neutral and well-backed by sources. I felt that it was less clear on B, so I requested B be reworded to be less argumentative. Red Slash 03:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Snoogansnoogans wrote, "TFD presents nothing to support the argument that other political figures are more supportive of Modi and Hindu nationalists than she is." First, when criticizing me, I would appreciate it if you would notify me. Second, you misrepresented what I wrote: "Obama, the Clintons and Trump have expressed more praise for Modi than Gabbard, yet it would be misleading to say they expressed support for Hindu nationalists."

Obama invited Modi to the White House and visited him twice in India. Here is part of the text from their first meeting:

It is an extraordinary pleasure to welcome Prime Minister Modi to the White House for the first time. I think that the entire world has watched the historic election and mandate that the people of India delivered in the recent election. And I think everyone has been impressed with the energy and the determination with which the Prime Minister has looked to address not only India’s significant challenges, but more importantly, India’s enormous opportunities for success in the 21st century....the Prime Minister shared with me his vision for lifting what is still too many Indians who are locked in poverty into a situation in which their lives can improve....we discussed how we can continue to work together on a whole host of issues from space exploration, scientific endeavor, to dealing with humanitarian crises like Ebola in West Africa....And throughout this conversation I’ve been impressed with the Prime Minister’s interest in not only addressing the needs of the poorest of the poor in India and revitalizing the economy there, but also his determination to make sure that India is serving as a major power that could help bring about peace and security for the entire world...."[57]

I can find similar statements from Bill and Hillary Clinton, who visited Modi when he came to New York, and by Trump when Modi visited Washington.

If you don't know anything about U.S.-India relations, then you shouldn't add criticism about politicians for their views on it.

As far as I can see, this request is merely a content dispute and suggest we close it.

TFD (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Overturn this close. I agree completely with MrClog's analysis above. I can't imagine how anyone can come to the conclusion that "B" had consensus. Red Slash writes in the RfC closure, "A, B, and C should all be included.", but only two !voters thought that B should be included. (!Voters who were in favor of changing B are, by definition, not in favor of including B as written.) I also agree with the comment in the post-close discussion on the article talk page that there are two ways to deal with a rejected close: one is to say shut up how dare you, the other is to ask how any problems can be satisfactorily resolved. Disappointed that Red Slash chose the former. I would appreciate if Red Slash, in closing something like this, gave a breakdown of their thinking similar to what MrClog wrote above. Otherwise, don't close RfCs if you don't want to give more than a couple sentences of explanation for your close. – Levivich 16:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Uphold Red Slash's closure. Red Slash found consensus for A and C, and Red Slash stated that "B [...] should [...] be included [... and] B should be slightly reworded." I infer this to mean that a consensus should be found for new wording for B before it is included. Red Slash's comments above support this interpretation. It is clumsy, but I don't see that as a reason to overturn the close. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  Notice: user !voted in the RfC. --MrClog (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• Overturn Seems like a bad compromise situation to me, perceiving voting for something as also not voting against the other options is a small nuance that seems to have been missed here. MrClog has explained it fairly well, leading me to think that this deserves a reclose from another uninvolved editor. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm currently being threatened of being blocked on The Casagrandes Wikipedia page. It is mainly edited by two people and two people only. They keep on adding false information help me. Please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginika1555 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC) These two people are namely @Aumary: and @Magitroopa:. Literally Summary uses the term "dumb fans" in the Talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginika1555 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Ginika1555: all information in Wikipedia is required to be cited to a reliable source. Since none has been provided for either picture format for this show, I have removed it. We also have a policy against edit warring which you need to pay attention to. Please discuss the picture format on the article's talk page. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Since my name is being brought into this, should probably be known that the user here is the one constantly edit warring and WP:DE, after multiple warnings. They have commented on the matter on the talk page, but wanting it the way they want it, while everyone else is properly discussing it. Our names are mentioned in here, but myself and @Amaury: were not notified of this discussion on this page whatsoever. Magitroopa (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Due to the ongoing dispute on 2017–19 Peruvian political crisis, please extended-protect the said article, President of Peru, Vice President of Peru, Martín Vizcarra, and Mercedes Aráoz. Thanks. Flix11 (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Without prejudice to your request, it's better suited at Requests for page protection. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I took a look at the pages in question. I think one or two of the four could possibly use semi-protection for a bit, but the other three or two are more or less untouched. --Izno (talk) 02:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Greetings, Take a look at this page of hits from Sept 23 version history for ANI. Everyting up into Oct1 also looks struck out. Is that an accident of some sort? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm assuming it has to do with this. Killiondude (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Those entries were suppressed because they contained a bit of text which needed to be removed from the archives. The edit that introduced the problematic text, and every subsequent revision that also contained that text, has to be removed altogether from the edit history. In this case, it looks like the offending text was present for a very long time. That happens, but there's not much that can be done about it. Suppressed text is not discussed on-wiki, as any such discussion would return the text to public record, which is what suppression is supposed to remove. There's really nothing to be done about it. --Jayron32 16:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I did not realize rev delete did not cascade through later versions behind the scenes. Thanks, my mistake NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Technically, they were suppressed, and not rev-deled, which just means that the removal includes a higher class of editors. Revision deletion only removes the versions for non-admins, while suppression removes the versions for everyone except the highest permissions (i.e. normal admins can't see them either). --Jayron32 17:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Once again, I run face first into the mountain things I didn't know I didn't know! Thanks for the correction NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi! All!, Please delete this file File:YudaiFunato.jpg, I thought I was doing the correct but now see it clearly violates even the fair rationale. From very now, my deepest apologies, it won't happen again. Thank you. --CoryGlee (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 22:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Can an admin delete this image as I have uploaded a new image for the person's article (Ahmed Rajib Haider), this is my uploaded photo which is better than the old photo, so the old image should be deleted. Mark Arr (talk) 10:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

