Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	12	29	41
TfD	0	0	0	2	2
MfD	0	0	0	2	2
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	8	20	28
AfD	0	0	0	1	1

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

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (22 out of 7739 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Future of Honor 2024-05-23 03:55 2025-05-23 03:54 edit,move restore ECP Daniel Case Israel-related animal conspiracy theories 2024-05-23 03:51 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Justin Stebbing 2024-05-22 22:39 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: Substantive COI editing - propose changes on the talk page Anachronist Proximus Group 2024-05-22 13:44 2024-08-22 13:44 edit Persistent sock puppetry, COI editing, or both NinjaRobotPirate International Criminal Court investigation in Palestine 2024-05-22 12:55 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C Wokipedia 2024-05-21 23:50 2024-05-23 23:50 edit,move Shenanigan precaution. BD2412 Draft:Zard Patton Ka Bunn 2024-05-21 20:22 2024-11-21 20:22 create Repeatedly recreated: targeted by Nauman335 socks Yamla June 2024 Ukraine peace summit 2024-05-21 18:38 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:GS/RUSUKR El C Template:English manga publisher 2024-05-21 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2500 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Draft:S S Karthikeya 2024-05-21 13:27 2025-05-21 13:27 create Repeatedly recreated Yamla Talk:Sexual and gender-based violence in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel 2024-05-21 01:18 2024-05-28 01:18 edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Draft:Roopsha Dasguupta 2024-05-20 21:26 2029-05-20 21:26 create Repeatedly recreated Yamla Gaza floating pier 2024-05-20 17:36 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Science Bee 2024-05-20 15:26 2027-05-20 15:26 create Repeatedly recreated Rosguill Wikipedia:Golden Diamond Timeless Watch 2024-05-20 06:54 2024-05-23 06:54 create Repeatedly recreated Liz Screams Before Silence 2024-05-20 04:56 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Tyson Fury vs Oleksandr Usyk 2024-05-20 03:49 indefinite edit,move Persistent vandalism: per RFPP Daniel Case Atom Eve 2024-05-20 02:53 2024-08-20 02:53 edit Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate Ebrahim Raisi 2024-05-19 22:02 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBIRP; upgrade to WP:ECP, 2024 Varzaqan helicopter crash-related; aiming for the short term (remind me) El C 2024 Varzaqan helicopter crash 2024-05-19 21:15 2024-06-19 21:15 edit Contentious topic restriction Ymblanter Koli rebellion and piracy 2024-05-19 21:08 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Spicy Khirbet Zanuta 2024-05-19 12:15 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:A/I/PIA ToBeFree

Blatant vote stacking

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

---

After Zefr was reported for violating WP:3RR at Ginkgo biloba (which seems to be a pattern), he canvassed four other editors to join the content dispute[1][2][3][4], some of which have helped him edit war participated in similar disputes in the past.[5][6] I asked them to recuse themselves from a straw poll, but they are participating anyway and will likely determine the outcome. I don't believe that this is how Wikipedia is supposed to work, and I would like to ask that an uninvolved admin take a look at this situation and either take some corrective action or give me advice on how to handle it. Also, I fully expect that Zefr will defend his actions here by saying that he was just enforcing WP:MEDRS, which is a gross mischaracterization of the situation (and not a valid excuse for vote stacking and violating 3RR anyway). Nosferattus (talk) 22:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Those are fine editors to "canvass," though, each and every one of em... @Roxy the dog, Psychologist Guy, Girth Summit, and Alexbrn: suck up pings. El_C 00:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

But is there a clause excusing canvassing if you like the editors, unwritten or otherwise? Because if so, I think anyone can see that’s a recipe for disaster. And not a good look at the very least. petrarchan47คุก 01:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

No, there is no such exemption. El_C 02:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

There’s a big difference between “Some new editor is trying to advance a nutty proposition that Novaya Zemlya is an independent nation, and I want others in this topic area to help me oppose it” (which this is not) and “Hey, this topic is under discussion; just wanted you to know” (which this is).

Zefr is an unimpeachably conscientious WP:NPOV editor in this topic area.

Quite a lot of our Northern Hemisphere ‘’’’’volunteer’’’ editors’’ are offline for big chunks of late August and early September, given national holidays and school resumption and the like. We may not be looking at Wikipedia even if we’re spinsters-with-cats who are just focusing on home plumbing improvements and hiding our electronics in our garages. But we probably check email, and a message like Zefr’s appropriately provides a NEUTRAL alert that maybe we might like to look in on a discussion of interest, which discussion might be arguably subject to time limits that might be over before we’re home from the beach. Julietdeltalima (talk) 02:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

How dare you besmirch the fine nation of Novaya Zemlya. It's just a little glowy, it's still good, it's still good. El_C 02:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Nova Zembla patriots love you. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

It's still canvassing if you're sending messages only to editors who you think will agree with your position. Looking the other way because it will lead to the "right" outcome is a pretty slippery slope. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. A neutral notice at a relevant wikiproject should serve as notification. Pinging only like-minded users, even if one contend it being a FRINGE matter is, indeed, a slippery slope. El_C 02:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it's circumventing the process and might make others feel like they would need to or are supposed do the same thing (on the opposing side) and Wikipedia could turn into something we don't want. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 02:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I hear all of you! I just hate, as a 50-year-old person with a new highly time-demanding job, that I end up not knowing that some article in which I was interested was up for AFD or whatever—just because sometimes I'm doing a stressful business-management thing all day Monday to Friday with about four minutes merely to go through my watchlist for presumptive schoolchild vandalism while I'm shoving a sandwich into my face, and then can't log into WP at night because the iOS app is so jacked up, and it turns out some AFD got closed as "delete" when I haven't even had time to dig in and notice it, because I'm a volunteer and my very demanding job has to come first.

Gosh, but some of us need to be able for somebody to let us know about these things! It's really difficult for me to spend the time any more to noodle about and find, e.g., AFDs about articles in which I'm interested in the course of life without somebody sending up a signal.

Do I need to figure out, somehow, whether and how to do an RFC about this? This is a volunteer project. I'd kind of like to think I'm a mature and helpful volunteer. It's very difficult these days for me to know about stuff like RFDs and RFCs unless somebody who's seen my handle in the edit history sends me a message—re: which I get an email! e.g. "El C sent you a message on Wikipedia". I don't have as much time as was once the case to loll about reading WP:RFD and the like.

And, again, if I'm miscoding this re: indents, etc., please refactor. I'm sitting in the restroom doing this on my phone. That's how I engage in my volunteer work for WP, by and large. The challenging mechanisms of the iOS app regarding WP administrative functions are more than I have time to winkle out. I am here to do what I think I'm good at doing: copyediting and proofreading especially in my greatly appreciated presumed designation by User:EEng as part of the "hyphen police", which is the second-nicest compliment I've been paid in the past 2 years, right after "I can't BELIEVE you figured out how to accessorize masks!").

I get that canvassing is a huge problem. But there's got to be a distinction between excluding figurative Nova Zembla separationists and just sending a neutral talk-page message of "hey, I know you're busy: you've been in the edit history of this article and there's an AFD that you might not see in time."

I'm just sayin'. You want Wikipedia to be inclusive? VOLUNTEERS ought to know that a thing they're interested in is up for discussion! I get that there are a lot of abuses, but there's got to be a middle ground to accommodate those of us who are extremely grateful for WP:NODEADLINE.

Thanks for hearing me out. I am here when I can be here because I think this is a joyous project. I just, you know, can't always be here. This "personal relief break" has taken about 0.4 of an hour longer than I can justify, but I thought this point needed making. Thanks for letting me share. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't accept that there was anything improper in my responding as I did. This is Zefr's message to me on my talk page. That was the only edit they have ever made to my talk, and I have never edited theirs: I'm not aware of them having any particular reason to think of me as anything other than an uninvolved admin. I was not aware they had messaged anybody else, and viewed their post as a simple request that an admin take a look at a content dispute which was becoming unhealthily personal on one side. Here is my response, which was met by a remarkable level of ABF on the article's talk page, and on my own talk page.