First off, this isn't the place to request that (it would be WP:FFD). Second, I'm not overly sure the new version is really all that much better - you've basically just brightened up the image and now he looks like he's standing next to a bomb going off. Primefac (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Technically I don't think the original version should be deleted whatever the case. The non free rationale seems far better than the version Mark Arr has provided. And the non free rationale cannot simply be copied, that would violate the licence of whoever wrote it. You could go to the hassle of copying the attribution information. But far simpler, if Mark Arr's file is considered better by the community, the new version should be uploaded as a replacement image for the old one. That's one of the purposes of the function after all. You can then ask for revdeletion of the old version of the file as required since it's NFCC. BTW, fairly sure that F5 should have been used in preference to G6. Nil Einne (talk) 13:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Just an update, Mark has G7'd their own image. Primefac (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Mark Arr, you're starting to get disruptive with uploading and then G7ing your own uploads. Please discuss this issue before doing it again. Primefac (talk) 13:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

CU blocked by Bbb. --Izno (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The committee has resolved by motion that:

Supporting: GorillaWarfare, Joe Roe, KrakatoaKatie, Premeditated Chaos, Worm That Turned

Opposing:

Did not vote: AGK, Mkdw, Opabinia regalis

For the Arbitration Committee

Worm^TT(talk) 13:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Icewhiz banned

Fixed the discussion link. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Zsolt Borkai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please semi-protect this article. This Sunday elections go on in Hungary. See the view history. --Regasterios (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Semiprotected for a week. In the future, requests like this should go to WP:RfPP. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. --Regasterios (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

• As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

• The 2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place October 4th to 10th.
• The arbitration case regarding Fram was closed. While there will be a local RfC focus[ing] on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to the incident. It will be open until October 30th.

Miscellaneous

• The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.

---

Pending changes reviewer right is supposed to be automatically included with the Administrator flag. However, beginning this afternoon, I'm getting the following error message when I try to approve pending changes, "You do not have permission to review..."

And while I was typing this and going back for the exact words of the error message the problem seems to have resolved itself.

Anyone know what happened? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

This is phab:T233561#5537850. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, could you look at this deletion nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Najran attack(The link was added after El_C reply). It is saying that the article should be removed because the Saudi said it is not factual. I think there are no page watchers or anything. The nomination is malformed. It is not categorised. The tag on the head of the article says it was nominated three times. I don't think it was nominated three times. Help please. I can't waste my time with this and I don't know what to do it remove the deletion tag from the article. I think if an admin interfered the editor might understand but I dont think I am able to make them understand their mistake.--SharabSalam (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

What page is this regarding? El_C 16:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

2019 Najran attack--SharabSalam (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, you've since refactored, but your original report had no links at all. Anyway, I, myself, would be inclined to allow the deletion discussion to take place, even though I suspect that the article is likely to be kept. Disclaimer: I am involved as the editor who first added the information to Wikipedia. El_C 16:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Yea. Sorry. You reply very fast. I wasn't expecting that.--SharabSalam (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

By the way, I didn't create the article. When I came it was badly written. It still needs some fixes. I followed Graull contributions who is a very new editor.--SharabSalam (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• I don't see a need for admin action here. The AfD may be misguided, but it's not so far out of bounds that we need an admin intervention to fix it. If the outcome is obvious, there's no need to worry; if it isn't, then the AfD was obviously necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

The problem has been fixed thanks to editors who fixed it. I needed help from experience editors. I didn't know how to fix it. I usually use Twinkly when nominating for deletion.