Here's my take on it: Zefr should have used a Wikiproject talk page notice instead of reaching out to individuals. Zefr has also been edit warring on the article, which they should not do even when they are correct on the content/sourcing matter. Nosferratus has also been edit warring, has been inappropriately personalising a content dispute (which I do not see Zefr doing anywhere on that talk page), and has been far to willing to assume bad faith on the part of others. Girth Summit _(blether) 06:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: It is trivial to prove that these statements are false. You have edited Zefr's talk page, and interacted with Zefr substantially in the past, mainly in disputes similar to this one. I've been personalizing the dispute because people keep lying and breaking the rules. As an administrator, I would think you would understand that. Nosferattus (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Is it the number of editors that Zefr asked that is the probem? I have certainly asked admins from whom I have received help or advice in the past to look at a dispute in which I was involved. Is that wrong? Any dispassionate examination of this dispute would, I believe, reach the same conclusion that Girth Summit has above concerning the behaviour of Nosferratus and Zefr. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @Peter coxhead: No, it's not the number of editors, it's who Zefr invited. All four of the editors that were invited have interacted substantially with Zefr in the past including on his talk page and have participated in similar disputes in the past.
    • Evidence that the canvassed editors were chosen for their POV:
    • Psychologist Guy: They have had numerous discussions on each other's talk pages, often about disputes similar to this one: [7][8]. They have edited 121 of the same pages.[9]
    • Roxy the dog: Here is Zefr inviting Roxy to join a dispute at Paul Stamets: [10]. Here's Zefr and Roxy reverting the same edits at Oil pulling: [11]. They have edited 196 of the same pages.[12]
    • Girth Summit: Despite Girth's false assurances above, he has had substantial interactions with Zefr including a discussion on Zefr's talk page about a very similar situation to this (removing material related to alternative medicine due to sourcing concerns): [13]. Here is Girth and Zefr helping each other edit war reverting the same content at Cranberry juice: [14]. Here is Girth supporting Zefr's opinion at Herbal medicine: [15]. Here is Girth supporting Zefr's opinion at Traditional Chinese medicine: [16]. Here is Girth and Zefr warning the same user within seconds of each other: [17]. Here is them again warning the same user within seconds of each other: [18]. They have edited 246 of the same pages[19]
    • Alexbrn: Here's Zefr inviting Alexbrn to join a dispute at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard: [20]. Here's Zefr inviting Alexbrn to join a dispute at Honey: [21]. Here's Zefr inviting Alexbrn to join two other disputes at the same time: [22]. Here is Alexbrn giving Zefr a barnstar for deleting dodgy medical claims: [23]. They have edited 695 of the same pages![24]
  • This canvassing behavior has been going on for years. The claims that these were just innocent invitations of 3rd party neutral editors is absurd and disingenuous. Sadly, I doubt anything will change as the enforcement of rules on Wikipedia seems to be strongly dependent on seniority and who you know rather than treating editors equally and fairly. Nosferattus (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

    Nosferattus, I encourage you to strike your comments about "helping each other edit war". You have a solid point about Zefr's canvassing, but you are diluting it with aspersions alleging tag-teaming (though not named so explicitly). Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

    I have struck the comment. Thank you for the feedback. Nosferattus (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

    Appreciated! You have a similar comment in your original post. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

    Looks disingenuous to me, for example the not-so-subtle twisting of my barnstar to Zefr for deleting dodgy medical claims, into being for deleting plain "medical claims". This should be corrected. I'm on holiday at the moment so can't really look at this, but even from my distant hotel balcony, my spidey-sense is tingling something rotten about this whole complaint (though, granted, Zefr would do better simply to get more eyes by posting to noticeboards). Alexbrn (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

    @Alexbrn: I added the word "dodgy" as if that made any difference. My point is that you and Zefr know each other and support each other (usually for very admirable reasons like keeping herbal quackery off of Wikipedia). That in and of itself is fine. What isn't OK is Zefr canvassing his friends to win an edit war after violating 3RR. Does that seem reasonable to you? Nosferattus (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

    The two examples of Zefr invitking Alexbrn to join a dispute are the same link from 2016 (a neutrally-worded statement about a noticeboard discussion). XOR'easter (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

    @XOR'easter: Thanks for pointing that out. I've fixed the link and added another one as well. Nosferattus (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

    Looking at the diffs presented above, it seems that I did indeed leave two notes on Zefr's talk page in 2018. I actually checked the Editor Interaction Analyzer tool before posting the above, just to see whether we had actually communicated in the past - for whatever reason those edits didn't show up. I'll just have to ask people to believe that I'd forgotten about them.

    Cranberry juice has been on my watchlist since I made this edit in 2018; here is my first edit to Herbal medicine; here is my first to Traditional Chinese medicine. None of these edits were in any way related to anything Zefr was doing on those pages, but it means that the articles were put onto my watchlist. I do indeed occasionally revert dubious changes to articles on my watchlist, and I might occasionally comment on their talk pages. Zefr has made nearly 50,000 edits to this project, and I've made closer to 60,000: it would be remarkable if there were not some overlap. That is not evidence of collusion, or even that we are particularly aware of one another. All I can say about Zefr is that I've seen their name around a few times, I know that they are an experienced editor - and that's about it. I've no idea what they think of me.

    Now look at what Nosferratus writes: ...these statements are false..., ...Girth's false assurances..., ...people keep lying..., The claims that these were just innocent invitations of 3rd party neutral editors is absurd and disingenuous. - this is exactly the kind of ABF, hostile attitude I am talking about. People should not have to tolerate attacks on their integrity or their motivations. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

    Oh, and as for having edited 246 of the same pages - you are including in that count project pages such as this one, user talk pages, and many articles that we edited months or years apart from each other. If you restrict it to article space, where we have edited within a week of each other, the count is 34, out of the 22,529 pages currently on my watchlist. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

    So pointing out that demonstrably false statements are false is being "hostile"? That's very Orwellian. Nosferattus (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

    Nosferattus, yes, I view the phrase 'false assurances' as hostile. More importantly though, I view accusations of lying and being disingenuous as direct attacks on my integrity as an honest person who is acting in good faith. You have worded those complaints in such a way as to avoid naming those who you claim have lied - would you care to be specific? Girth Summit _(blether) 17:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

    You are welcome to demonstrate that you are acting in good faith by recusing yourself from the straw poll that you were canvassed to. Nosferattus (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome to withdraw the personal attack on me. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I may have misinterpreted that comment you left on Zefr's talk page, so I'm going to delete it from the evidence to be on the safe side. Nosferattus (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• • I don't need to demonstrate that which should be patently obvious to any impartial observer. I am still waiting for you to be explicit about who you are accusing of lying, and of being disingenuous. If you aren't willing to stand by that verbiage, you should strike it. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

    I'll let the admins come to their own conclusions based on the evidence. Nosferattus (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

    Nosferattus, how can anyone come to any conclusions if you refuse to be clear about the accusations and evidence? Who do you think has lied? Who do you think has been disingenuous? Be specific and provide evidence, or withdraw your accusation.

    Let me be clear about the gravity of your accusation. I have given thousands of hours of my time to this project. Reverting vandals, deleting spam, blocking LTAs who abuse our contributors,, writing content that has been reviewed by my colleagues as meeting FA standards - I try to contribute to the project to the best of my abilities, and I always act in good faith towards that end. None of that gives me any special rights to say what a particular article should say, but I think I have a pretty good understanding of our content policies as a result of it all.

    You have impugned my motives as an editor. You have accused me of editing in bad faith. You have made vague accusations about lying, which I think refer to me. I am deeply offended by your comments here, and on my talk page. I ask that you make it very clear exactly who you are accusing of what. Thank you Girth Summit _(blether) 22:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

    Fine. I accept that you don't remember any of your previous interactions with Zefr and that your statement that you had never posted to Zefr's talk page was just an error. This complaint is about Zefr, after all, not you. Nosferattus (talk) 23:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

    Nosferattus, who, then, is the liar? Who has been disingenuous? You can't throw accusations like that around as if they don't matter. Be specific, or withdraw them by striking them - they are deeply offensive Girth Summit _(blether) 23:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

    I struck through those comments. And for the record, the only person who has been specifically accused of being disingenuous here is me, but I doubt anyone cares about that. After all, the rules of Wikipedia are only enforced for the benefit of long-standing editors. Nosferattus (talk) 00:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

    Nosferattus, I haven't seen anyone accuse you of being disingenuous - I may have missed that though can you provide a diff? I would not support anyone saying that about you - for all I have said that I think you are too quick to assume bad faith, I do not think you are a liar.

    Our sourcing rules are there for the benefit of our content, not our contributors. We can disagree on content all day long, but if you impugne someone's motives you are going to a very different level Girth Summit _(blether) 00:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

    [25] Nosferattus (talk) 00:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

    Nosferattus, fair enough, I'd missed that. I'll leave it to Alexbrn to expand on that, I have no comment to make on your motives. I just hope that you now understand how offensive it is to have someone call you a liar (or make vague insinuations to that effect). Girth Summit _(blether) 00:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

(←) I'm seeing a WP:BOOMERANG headed Nosferattus' way for assuming bad faith. Miniapolis 22:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Please remember that many editors have already commented on this thread that Nosferattus is correct that Zefr should not be reaching out to individual, like-minded users, and should instead be using the proper channels. I think Nosferattus has every right to bring up past behavior to make the case to admins. How else can one bring attention to this kind of behavior, which we can all agree is not good? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

What past behaviour are you talking about here? Be specific about what you think has been problematic. I'm not saying that I, or anyone else, is above reproach, but it is unaccepable for you and N to keep making vague statements that concern other editors' conduct. If you are talking about me, I want to know that; I'm sure that goes for everyone else named in this thread Girth Summit _(blether) 00:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I am not talking about your behavior at all. I am referring to the canvassing by Zefr and the comment just made by Miniapolis, and hoping to refocus the issue on what the complaint is. There is nothing vague about the canvassing accusations (against Zefr, not you) that were documented by Nosferratus. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 00:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Seems like blatant canvassing to me without even considering past interactions at all. There doesn't appear to be some context here where the people notified were all of those involved in a previous discussion on the same topic. Instead, this seems to be the notifying specifically of the people who would support the notifiers' position. Even if the notification is a neutral template, that is still canvassing. Such notifications are meant to go on Wikiprojects, not specific editor's pages. Silverseren^C 18:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Let's set the record straight. WP:APPNOTE, the process followed to invite the review of a medical edit on Gingko biloba by three experienced medical editors and a neutral general admin. The four editors have their own interests and extensive editing experience which my invitation alone would not influence, i.e., not 'vote stacking'. All have had little or no activity on the gingko article, but have edited other herbal articles, having relevant background. I could have chosen from dozens of medical editors who previously coedited herbal articles with me over the past 16 years, but for such a conspicuously incorrect, extraordinary, and unsourced claim here, four reliable reviewers were sufficient. APPNOTE says "Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief", all followed with the same message to each editor. I did not post the dispute on WT:MED because the proposed information was minor, unlikely to be of general interest, and obvious misinformation. Note that N did not start a discussion on WT:MED, where such a meritless edit would receive no favorable reception. On the gingko talk page, N initiated a straw poll which has been decisively defeated by consensus. N and supporter Pyrrho the Skeptic (P) are novice medical editors with only a few dozen medical edits combined, most of which have been reverted (many by me) due to low-quality content and absence of good sourcing. There is an air of vengeance-seeking by N in this discussion and many other recent talk page edits. On medical topics, N and P appear to be outside of their competence, WP:CIR - perhaps they would enjoy Wikipedia participation more without such frenetic arguing by staying within their knowledge base. Zefr (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain that. Please note that Votestacking is defined as selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion. Medical editing experience aside, I think it can be argued convincingly that you are counting on these particular editors to weigh in on one particular side of a topic. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

In addition to kind of admitting to canvassing, your post came across as extremely arrogant and BITEy. Next time, I think it's better if you post a neutral notification on relevant wikiproject pages instead of contacting selected editors who you know will see the disputed content as obvious misinformation. Levivich 21:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Didn't need to persuade anyone - review the discussion and poll at the Gingko biloba talk page or go to WT:MED to start a discussion. Better to side with experience and honesty. N and P apparently have a desire for controversy to engage in smearing and disguise the plain fact that both were in error arguing persistently for a baseless medical claim, then seeking some kind of retribution here. Own it and WP:DEADHORSE. Done. Zefr (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Zefr, just don't invite individual editors to ongoing disputes, especially like-minded ones, as that is text book canvassing. Use neutral notifications at relevant wikiprojects, okay? Because repetition of this behaviour would be a cause for sanctions. Thank you. El_C 11:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

N and P apparently have a desire for controversy to engage in smearing and disguise... is a clear personal attack. Levivich 15:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

There's a lot to be desired, in general, with your conduct thus far here, Zefr. You're kind of at the brink, I'm sorry to say. A calm perspective is needed for you to correct your approach (separate from the contested content, as counterintuitive as that may seem). The time to pivot is now. No sense in crashing and burning when a number of different remedies exist when at an impasse. El_C 17:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd definitely agree that calmness is to be encouraged, but I'm disappointed that editors such as ElC and Levicich, for whom I have enormous respect, have no comment to make on the repeated and sustained personal attacks upon myself, here, on the article talk page, and on my own talk page. I'm not asking for sanctions - they have eventually been withdrawn, at least partially - but to paint Zefr as the only party in the wrong here is very hard for me to understand. Girth Summit _(blether) 00:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: No one is painting Zefr as the only party in the wrong here. Commenting on one party's conduct isn't blessing everyone else's. If we had to comment on everyone's conduct imagine how long the comments would be :-) But hasn't Nosf. stricken everything that they need to strike? I'll admit I haven't looked at any page except this thread, so if there's stuff on your talk page or the article talk page I haven't seen it. But I see multiple editors in this thread who have made either false statements or personal attacks (either way, should be struck). Nosf. is one of them, but Nosf. is the only editor who has actually struck anything. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Nosf's transgressions were already dealt with (by you, directly, here in this thread, and I agree with how you dealt with them and everything you've said about them), whereas Zefr's PA I commented on (which is not the only PA in this thread, by far) occurred after Nosf's transgressions were dealt with. As I understand it, Nosf's conduct is not ongoing (which is why I didn't comment on it), whereas Zefr's is (which is why I commented). Levivich 00:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

GS, I'm sorry, but you're doing Zefr (and yourself) a disservice here with such a dividing line. If you felt that the strikethroughs and retractions weren't enough, you should have said something other than fair enough, etc., because to me it looked like that part of it was resolved. Whereas Zefr seems entirely unrepentant about their canvassing, a misstep which, for all we know, they may well do again, and next time, they will definitely be sanctioned for. And if you even give them the hint that they could get away with it next time, you're inadvertently leading them off of a proverbial cliff, I'm sorry to say (truly). El_C 06:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is that the process gets tainted when only like-minded editors are contacted about a dispute, even if one is right on the science/content (excepting bonkers fringe positions, obviously). In this case, editors who are likely to support views held by medical orthodoxy (hey, I count myself among them) were notified to this dispute. That's a problem because it brings the canvassed side (for convenience, orthodoxy) under a cloud in the dispute, even when the strength of their argument/sources is likely to win the day.

Now, if members of the adventurist (for convenience) side are engaging in inappropriate advocacy elsewhere or anything else problematic is happening wrt them, rather than addressing that through a passing comment, it needs to be outlined through the format of a separate report (in this case, a subsection will do), with evidence and summaries that can be easily parsed. And expressed in a detached tone.

The sense I got is that, like Zefr, Nosferattus kneecapped themselves with various aspersions about some of the canvassed editors (as mentioned in my opening, all of whom I, myself, hold in high regard). It was dumb. It brought discord for naught. It muddied the waters and made this thread much more impenetrable and unfocused. But they have apologized and retracted. Enough? Not sure. The whole thing is a bit long, so maybe I misread. But what is clear is that the canvassing issue remains, because Zefr does not acknowledge it as being so (i.e. risk of repetition). And that's where we are now. Fair assessment? El_C 08:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

The personal attack N made on me is still extant in this thread. I also note that the article concerned has been on my watchlist for years and I was already at the article when Z's note appeared, having edited it in the past. I'd like to thank Z for defending the project from the inexperienced editors we have seen at Ginko and elsewhere, and perhaps ask him to be a little more circumspect in his communication to fellow editors. Remember that we have some of the strangest policies on teh Internetz, and intimating, accurately, that a page is under threat from people who would degrade the project, is frowned upon FGS. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 09:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Why are editors being referred to by capital letters in this thread? It's very odd and confusing. Also, what's FGS? El_C 10:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh, for God's sake, right. G is for God — even God isn't immune from this, it seems... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 10:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

El C, as always (or at least often!), you are being very wise. I am offended and pissed off by the accusations, and find it hard to be appropriately dispassionate. I should step back, but I will correct you on one point: they have nowhere apologised, or even fully retracted what they said about me. They have stricken certain words, under pressure from myself, but they have done nothing to give me the impression that they genuinely accept they were in error to make those accusations, or that they will not be so quick to assume bad faith of others again. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Shucks, GS, you're making me . Ah, I see. Duly struck, sorry for misreading. Again, that exchange is long and I found it challenging understanding a lot of it. El_C 15:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@El C: "El N" and "El Z" would have been less odd and confusing? :-P Levivich 15:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

That's right, El_Nadir and El_Zenith — now that's a two weddings dance! El_C 15:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Y'all can we just TBAN Zefr from contacting individuals to polls and stop the petty bickering? It has been asserted that Zefr has also done this in the past, and Zefr's explanation of why he did not put a note at WT:MED rather than contact specific individuals does not seem to fly, after the fact. He has also not stated that he will no longer do this (contacting individuals to polls). Therefore a TBAN, which he can appeal in six months, should resolve the issue. NB: The TBAN and my proposal do not reflect in any way on the quality of Zefr's wiki participation or his motives in contacting specific people. Softlavender (talk) 10:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Can we not just do that and close the thread? It's more complicated than that. There's been canvassing, but there's also been behaviour by others, and on the content dispute I do rather think Zefr had it right. Gingko biloba isn't a therapy.—S Marshall T/C 12:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

S Marshall, that is exactly why Zefr should have posted a neutral note at WT:MED, and not canvassed specific people. Softlavender (talk) 01:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS is the classic example of what paves the road to hell. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

The entire canvassing issue needs to be acknowledged by Zefr (assurances), then my warning to them would suffice, I think. But merely committing to [not] contacting individuals to polls (though I missed where that was stated) wouldn't be enough. Canvassing could also apply to disputes that are absent a poll. As my comment above notes at some length, if there are problems with the opposing side, that should be outlined in a format (evidence, summaries) that can be more easily parsed than... all this. El_C 14:00, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Piotrus, that terse comment isn't helping. To me, it comes across as piggy-backing vis-à-vis your own canvassing recently. So, maybe don't. El_C 14:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

If terse is not good, rest assured one of my to-do projects is to write an academic article on the damage CANVASS policy has done to Wikipedia and its community. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Uh, I'm rested-assured, I guess...? Anyway, sounds like a worthwhile endeavor. If it involves my own actions, I hope that you'd do me the courtesy of a reply, pre-publication. El_C 14:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Girth Summit

Over the last couple of days, I've been giving some thought to my own involvement in this affair, and what I might have done differently with the benefit of hindsight. Kudos to El C and Levivich for challenging me in the collaborative way that they did. I was genuinely offended by the suggestions that I had been untruthful, and that I had acted as I did to support someone based on my agreeing with their POV, or because of their seniority, or because we were buddies, or whatever; it's possible that I allowed my righteous indignation to get in the way of my empathy towards less experienced users however.