Related question: in these situations where I need help from experienced editors, where can I ask for help?. If there is no noticeboard for this then I think it would be a good idea to make one.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam If you need help from experienced editors but do not necessarily need administrators, there's always the help desk and the village pumps. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I have seen this link (help desk) many times before. Never clicked on it. I thought it is for guidelines, I didn't know it was a board. There is an IP editor who also reported the same issue I reported here.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

The WP:TEAHOUSE is also not a bad place to go. It's meant for new users, but there's definitely experienced editors there who can help with more complex questions. Another option is approaching individual editors that you've previously had interactions with. Very many editors that I would now consider wiki-friends became such because they asked me a question out of the blue, or I asked them a question out of the blue. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

This has started. (I just happened to notice that the timeline says this should have started by now. I don't know if we usually post this here). --Rschen7754 00:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

The search bar on Special:Search is a bit bugged. When you try to place your mouse cursor in it to edit some text (on both desktop and mobile) it puts it 5 characters to the right. Browser: Google Chrome (desktop&mobile); works fine in IE&Edge.  Nixinova  T  C  18:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

The best place for this would be WP:VPT. I have noticed that, though. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I think this is phab:T234170, and it does seem to be a chrome issue at the moment. ~ Amory (u • t • c) —Preceding undated comment added 11:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

In August 2019, the Arbitration Committee resolved to open the Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case as a suspended case due to workload considerations. The Committee is now un-suspending and commencing the case.

• The primary scope of the case is: Evaluating the clarity and effectiveness of current remedies in the ARBPIA area. More information can be found here.
• Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4/Evidence. The evidence phase will be open until 18 October 2019 (subject to change).
• You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4/Workshop. The workshop phase will be open until 25 October 2019 (subject to change).
• For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee, – Joe (talk) 12:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a request for comment on implementing the community consensus for a stricter resysop policy at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2). All are invited to participate. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

This dif speculates as to the motives of a police officer involved in a shooting. While it does not name the officer, it's veering pretty close to explicit accusations of serious criminal conduct toward a WP:BLP protected individual. I'm uncertain if admins will agree but I thought it was at least appropriate to raise it. Simonm223 (talk) 17:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Just so's you know someone looked, I looked, and found nothing egregious enough to warrant revision deletion. Thanks for your concern, but in the future could you please email the oversight team or one of us listed at Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests rather than posting your BLP concerns on a public notice board? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Sure thing, with thanks. Simonm223 (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

The Gas Jews LTA is back. Latest accounts used are OneTopicSpree and LoccoPocco. There are probably others. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I believe a CU has taken a look. FYI this is My Royal Young (who is also into impersonating other vandals at this time), and they typically use a lot of throwaway proxies. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Other accounts are MariachristinaFall and HarleyDude69. I put extended confirmed protection on Holocaust. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

This is a very mundane, technical request, but I was wondering if an administrator could take a look at the deleted file revisions at File:Seal of Nashville, Tennessee.png, and if there is an older, high-resolution version, please upload it over the current file on Commons. If I remember correctly, there used to be a high resolution version that was replaced with a low resolution version for copyright reasons. Since then, it was discovered that the image is actually public domain, so the low-resolution version was moved to Commons. Thanks for your help! Kaldari (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Kaldari: I don't think what we have is any better, take a look at File:20191009-Temporary-Seal of Nashville, Tennessee.png. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Guess I remembered wrong. Thanks for checking for me! Kaldari (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: After doing some wiki archaeology, it looks like the original high-resolution version actually lived at File:Nashvilleseal.png. Could you restore that one for me? Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Kaldari: Error undeleting file: Cannot undelete file revision with timestamp 2007-01-24T23:13:56: File was missing before deletion. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