I maintain that I have no connection with Zefr, other than recognising that they are an prolific, long-term contributor in good standing. I believe that other prolific, long-term contributors will recognise that there is nothing unusual about two people overlapping on the occasional article talk page discussion, and not remembering specifics. I expect that there are literally hundreds of editors with whom I have interacted more than I have with Zefr; I cannot be expected to remember all of those interactions. I genuinely did not remember posting on their talk page in 2018, and here is the interaction analyser that I checked to see whether I had. My method was to type Ctrl+F, then Zefr. User talk:Zefr does not appear in the search results - thus, I concluded that I had never posted on their talk. User talk:Girth Summit does show up, with one edit from Zefr - thus, I concluded that their post a few days ago was the only one they had ever made. As can be seen from the results of that analyser, we have edited a few pages within minutes of each other, a few more within hours, days, etc. Many of these are user talk pages, and I believe that all of them were the results of us simply overlapping when doing recent changes patrolling.

As I've already said, I believe that long-term prolific contributors will look at our interactions, and understand that there is nothing remotely suspicious in two editors overlapping in this way. However, I recognise that to a new user, who has made fewer than 1,000 contributions, this might look like evidence of collusion, or people acting as part of a cabal. I tried to explain that this was not the case, but perhaps I flew off the handle a bit too early without really considering the perspective of a new user, and should have spent longer explaining things to Nosferattus. I would therefore like to apologise to Nosferattus for this post, which was probably below the standards of what should be expected of an administrator. Since they have been willing to strike through the wording of their accusations, I am willing to accept that their suspicions about me were held in good faith, and that I should have made better efforts to explain the situation to them.

In my first comment to this thread, I said that I thought Zefr should have posted at an appropriate noticeboard rather than reaching out to individuals. When I read their post on my talk, I assumed I had been the only one they had done that to, and that they were contacting me as a neutral admin to comment on the edit warring/accusations of disruptive editing/etc. I'm prepared to accept that Zefr believed in good faith that their notifications were acceptable, as they have set out above, but it remains my view that it is better to post on a public noticeboard than to notify individuals. I think that a statement from them indicating that they take this advice on board would be a positive development.

I don't know whether there is any more that Nosferattus would like from me at this point. I retract my demand that they no longer post on my talk, and I'm prepared to let this flow under the bridge, if they are. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the statement, GS. Yes, the Editor Interaction Analyzer leaves out tons of stuff. I realized this many many years ago when I input myself and the only editor I had collaborated with quite extensively, across dozens of articles, and almost nothing came up. It's very frustrating and the tool should really be reported at VPT and upgraded. Particularly because it's used regarding SPIs. Softlavender (talk) 01:27, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I never accept it as admissible evidence. It's a novelty, that's it. It's troubling that it's seen as anything more. There's no shortcut to diff evidence. El_C 02:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Thank you for posting the thoughtful note. I think we both let our emotions get the better of us. I understand how my actions made you feel unfairly treated, and I hope you can understand how I have also felt unfairly treated. I'm disappointed that Zefr has decided that I am incompetent and "vengeance-seeking". All I want is for the rules of Wikipedia to be applied fairly to everyone. I actually admire Zefr's work on medical topics and his efforts to keep fringe POVs and bogus medical claims off of Wikipedia (as I told him early in our discussions on the talk page). Despite being less experienced than many of you, I always try to cite my edits to reliable, independent, secondary sources, and if it's a medical topic, to review articles or meta-analyses. I'm also completely willing to be corrected when my edits do not adhere to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. What upsets me is someone just repeatedly reverting my edits without adequate explanation, and then breaking the rules (WP:3RR and WP:VOTESTACKING) in order to enforce it. If their opinion really is the more valid opinion, they shouldn't have any trouble fairly establishing consensus on the talk page. After all, that's how Wikipedia is supposed to work, and that's all that I'm asking for. Nosferattus (talk) 04:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Another way that Wikipedia is supposed to work, Nosferattus, is to "broaden participation to more fully achieve consensus". That quote comes from the the first sentence of WP:CANVASS: it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. That is what was done. This discussion may have taken a different, more constructive course had it been entitled, "Seeking consensus on Gingko biloba", which was my intent, as opposed to the inflammatory "vote stacking" accusation, which it was not. "Broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus" means that editors who were notified have their own editing experience, knowledge, interpretation of the content dispute, trust within the WP medical community, and individual decision-making about whether to even join the discussion. We assume good faith that editors asked to comment have their own ideas to contribute, uninfluenced by an invitation to assess. There was no vote stacking, no canvassing, soliciting, conspiracy, or campaigning to support my point of view, and no persuasion in any of the talk discussion. The only expectation was for independent review and collegial input to benefit the article, as is common (and expected) in scholarly collaboration. Meanwhile, at Talk:Ginkgo biloba, appropriate science- and source-based consensus prevailed. I value WT:MED, and have participated in many discussions there. I also know that not every minor dispute warrants community attention, as was this case. For a more complex content or sourcing matter, I would readily initiate and lead a WT:MED discussion, as done numerous times over the years. Zefr (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: logged warning for canvassing

• Support/propose closing this with a logged warning to Zefr about canvassing. Zefr's most recent post, just above, shows they still think they were not canvassing. Unfortunately I think a logged warning is needed to convince Zefr otherwise. Levivich 16:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support logged warning. This was clearly canvassing. Paul August ☎ 00:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support FINAL warning or a TBAN on canvassing individuals. Even as we speak Zefr is self-justifying and refusing to acknowledge his canvassing [26]. He even says the title of the OP's report here should have been "Seeking consensus on Gingko biloba". Good grief. Softlavender (talk) 03:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• I support a logged warning; but I oppose closing this without more. It's a complex problem that isn't well-suited to simplistic outcomes. Zefr's canvassing, though wrong, was done for the right reasons. We don't have an infinite number of people willing to fight the battles he's fighting for us. I could make a good case for a barnstar as well as a warning.—S Marshall T/C 12:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I wish we would not say things like "We don't have an infinite number of people willing to fight the battles he's fighting for us." That's WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. It's this kind of thinking that creates WP:UNBLOCKABLES. The answer is WP:Wikipedia does not need you. There are no battles on Wikipedia that we need people to fight. Editing in a controversial topic area does not justify, excuse, or even mitigate canvassing (or otherwise editing against consensus). If anything, editing in GS/DS areas should make editors more scrupulous, not less. And anyway, the canvassing wasn't "done for the right reasons", it was done to win a content dispute; that's the typical reason, and it's the wrong reason. That we might agree with Zefr on the content dispute should not affect our thinking about the conduct dispute. Levivich 13:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
    • The project's ongoing problems with recruitment and retention mean that we don't have an infinite number of editors willing to stick up for MEDRS, Levivich. Wikipedia absolutely does need editors who fight for reliable sources. I agree with you that it doesn't justify or excuse canvassing; but content does matter and in my view it absolutely should affect our thinking here. Misconduct while fighting disinformation is very different from misconduct while promoting disinformation. This is not an attempt to establish Zefrs as an unblockable. I'm merely saying that this proposed remedy, without more, is too simplistic.—S Marshall T/C 13:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
      • What are you talking about? All editors stick up for MEDRS: that's why MEDRS has global consensus. All editors fight for reliable sources. WP:V and WP:RS also have global consensus. MEDRS and RS aren't going extinct; it's not like they're only supported by a brave few. Your comments lionize ordinary editing and ordinary editors. There are, literally, tens of thousands of people editing, and they're all fighting disinformation, or at least they think they are. Even the worst POV pushers think they're fighting disinformation. Providing reliable information is what we are all doing here. The exceptions are extremely few: the number of people we block or sanction is a tiny, tiny minority compared to the thousands and thousands of people who edit without incident. The proof of this is in the encyclopedia: 20 years on, it works, it fucking works!, and it's not because there are a few brave righteous editors who are upholding RS. Puh-leez. The whole crowd is upholding RS. It's the majority opinion, and a large, large majority at that.
        And don't you get it? Can't you see it? This whole dividing of editors into good editors (those who "stick up for MEDRS", "fight for reliable sources", and "fight[] disinformation") and bad editors (everyone else?), it's how this dispute started: it started with Nosferattus, in a content dispute, accusing Zefr of POV-pushing, because Zefr disagreed with Nosferattus on the proper application of MEDRS. That was an example of the battleground mentality. We have policies like WP:AGF and WP:NPA that are specifically meant to address that battleground mentality. Absent evidence that someone is POV pushing (or "promoting disinformation"), we assume good faith: we assume that everyone is here to fight disinformation, to uphold reliable sources. Nosferattus created a large problem by failing to do so, by accusing Zefr of POV-pushing (which led to more PAs from multiple editors, and canvassing, and this thread). And here you are, SM, doing the same damn thing: implying that Nosferattus is promoting disinformation and not upholding MEDRS. Stop the cycle. Either bring the diffs and prove POV pushing or disinformation promotion... or else AGF and treat both Zefr and Nosferattus as editors who are both upholding MEDRS and fighting disinformation (but who simply disagree on the details). Levivich 14:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
        • @S Marshall: For the record, the statement that Zefr canvassed to remove was cited to a Cochrane Review from its first appearance, which is considered the gold standard for WP:MEDRS compliance. Please see the straw poll in question. As I mentioned in the initial complaint here, this was not "Zefr enforcing MEDRS", this was Zefr fighting a content dispute by unilaterally reverting 3 other editors and then canvassing. Sure, MEDRS can be interpreted to support Zefr's opinion, but it can also be interpreted to support my opinion. Nothing in MEDRS prohibits adding the sentence I added to the article, and I don't think anyone would argue it is "disinformation". What people are arguing about is the strength of the evidence. This complaint, however, is not about content, it is about behavior, so I would love it if we don't bring the content dispute here. Nosferattus (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
          • Despite Levivich and Nosferattus' very outraged, passionate and spirited defence of this, I remain of the view that while Zefr's actions did amount to canvassing, there are mitigating factors. I remain of the view that a logged sanction for Zefr should form part of our response to this, but I disagree that it should be the only response.—S Marshall T/C 15:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
            • @S Marshall: What other response are you proposing? Personally, I think tightening up the language at WP:MEDRS would be a good response. If the community truly feels like Zefr's interpretation of MEDRS is valid (i.e. that cited sources must focus specifically on the claim cited rather than discussing it within research on a related topic), that should be written into WP:MEDRS. Nosferattus (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
              • I'm still looking at it, and I haven't finished deciding how I think we should respond. At the moment I envisage the additional required responses as advice and guidance rather than logged sanctions. I can also see good grounds for edits to guidelines. A question that has recently troubled me is how I should act where someone canvassed me to join a discussion and, having read it, I did want to participate in the discussion. I think the editors Zefr canvassed would have benefitted from that too.—S Marshall T/C 16:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

                @S Marshall I understand where you are coming from, but WP:MITIGATING isn't even an essay yet. In my experience, our community is much more about the letter of the law than the spirit. For the record, in principle, I agree that mitigating factors should be more often considered - you can also check out my relevant mini-essay here. And as for the barnstar, nobody needs an ANI permission to award one. If you think Zefr's deserves a barnstar, you can award him one at anytime. The odds of it being a community approved one on the level of a warning, however, are rather slim. (Out of curiosity, has AN(I) discussion ever resulted in a community-approved barnstar...?). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

                S Marshall Actually, your question raises another one: if "how should I act" includes thoughts of, "maybe I should recuse myself", or, "maybe I should just 'Comment' and not !vote", then canvassing known opposers who were scrupulous about canvassing concerns could be a method of increasing one's probability of success by, well, let's call it WP:VOTESTOMPING for lack of a better term. Or have I fallen into the Hall of Mirrors maze? I'm sure I've considered recusal a handful of times, and I don't remember how it turned out, but it made me feel queasy. Mathglot (talk) 02:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

            • I am not outraged and that wasn't really passionate, at least for me. Levivich 17:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• Question Can someone explain to me what a "logged warning" is and what effect it has? Nosferattus (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • It's a warning that's logged at WP:EDR. Levivich 17:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
    • @Levivich and El C: So is someone going to act on this proposal? What is the next step? Nosferattus (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
      • @Nosferattus: don't know. Haven't looked at this since my Sept 11 comment. El_C 19:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - per Nosferattus' question. What is "logged warning for canvassing". GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support logged warning. Blatant case of canvassing. A warning is warrented because Zefr continued to excuse his actions. It's unfortunate that experienced editors feel compelled to defend breaking of the rules when it's done 'for a good cause'. It's harmful WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality as Levivich mentioned above. Av = λv (talk) 09:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support logged warning. scope_creep^Talk 12:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Request for closure

It's been about 2 weeks since the last substantive comment in this discussion. Could an administrator review it and close it? Thanks. Nosferattus (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Still waiting for an admin to review and close. Nosferattus (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I've never seen a logged warning that wasn't also accompanied by a sanction (or as a WP:CONDUNBLOCK) anywhere but WP:AEL (or maybe also at individual WP:GSs). From what I'm seeing, nothing of the sort is currently featured at WP:RESTRICT (i.e. warnings per se.). El_C 14:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@El C: see e.g. Special:Diff/856599223 ending with "This is a formal, and final, warning that will be logged at WP:EDR" (and it remains logged there). Anyways I think the content dispute in question might be covered by the DS areas WP:ARBPS and WP:ARBCAM (and probably some GS too but I'm too lazy to look). FWIW. CYA, Levivich 22:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I just hate that table so much. El_C 15:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Wait 'til you hear what that table has to say about you! Levivich 16:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Oops, forgot about this. Levivich, your link doesn't explain where in WP:RESTRICT do I add the warning. El_C 15:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Going off of the example I linked to above, that was logged on this page with this edit. Obvi I'm not an admin and thus don't know how to log anything, but FWIW this is what I had in mind when I made the proposal for a "logged warning". Levivich 15:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Shit, I was hoping you wouldn't answer. OMG, the table. Okay, here I go. El_C 06:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Unblock request from BashurMan

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

---

BashurMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User has requested to be unblocked via UTRS appeal #48468. They were check user blocked by Materialscientist on February 20, 2019, who then unblocked. Was checkuser blocked again by DoRD February 22, 2018. Yamla found no checkuser evidence of block evasion. Courtesy ping for my colleague Yamla, who wishes to take part.

There request is carried over below:

I understand why I have been blocked from editing. I created multiple accounts for the use of sockpuppetry. I vandalized a small number of articles with those created accounts. The reason why I committed these actions is that I wanted to put a bad impression on my friend. I realize that this was a bad idea, and I should not have done that. I was immature and did not know better. One of my edits was me threatening to murder someone. That was part of me attempting to make my friend look bad. I now recognize that it was extremely bad to edit an article to say that. I regret editing that message and I want to apologize for any harm to any user that had to read that. If I were to be unblocked following this unblock request, I would help contribute towards various genres of articles to keep them up-to-date. These genres include U.S. sports, U.S. infrastructure, and statistic genres. I would fact-check these genre-type articles to, like previously said, keep them up-to-date with the present, and help make sure other editors do not vandalize the articles, causing the articles to be confusing for others. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• I'm sorry – with all respect to a "people change over time" and especially "people grow up over time" approach –, but I've stopped considering an unblock in the moment I read "One of my edits was me threatening to murder someone." There may be others who have a more understanding approach, of course. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: I think that they are referring to this edit, where they used a sock account to threaten themselves??? 192.76.8.74 (talk) 22:42, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I recognize that there is a difference between "threatening to murder someone [else]" and "sending fake death threats to oneself". Still, I'm out of here. I won't go through every edit of the user to ensure that this is what they referred to, and I don't trust them enough to accept this explanation without going through every edit. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to Yamla for actually checking all the edits. This partially resolves my concern. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Could you clarify which edit they made which was threatening to murder someone? That could help provide important context. If it is just the edit the IP linked, it seems to me like an isolated petty feud on a user talk page, and I'd be inclined to support the appeal, but if it was a different edit, I would reconsider.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:52, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Technical notes:

• CU data are kept only for a short time, so the fact that Yamla did not find evidence of socking on 22 September 2021 has little meaning.
• DoRD reblocked on 23 February 2019, not 2018.
• I wonder how do we know this is not a continuation of the same game, kind of "let us see how easy is it to get unblocked"? Materialscientist (talk) 08:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose unblocking. I went through all the edits of this account and the socks and am very sure the murder threat was indeed this edit. Threatening to kill one's self is, well, WP:EMERGENCY but in this context, not the same as threatening to kill another editor. However, it does show a profound lack of maturity. Deliberate trolling that causes problems for us. Frankly, when combined with the vandalism, that's enough for me to oppose unblocking here. If others think enough time has passed and this user has demonstrated more maturity, fine. I don't see it. --Yamla (talk) 10:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose unblocking. The misconduct was severe, and I find the explanation The reason why I committed these actions is that I wanted to put a bad impression on my friend to be bizarre. I see no evidence that this person has the maturity to be a useful contributor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support unblock. The past misconduct shows immaturity, but the willingness to acknowledge it now, 2+1⁄2 years later, shows just the opposite—as does the decision to request an unblock rather than try to evade, which, let's be honest, is what most reformed small-time vandals would do in this situation. If this very request is trolling, we'll find out soon enough, and won't fall for it the next time. If we won't unblock for something like this after two years, when will we? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose This threat precludes returning, it invalidates the standard offer. I don't care if it was to himself. It was a public message and gave the appearance of a dangerous environment. This form of trolling makes Wikipedia a scary place and drives off good users. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support unblock, because the bizarre episode appears to be an isolated, and it has been more than six months since the most recent socking, so I am willing to support a standard offer unblock with a one account restriction.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, and recommend that this thread be removed and suppressed per the overt threats of violence. I know people can change and mature and I'm usually one of the first to advocate for second chances, but we need to weigh that against the possibility that they'll use Wikipedia to threaten to murder someone else, and no it doesn't matter one tiny little bit that it was a joke or a game (it makes it worse, in fact). Is that possibility slim, or is it not worth taking the chance? I think the latter. Some people are never going to be fit to edit Wikipedia, and the sort of person who makes murder threats even once strikes that chord for me. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support unblock on the basis that they seem to demonstrate understanding of and genuine regret for their previous actions, and WP:AGF and all that. As noted above the supposed murder threat was a fake death threat against themselves; I don't see any compelling need to worry that they might start threatening other people. Obviously, as with anyone returning from a block, any further misdemeanour could see the block return with very little chance of a future unblock, and I think they know that. WaggersTALK 12:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support because "I wanna kill you" is a common thing that people say in casual conversation to each other all the time. It's one of the archetypical examples of hyperbole, right up there with "I wanna kill myself." It's rarely intended or understood literally. This distinction is more difficult to discern over text, but still, I don't see this as a genuine death threat but rather as ordinary trolling/vandalism/fuckwittery, the kind of thing kids are known for. The fact that some kid wrote "I wanna kill you so fucking bad" once on this website is not worth a lifetime ban. There is no reason to think if we unblock them they're going to go about making death threats. Two years is long enough to mature, and they can always be blocked again if need be. Levivich 16:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, I am as so often overwhelmed by the understanding, tolerance and forgiveness that is shown to problem editors, and in this case it is an editor who comes with threats of killing someone, or committing suicide, if I understand it correctly.--Berig (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Support unblock. Not going to lie, I only didn't comment sooner because I thought I might be the only one who thinks this way, but now that there are few more support comments I don't feel as silly supporting. The apology seems genuine, and I think the user should be given a WP:LASTCHANCE to demonstrate that they will never do something that bad again. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per HighinBC and Ivanvector: created the appearance of a dangerous environment and not worth the risk. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support - With all genuine respect for my fellow editors that disagree, every human being is worth the risk and especially when they come to us and profess an understanding of the conduct which go them blocked and how they are expected to act going forward. It doesn't matter how old we are or where we are in life, someone has taken a risk on us at some point in our journey. In my opinion it is a relatively small risk as this editor will, no doubt, be followed somewhat and the areas they wish to edit appear to be well watched. I can see the reasons for hesitancy to unblock and I share in them, however, no accomplishment, great or small, was ever brought about without a measure of risk. Lot's of people took chances on me and still do. --ARoseWolf 20:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• Bumping thread for 7 days. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Honestly, support unblock, mostly per Levivich's comment above. I also disagree w/ I find the explanation ... to be bizarre. I see no evidence that this person has the maturity to be a useful contributor. -- the editor is explaining their thought process at the time, which obviously was silly and they seem to acknowledge that, but it doesn't speak to their thought process now. And there's nothing bizarre about the explanation; kids do silly things. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Opp. The name of the sock account they used to make the death comment was User:Iwanttodiexdnoobxdnoob. I want to die x noob x noob. They also got into an argument with themselves on their talkpage with another sock User:TheBestSniperWhoIsAMaster. The Best Sniper Who Is A Msater. I cannot support due to blaming it on "mak[ing] my friend look bad" & to "put a bad impression on my friend". And then go to the Teahouse to seek advice about it? I don't buy it. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

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

E-960 TBAN — Request for the lifting of sanctions

I'd like to submit a formal request to the administrators and the community for the lifting of sanctions imposed on me relating to a TBAN on subject matter concerning "Secular Politics in Europe" and "Christianity". The TBAN took effect on 14 August 2020.

Since then, I have refrained form editing articles covering this subject matter. Also, in order to maintain an open and objective account of the past year; there were a couple of stumbles along the way, relating to issues regarding what the TBAN specifically covered, which were raised by a couple of other editors, and on two occasions when editing history articles, I have inadvertently hit on subject matter that was connected to Christianity. In all those cases, these were not topics directly related to Christianity itself, but rather historical events between the 16th and 20th centuries in which the Church played some role in (as often was the case in European politics during the Middle-ages, Renaissance, etc.). Nevertheless, there was a connection to the TBAN, and I served out the two week block without objection. Also, I would like to emphasise that these unfortunate instances were just slip-ups on my part, for which I took responsibility, and they were never intended as a way to flaunt the TBAN, prove a point, or fight the power.

Also, I would like to emphasise that I take responsibility for what I did which resulted in the TBAN, which was to say that another editor's approach was "bolshevik" when discussing text changes in the Religion in the European Union article, and the ugly discussion on the Administrators' noticeboard, which ensued. Again, I would like to ask the administrators and the community to lift the imposed TBAN sanctions. Also, I can answer any questions regarding the original situation which resulted in the TABN, and also my current approach to editing. --E-960 (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• I would support that - Will elaborate later. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Blocked three months ago for breaking ban, and understates their disruption above. See ANI link imposing the ban. They should also be blocked for breaching the ban in their very recent edits, which include [27][28] (and others) to Battle of Grunwald and [29] to Grunwald Monument. This was battle between the Kingdom of Poland and the Teutonic Order, otherwise known as the Order of Brothers of the German House of Saint Mary in Jerusalem which is a Catholic religious order and falls squarely in the middle of the Christianity and European secular politics ban. As they keep on breaking the ban, it should be widened to a more definitive scope.--Hippeus (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Hippeus, have you interacted with E-960 before? Just wondering. Volunteer Marek 00:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes - Hippeus soon after their appearance filed a complaint [30] that lead to this topic ban. GizzyCatBella🍁 06:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Off-topic — Wug·a·po·des​
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ah, right. Up until August 2020 Hippeus just ran up their edit count via automated vandal patrol to get past the 500/30 requirement which is in place for both Israel-Palestine topics and for Poland. Then they out of nowhere, having never interacted with E-960 (in a obvious manner) filed a report on them. Then back to running up that edit count. Then, also out of nowhere, Hippeus starts showing up to AE reports related to Israel-Palestine commenting with great insight on editors they've also never interacted with (in a obvious manner) and then files an AE on an editor active in Israel-Palestine area [31] that they've also never interacted with. It is actually kind of mind blowing how naive admins on Wikipedia are. Volunteer Marek 20:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC) @Volunteer Marek - Thank you for the evaluation concerning the fresh Hippeus account. I don't desire to discuss anything else than the topic of this appeal hence small text size, but since you possibly encountered WP:NPA in this thread, I'll add that... Levivich, who is accusing you of tag-teaming, was just highly supportive of the very Hippeus here [32]. You may interpret this however you want, I'm just recording it for everyone to see. Quote - Damn, the hypocrisy. You tag team while--with your tag team partners--accuse editors who !vote a different way of tag teaming. Shameless. -->[33] - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC) Levivich, who is accusing you of tag-teaming, was just highly supportive of the very Hippeus here - Lol, I didn't even see that. But yeah, Levivich jumps around noticeboards supporting (i.e. "tag teaming") a WP:DUCK account in its BATTLEGROUND reports then shows up here and has the nerve to accuse other editors of tag teaming. ... .... ... smack head again desk. Volunteer Marek 22:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC) (And Battle of Grunwald and Grunwald Monument are most definitely NOT breaches of the topic ban - this is some really bad faith stretchin' of the scope of the ban. The battle had nothing to do with religion. Volunteer Marek 00:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Topic bans are meant to be "broadly construed", not tested to their limits. This, although not a substantial edit, is more clear-cut: adding a header called "The enlightenment and political turmoil" to an article about a European state is clearly about "European secular politics"... Given that they were blocked in June for a violation of this (their excuse back then was that they missed a reference to politics in a larger section: that at least seems credible. Outright adding "politics" in a header is less of an accident...); they should have figured by now that caution is more appropriate, i.e. a topic ban is "if you're not sure, it probably is under the topic ban, and if you're really really not sure, ask for clarification before violating the topic ban". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Thats ridiculous. By this interpretation any edit to, say, medieval history in Europe would fall under the topic ban. Because, you know, people were very religious back then. Volunteer Marek 17:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

*Oppose, block for breaking the ban, and expand ban to Christianity and European politics broadly construed. E-960 said way more than just the Bolshevik comment, his commentary included: [34][35][36][37]. E-960 had issues with the ban to begin with, which led to warnings and a block. Most of his recent edits are in violation of the ban. Any edits to topics pertaining to European Monastic states, and specifically a battle between the Monastic State of the Teutonic Order and a secular kingdom in the Battle of Grunwald pertain both to Christianity and to European secular politics. The edit RandomCanadian brought up above is also within the ban, the Enlightenment section contains “The latter's conversion from Lutheranism to Catholicism awed the conservative magnates and Pope Innocent XII, who in turn voiced their endorsement.” As the ban is repeatedly flouted it should be widened to remove the possible ambiguity around “secular politics”. @Wugapodes: who implemented the ban.--Astral Leap (talk) 08:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC) sock puppet