2018-03-30T01:09:00 Fastily deleted page File:Nashvilleseal.png (G8: Redirect to a deleted or non-existent page)
2018-03-29T19:59:17 Illegitimate Barrister moved page File:Nashvilleseal.png to File:Seal of Nashville, Tennessee.png
2011-12-31T07:44:45 Skier Dude deleted page File:Nashvilleseal.png (Deleted old revision 20071030104027!Nashvilleseal.png: Reduce supplied)

Log above. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

If you want to take on a little art project, there is a much higher resolution black and white version that you could start from here. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Can I please request an administrator's assistance in striking the keep vote of a user over on the Shinhan Bank Canada deletion discussion page? While ostensibly good intentioned, the pages linked do not in any way substantiate his or her argument and aren't even close to related to the discussion at hand. In this way, the comment is seen as inherently disruptive to the discussion. One of the links is even spammy in nature. --Doug Mehus (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Similar to the above mentioned, can I also request an administrator look into the Bridgewater Bank deletion discussion page whereby a user, while ostensibly good intentioned, has posted information that is seen as disruptive to the discussion by confusing Bridgewater Bank with a Nasdaq-listed Bridgewater Bancshares? A simple Google web search will confirm easily the two companies aren't even tangentially related. At the same time, the referenced links are somewhat, if not entirely, spammy in nature promoting stock pump-and-dump-type articles. Thanks. --Doug Mehus (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

• We don't strike comments at discussions unless they violate policy in some way or are simply disruptive. If we had to do this every time a user came up with a poor rationale at AfD we'd be doing it 24 hours a day. Black Kite (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

  Black Kite, Regarding Bridgewater Bank discussion, though, I checked the User's talk page and he seems to have a LOT of notifications of edit warring, spammy edits, and the like. Anything we can do there? Doug Mehus (talk) 21:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

• Most of those warnings are historial, though; the few edits they made today were their first for well over a month, so there's not really anything to do here at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

  Black Kite, Okay, thanks. Can you tell me if I picked an appropriate user talk page warning for Eliko007 and if my explanation was courteous enough? Doug Mehus (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to welcome the following editors to the functionary team:

• L235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as a CheckUser and Oversighter.
• Mz7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as a CheckUser and Oversighter.
• SQL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as a CheckUser.
• ST47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as a CheckUser and Oversighter.
• Stwalkerster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as an Oversighter.
• The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as an Oversighter.
• Xaosflux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as an Oversighter.

The Committee thanks the community and all candidates for helping to bring this process to a successful conclusion.

The Committee also welcomes the following user back to the functionary team:

• Ivanvector (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who resigned his CheckUser permission in May 2019, is reappointed as a CheckUser following a request to the committee for return of the permission.

The Committee also thanks Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for his long history of contributions to the functionary team. Timotheus Canens voluntarily resigned his CheckUser and Oversight permissions in September 2019.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katie^talk 15:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Candidates appointed

An IP (62.248.181.187) who was causing problems at Constitution of Japan, is now doing the same at List of longest reigning monarchs, by promoting that Hirohito's reign as emperor ended in 1945, rather then 1989. Not sure how to handle this. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

user:134.219.227.30 has made a series of changes to the categories of national anthems (see Special:Contributions/134.219.227.30). As someone who doesn't know the difference between, say F major and E flat major, I can't tell if this is right or wrong. Most of the ones I checked don't actually address the key at all. The Ecuadorian anthem does, but without a source.

I'm musically illiterate, and I need help. Guettarda (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Guettarda: Firstly, you must notify the IP on their talk page. I just did that for you.

This is a tough one to judge. Musical compositions are easy to transpose between different keys, so there is no "correct" answer unless we know the key signature of the original recording (by the original composer). I am having a hard time finding much of that information. Having listened to a few recordings, some of the changes sound correct to me, but others sounded correct in the originally listed key signature (I am able to determine the key by listening). However, most of these recordings are unreliable, because I am not sure if they have been transposed from their original key (I have heard many songs played in different keys) or otherwise rearranged. It's not clear if the IP's edits were made because of this confusion or if they are simply unconstructive.