• Astral Leap, RandomCanadian and Hippeus, if you don't mind I'd like to respond to your comments regarding the TBAN, and quote another user who commented previously during one of the debates about me regarding this issue: Elemimele said: ...the phrase "broadly construed" only strengthens clearly-defined bans. It weakens any TBAN that contains a hint of ambiguity, because it invites the response "but construed broadly", that encompasses absolutely everything, which is clearly unfair! That, I think, is why this debate has come up so many times. the full comment can be viewed here [38]. Also, other users such as Dawid2009 wrote to me separately voicing their reservations about the TBAN, to which I simply replied that I'll try to appeal after one year. Just as well, you can argue that since Poland was a Christian kingdom, so I broke the TBAN there, or when I edited the page on Helmut Kohl, because he is a European politician, enlightenment, well that's science and art, so I'll be breaking the TBAN if I edit the articles on Isaac Newton or Michelangelo. Also, I would like to highlight a couple of important facts for your consideration, that the TBAN was imposed for a VERY specific incident regarding a text I added which covered the marginalisation of Christians in the EU on the Religion in the European Union page. Never before that, was there an issue with me and topics related to Christianity or Secular Politics of Europe. If I was a serial offender, constantly getting in disruptive arguments regarding the topic of Christianity or Secular Politics of Europe, I could understand your arguments of a very broadly construed TBAN based on several incidents. However, because this was a very localised flare-up, I simply do not understand why you would want to expand the understanding of the TBAN to such a wide scope. Please remember that the TBAN is not a punishment of some kind, it's a tool to prevent disruptive editing and it serve as a cooling off period. So, why would you want to expand the TBAN to areas which were not an issue before? Also, I did not edit text about the Teutonic Knights specifically, in the Battle of Grunwald article, just about Silesians and Vlachs who fought on the Polish side, so again you are stretching the understanding of the TBAN to about as wide as it possibly can gets. --E-960 (talk) 12:22, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so I shouldn't really be commenting. But since I stuck my nose in last time, and have been mentioned again: my concern was (1) that the TBAN, as worded, unfortunately meant the exact opposite of what was intended. I believe it was a ban on "European secular politics, broadly construed". Pedantically, this would allow E-960 to edit on religious (as opposed to secular) politics, and anything non-political. I believe the ban was intended to cover something much narrower: "The politics of secularisation in Europe", which is actually religious politics. This wouldn't matter, except that people have been using the phrase "broadly construed" to stretch secular politics to encompass more or less everything. And that's problem (2): if you are going to ban someone whose primary interest is European history from writing about anything that could possibly be construed as European politics, you may as well admit it's a site-ban. Overall (3) I was unhappy that E-960 should be penalised for failing to keep to the terms of a ban whose extent seemed unclear even to the other admins. It seemed to me best to write off the whole rather sorry saga, start again, look at E-960's current editing (is it good, is it disruptive?) and if, based on this, it's felt that a ban is appropriate, create a new one, worded with less ambiguity. Elemimele (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Off-topic — Wug·a·po·des​
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Astral Leap Given your weeks of inactivity and status of a relative newcomer, can you tell us how did you find out about this discussion? And why are you interested in this? Did you and the user who requested this ban to be lifted interact before? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC) Damn, the hypocrisy. You tag team while--with your tag team partners--accuse editors who !vote a different way of tag teaming. Shameless. Levivich 13:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC) Since this is AN(I), and you should know better, I ask reviewing admins to consider the above in light of WP:NPA/Wikipedia:ASPERSIONS. TIA Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC) @Levivich:, it is almost as if these three accounts are a single account for past three months. At Honchy Brid massacre these three, [39] [40] [41], attempted to remove all trace of the crime.--Erin Vaxx (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC) Welcome back to Wikipedia - you took a month-long break, I see. What are the odds of running into you here, huh. Perfectly innocent coincidence, right, Levivich? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC) (edit conflict)The evidence is in this thread: the posts by you, VM, and GCB. I've previously provided evidence of the tag teaming I'm talking about at ANI in August and on my talk page. On my talk page, I offered to provide more specific examples of you, VM and/or GCB tag-teaming, and I asked you to tell me how many examples would be enough examples to overcome any defense that it's all just a coincidence. You have not yet given me a number, but the offer stands. This thread is just the latest example of you, GCB, and VM tag-teaming. GCB casts the first support. When an editor opposes, VM shows up to question the editor, along with GCB. When another editor opposes, you show up to question the editor (and support). This is exactly the kind of tag-teaming that people have been complaining about for a long time... at least since the days of WP:EEML (to which you and VM were a party), if not earlier. And, you were TBANed for canvassing last year. And it came up again in that ANI thread in August. This is not an aspersion, it's a sustained complaint. (And BTW: I have no opinion on the merits of this appeal: when I brought the TBAN violation ANI thread a few months ago, I walked away thoroughly confused about the scope of the TBAN, so I express no opinion about it or whether it was followed or not.) Levivich 15:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC) @Levivich - consider the possibility that you may be mistaken. I follow the same pages as those editors since I'm interested in the same topic area. Occasionally, I also reflect on edits of editors interested in my topic area. Is this clear for you? So quit accusing me of the rule violation and BACK OFF. I'm not going to take it lightly if you continue. PS - This thread is about something else, so please stick to the topic. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC) I've already stopped taking your tag-teaming lightly. When this appeal was posted I wasn't gonna comment. When you supported, I wasn't gonna comment. When VM questioned an opposer, I recognized it as yet another example of the tag-teaming, but I wasn't going to comment. When Piotrus questioned a second opposer, that's what crossed the line for me, and now I'm commenting, again. There are many examples of the three of you doing this, and if you'd like me to provide more, just say how many. The next time I see you three tag-team, I will comment again: this is what I told Piotrus on my talk page last time: I will be speaking up about this; I'm not gonna waste time bringing it to a noticeboard, but I will speak up. Levivich 17:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC) Oh please. You’re acting faux-outraged that editors who are involved in the topic area and who have commented on this user/sanction in the past several times are commenting again and trying your darnedest to pretend like it’s some great conspiracy and yet... at the same time you got exactly ZERO to say about all the sketchy accounts popping out of nowhere here and hijacking the discussion yet again (nevermind the first responder who spent their time on Wikipedia running up their edit count with mindless vandal patrol to get past the 500/30 hurdle so they could file reports against editors in both Israel-Palestine and Eastern Europe topic areas). Right right. As long as these editors fit your POV you’re quite willing to turn a blind eye to their shenanigans yet you think it okay to invent WP:ASPERSIONS and make wild accusations against long established editors. Got it. Your double standards are clear as day. Par for the course Levivich. Par for the course. Volunteer Marek 19:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC) In which case, this being AN, I repeat my request to the adminstrators regarding whether the above personal attacks, which Levivch refuses to withdraw, can be dealt with here, or if this should be taken to a higher instance. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC) @VM and Piotrus: to be clear, the thing I am accusing you of is improper coordination, i.e. tag-teaming. An example is that you will "tag-team" to badger participants in a discussion who disagree with you, usually with sea lioning questions insinuating they're a sockpuppet or meatpuppet or that they are hounding or that they are, ironically, tag-teaming. We see this on display here: first, GCB !votes support. The first oppose !vote, VM shows up to badger. The second oppose !vote, Piotrus shows up to badger. This is by far not the first time I've raised this complaint, nor am I the only one who has. I don't take it to a noticeboard because this happens at noticeboards like AN, like right here, and also because you've all been sanctioned before. So, the admin know about this. They see what I see. They can choose to do something, or not, it's totally up to them. I see no point in starting a new thread about it on any page. If anyone wants me to provide more examples of this behavior, they only need to tell me how many. Because I evidence my accusations, they are not aspersions, nor are they personal attacks. I can't block or ban any of you or do anything about this, other than use my voice to call it out when I see it: that's all I can do, so that's what I do. It's the same approach I have to incivility: call it out when I see it. Levivich 20:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC) VM already elaborated better than I could, and as for admins, they should be able to see who is being civil - or not - here, as well as who is supported by WP:DUCK low-edit count accounts that were inactive for weeks and then suddenly found themselves at AN. I wasn't going to comment here until I realized this thread is being abused by suspicious acounts whose names I recalled from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz. You can entertain us with irrelevant ancient history of how I and VM "tag teamed" ~13 years ago, years before E-960 or GCB were active; but the recent (~2019) Icewhiz incident and his ongoing socking is a current and relevant problem that reviewing admins should certainly be aware of. This has been pointed out to you clearly yet you have nothing to say about those new accounts that suddenly activated here. Let me end by quoting your post just above: "Damn, the hypocrisy". Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC) Levivich, if you think an admin is just gonna step in and sanction any major EE participant, of either camp, you haven't been following along. A full ARBEE2 case, or it didn't happen. No admin is gonna do anything without Hurricane winds in their sails (something happening of an especially egregious nature), because why would they? If either side wants to establish an incremental buildup of problems that are felt to have gotten too much for whatever reason, ArbCom is that-a-way. The other option is for both sides to keep waiting for Godot, who is generally busy. El_C 15:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC) I'm not sure what part of what I wrote leads you to believe I want or expect admins to do anything (especially since I wrote the exact opposite). At the risk of sounding like a broken record: what I'm doing is calling it out when I see it; everyone else can do whatever they want. Levivich 17:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC) Ah, howling to the wind then, got it. In opposite land, you writing "the exact opposite" was understood by all. El_C 17:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Seems like the lesson has been learned. No need for further punishment, but the ban remains part of the record, and if any problematic editing resurfaces, next one will presumably be much longer, so please be careful. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Close without prejudice until the allegations of tag-teaming can be reviewed by ArbCom. I don't think E-960 is party to it and I'm sorry it has to be on their backs, but we can't have one group of editors and their controversial POV dominate the TA. I will support bringing E-960's appeal without prejudice once everything else is settled. François Robere (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Off-topic — Wug·a·po·des​
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Let me get this straight. First you show up here to tag team with Levivich and brand new accounts that just scream WP:DUCK (like Erin Vaxx) and you do this to ... accuse others of tag teaming. At same time you say, quote, “I don’t think E-960 has is party to it” yet... you have absolutely no problem trying to punish them on the basis of (false) allegations YOU make against OTHER editors??? How the funky does that work??? You’re basically saying “I’m going to oppose this appeal because there are people here who supported it that I don’t like”. Seriously? That’s your justification? That is why another editor should be punished? Because you and Levivich hold a grudge against me and blame me for getting your wiki buddy Icewhiz banned??? (Guess what, he actually got himself banned by making violent threats against other editors) This is a low even for ANI on Wikipedia. Volunteer Marek 19:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC) And oh yeah, your comment here is pretty much a violation of your interaction ban with GizzyCatBella [42] (which makes this a repeated infraction since you were just blocked for violating it in July [43]). If you had shown up here and opposed E-960's appeal on merits and focused on E-960 then you would've been fine. But then you just couldn't help yourself and you just had to cast some ASPERSIONS about "group of editors and their controversial POV", which is a very obvious reference to GizzyCatBella. Stop stalking their edits. Volunteer Marek 20:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC) (Similar applies to Astral Leap who showed up here right after GCB and who they are also I-banned with, but at least AL stuck to the topic rather than going off script). Volunteer Marek 20:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC) Mud slinging aside, tag-teaming is a serious issue, and one that's been been raised repeatedly over the last three years. If you and Piotrus are faultless, taking it to ArbCom is probably a better idea than blindly attacking anyone who makes it. François Robere (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC) Mud slinging? Mud. Slinging? Seriously? You show up here, make a lot of false and completely irrelevant accusations against a bunch of users, you plainly state that you are going to Oppose this user's appeal for NO OTHER REASON than that you don't like some of the users who support it (and I didn't even support it!)and on top of that you violate your interaction ban and THEN you have the nerve to accuse OTHER editors of "mudslinging"??? Holy cups of tea. Like... how ... why... how ... can anyone do this and keep a straight face? Volunteer Marek 22:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I do not believe this user has properly addressed the reason for their topic ban, and I don't actually see a need to remove it.--Jorm (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