Sadly, musical literacy does not help to assess these edits – only WP:V does and I am having a hard time with that. That said, unless sources can be found, I think it better to remove these categories altogether. ComplexRational (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: Thanks - I don't know enough to know what I don't know. Guettarda (talk) 22:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of experience editing music articles, so correct me if I'm wrong, but the original score (the composer's written sheet music) should be in some specific key (the "original key"), although other versions may be in different keys. An RS should state what the original key was, and that's they key under which our article should be categorized. Listening to a recording and categorizing it based on what key we hear strikes me as original research. I went over to O Canada; it was categorized as E minor, with nothing about the key in the article (although one of the sources did have the information, stating it was G major. I added some prose cited to that source and changed the category to G major.) I agree with ComplexRational that no musical key category should be included at all, unless the key is stated in the article, properly cited. Where there are multiple versions in multiple keys, we should go with either the original or the most prevalent (I guess if there's a key conflict, that's a content dispute that can be discussed article by article). – Levivich 01:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, the original scores are in certain original keys, and those are the versions that should be cited if possible. Rearrangements and listening are not reliable (indeed, what we say based on what hear is unreliable even if it can be proven; I apologize if I did not make this clearer above), so only the original scores or descriptions thereof should be used as sources. Those can be checked on a case-by-case basis as you've done. ComplexRational (talk) 03:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I can help you out - I'm a classically trained piano player. The music I see ( which is CC licensed) shows up as being A flat major. Flats are pretty easy, just use the mnemonic "Farmer Brown Eats All Day Getting Chubby" , each letter is the key for each flat, (e.g 1 flat is "Farmer" ("F Major"), two flats are ("Farmer" "Brown" - so it's Bb major) ..etc...

That would put this song ,per the sheet music, into Ab major as it has 4 flats ("Farmer" "Brown" "Eats" "All" - Ab major )

That said, this may not be the original music, and since I'm not familiar with the song, I wouldn't go as far as saying it's the original key, but it's the one that can be referenced! Necromonger...We keep what we kill 12:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Maybe I've misunderstood something but I don't quite get why the original score takes precedence over everything else including other well cited scores or rearrangements. Especially in cases of a national anthem. For example, if the composer composed the anthem in B flat, but the government when selecting the composition to be their anthem decided to change it to C flat (whether working with the composer or just by themselves), and this is the score that they distributed to everyone and is in their regulations, and is the version nearly everyone who's heard the anthem including from the beginning heard and the fact that the original composer composed it in B flat is not even well known, I'm not sure why B flat gets precedence. Of course we should mention this detail of B flat if it can be sourced, but that seems about it. Nil Einne (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, if we're talking about any countries anthem and a key signature is brought up, it should always be whatever the reliable source shows us. In the one I looked at, we had the original handwritten version and a printed version in the same key, Ab Major.

Yes, anyone can re-arrange any song into different keys, and if there were other arrangements and they were reliable sourced, they should be recognized. Far as the category, by default it should go to the original key unless the title references a different singer or composer, and for that, again, whatever the reliable source says that key is, should be the recognized key. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 17:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

That's my point. It should be based on what reliable sources say for the anthem. It does not matter what the original key is, what matters is what the key for the current anthem. We should mention the original key if it can also be sourced, but there's absolutely no reason why it should take precedence as many replies here seem to imply. Nil Einne (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Just wondering whether MJV479 (talk · contribs) might potentially be compromised... just asking for a second opinion and additional sets of eyes. Thanks! GAB^gab 22:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I ran a checkuser and the account is not compromised. Unusual behavior for sure, but it looks like just playing around with WP:TW. ST47 (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes you would be correct, ST47 (talk · contribs). MJV479 (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion after unblock

Howdy,

There is a current request for comment at Wikipedia talk:Page mover (discussion link) regarding whether page movers should be permitted to move pages which are full-protected. As this would require a change to the protection policy, I'm cross-posting here. Sceptre (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

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

I have copied over this discussion that was not complete. I was told that this is what to do if I believe that the discussion was not finished, which I believe it was not. Thanks, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

The user in question has only been editing articles related to the Thai Army, leading me to suspect a WP:COI. I am not reporting the user to the COI noticeboard as I believe there are problems elsewhere in the user's contributions. Firstly, the user does not have a WP:CIR and no communication with others makes it hard to determine what the user is doing, as evidenced by this warning. I am a NPR and have come across two of the user's articles. One of them (now speedy deleted) was a clear copyright violation, even after warning in the past (User talk:Frank marine#Speedy deletion nomination of 1st Field Artillery Regiment, King's Guard (Thailand)). Also see the revision history of 1st Field Artillery Regiment, King's Guard (Thailand) for more evidence. The user has repetitively used writing from another Wikipedia article ([69], [70] among others) without attribution to the article's history even after warning (see User talk:Frank marine#Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution and User talk:Frank marine#Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (3rd request) from Diannaa).

You will also notice an incompetence in image copyrighting (I'm not too familiar with this, so please forgive any mistakes I make). Dozens of notices of image copyright problems can be seen on the user's talk page, to which the user continues to upload more images, without concern to the other ones.

I hope this is sufficient information for you to understand the user's actions. For a user with over 1 thousand edits, I would expect change in the user's behaviour in articles, but problems still continue to appear. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I get that the user in question seems to have a narrow, single-minded focus/interest in editing, and that they're evincing a variety of problems, but I'm not following where the COI connection is. Could you elaborate on that a little bit? Grandpallama (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The COI is only a suspicion. It comes from the fact that the user has only edited Thai Army related articles, as said above. This implies to me that the user, before they started editing Wikipedia, was connected with the subject and they clearly knew what they were going to edit prior to editing. I don’t know about others’ experience with new users, but for me, new users might edit and discuss a variety of things before specialising in a specific area (in this case of not WP:PAID or COI users). Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 07:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Unless you suspect the editor was paid to edit Thai army articles, or works in the army's PR office, it's hard to see that as a COI. Many veterans are interested in military subjects, including the history and nature of their own armed forces, and bring a significant amount of personal knowledge to the subject. That can easily lead to POV edits or unsourced (or even sourced) original research, but COI feels like a bridge too far (to use my own military reference!) in the absence of edits that seem unduly promotional. Their editing certainly suggests that English is a second language. Grandpallama (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I second Grandpallama's opinion. Buffs (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I have found the exact opposite to be true. New Users, in my experience, will start in a very specific topic and then branch out. --Darth Mike^(talk) 17:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Aright, I think we have concluded that there is no COI. Please can we discuss the other issues? Thanks, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 06:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Please strike the remarks you no longer wish us to address. It's not 100% clear what else you're talking about. Buffs (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done a little while ago. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• User:Frank marine has never left a post on a talk page, which is a concern. They also have run into copyright trouble. Some of their edits have been revdelled, for example at 1st Field Artillery Regiment, King's Guard (Thailand) (look at the page history and notice the strikeouts). They did create one reasonable article, Royal Thai Army Aviation Center, though I can't rule out that some of the material could have been copied from other Wikipedia articles, for instance List of equipment of the Royal Thai Army. Unless Frank marine is wearing out the patience of the copyright enforcers, I don't see any current reason for admin action. There is a tendency for people who never communicate to get blocked, though I don't think we are quite at that point. As noted above there doesn't appear to be a case for COI enforcement. EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks EdJohnston for the comment. What would you say the point is at which users may get blocked for not communicating? To me, it seems that there has been countless attempts at communicating so we must be fairly near that point? Thanks, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 15:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Left a warning for Frank marine on his talk page. Let me know if you see any more image uploads where there is no effort at all to get the licensing right, or if you notice more posting of copyrighted material to articles. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:@Willbb234: His latest image upload is an unambiguous copyright violation of this [71]. I've tagged it as such. He also tags every single one of his edits as "minor". Why, again, are we refusing to block him? OrgoneBox (talk) 03:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Frank marine's last image upload was at 14:26 on 10 October, while my warning was left on his talk page at 15:31 on that date. You should be watching out for new violations after the date of my warning, not old violations. For him to mark his edits as 'minor' is annoying, and it might be taken into account, but it is not forbidden by policy. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I don't think this is a question that new violations may appear if the user continues to upload images. By the number of warnings, if the user continues to upload images, then there will be copyright violations. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Unclear what you are saying. Feel free to notify me directly if you see either a new unlicensed upload, or a new copyright violation being added to any article. EdJohnston (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I still don't understand why you need "just one more" problem before blocking him. This person has been warned ad nauseum about his multitudes of issues. He marks every single edit "minor", which is not just annoying, but misleading and therefore disruptive. He has repeatedly uploaded copyvio images and inserted unattributed paragraphs. @Diannaa: and @Paul 012: have made three requests for him to stop with the unattributed paragagraphs going back to the springtime. He never writes edit summaries, which he's also been warned about. He hasn't responded to anything on his talk page ever, even after you posted your warning, to give any indication he is capable of understanding or cares. This is cut and dry WP:COMPETENCE and he's wasting the time of volunteers by us having to monitor him for these repeated copyright violations. OrgoneBox (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: pinging, as OrgoneBox has explained it much better. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to bother, but please can we make progress in this discussion. It is the second time I have listed it and for the second time it appears to have stalled. Thanks, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)