If it's not lifted, then it should at least be clarified because right now no one knows what the hey it's suppose to cover. Volunteer Marek 20:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• Agree with User:Elemimele above (who I think is like the only "outside" editor here, and User:Elemimele you can certainly comment and !vote if you're not an admin) - if the ban is not lifted it needs to be reworded because currently it's just impossible to understand what it actually covers. My understanding is that it was suppose to cover explicitly "religious stuff" or disputes related to religion (including religion vs non-religion) but now people are pretending that any thing medieval is covered. Volunteer Marek 22:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

François Robere, I would ask that you re-consider and strike down your OPPOSE statement. I believe that it is very unfair to me that you are opposing my request based on an unrelated dispute with other editors. At this point, that whole tag-team dispute has taken over my request. The irony is that it appears that on both sides here there are editors who follow the same topics or issues. Users Piotrus and Volunteer Marek often get involved in the same topics, as do you FR follow the same topics as Levivich or Icewhiz before he got banned for doing some funny stuff. I'm not implying that there is some nefarious connection here. Seriously, we all primarily edits Wikipedia articles related to history and current events, so I would not expect some Polish editor or whoever — someone who primarily edits pages related to astronomy or botany — to jump into this discussion, because we would have never interacted before. Most of the user here will be folks we interacted with in the past. --E-960 (talk) 04:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree it's unfair to dismiss your request because of the involvement of third parties, but that's exactly what was done four months ago with this complaint, and with many other complaints before it. Both "tag teaming" (which is suspected here) and "socking" (which was suspected there) are types of WP:GAMING, and the community should be able to sift them out and consider only the merits; but in practice it doesn't, and when either is suspected the entire case is usually thrown away. Again, I do not think it fair and I'd rather your appeal proceeded all the same, but under the circumstances it might be better to close it without prejudice so it can be re-filed and re-considered later, and this time only on its merits. François Robere (talk) 07:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

FR, this is a DEEPLY problematic statement here from you. Just like the last one. First you say you will oppose the request by E-960 because of how OTHER editors !voted. Then when this is pointed out to you you invoke... some completely irrelevant discussion from like 5 months ago, where you didn't get what you want (neither Piotrus nor anyone else commenting here participated in that discussion - so much for "tag teaming") in which E-960 didn't participate. In fact it had nothing to do with them! What in the flying chelubinsk does this have to do with this request? Let's review:

1. You first choose to "oppose" this appeal request because of how other editors !vote. This is nothing but spite and the crazy thing is that you admit to it freely.

2. You then amend that to effectively opposing it with the rationale that... there was some other discussion five months ago which had nothing to do with this one where you didn't get what you want to so you want to screw over someone else now. This is even worse! And the crazy thing is you admit to it freely.

If there is a more picture perfect, quintessential, archetypal, representative, characteristic, emblematic and demonstrative example of what "WP:BATTLEGROUND" means then I haven't seen it in my 11 years on Wikipedia. This right here? THIS is why this topic area is a total mess. Because of attitudes like this one. Someone who expresses opinions such as these and approaches editing in a topic area in such a way needs to be removed from it ASAP. This here is grounds for a topic ban FR. Volunteer Marek 17:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I'd like to follow up on the recent comments regarding my request for the lifting of the TBAN, and would like to re-state my arguments for the lifting of sanctions. Again, I think that it is important to keep in mind the ultimate purpose of a TBAN as an administrative tool, and that it's purpose is to stop non-productive/disruptive behaviour, or in cases of heated exchanges to provide a prolonged cooling-off period. In my case it was the latter, where a discussion over a disputed text got out of hand. However, it is important to highlight the fact that this was a very specific incident regarding a text on the Religion in the European Union page. Before that there were no issues related to my editing of topics concerning Christianity or Secularist Politics in Europe. This is an important fact to consider because of the repeated calls by some editors to expand on the TBAN, or opposition by others to lift the sanctions. As user Elemimele stated in their previous comment "why you'd want to inflict sanctions" and "what message would you want sanctions against E-960 to convey". At this point, in response to my request for the lifting of sanctions some editors are arguing for expansion of the TBAN because I made a couple of minor edits on the Battle of Grunwald article, where I added two small shield icons next to the links for Silesians and Wallachians, and I changed the description in an image caption from "Actor playing King Władysław II Jagiełło" to "A re-enactor dressed as King Władysław II Jagiełło". How are those edits, directly connected with the issue for which the TBAN was imposed — which was the topic regarding the marginalisation of Christians in the EU? In summary, I think that after over a year under sanctions, the lesson has been learned on my part, and the continued application of the TBAN only creates more unnecessary disruptions and confusion. To highlight the point, I would like to quote user Levivich who noted earlier "I have no opinion on the merits of this appeal: when I brought the TBAN violation ANI thread a few months ago, I walked away thoroughly confused about the scope of the TBAN, so I express no opinion about it or whether it was followed or not." So, in the end, I would argue for the lifting of the TBAN, and starting anew, also keeping in mind that another temporary TBAN or even a permanent TBAN can always be re-imposed if required. However, for now, I think that it would be of benefit to everyone if this TBAN is allowed to end. --E-960 (talk) 06:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I said this when they were blocked [44] and this appeal has re-affirmed my concerns. Talking about burying the lead "Since then, I have refrained form editing articles covering this subject matter" only to then mention whoops that time I didn't and so got blocked. "I served out the two week block without objection." yeah you accepted you were wrong, still found the time to complain [45] about "bit of a quick draw on the block" and "As before, it seems that Astral Leap is more interested in getting me blocked then to ensure that things stay orderly on Wikipedia". And then unsuccessfully appeal [46] [47]. As Hippeus and RandomCanadian have mentioned the editor is still testing the limits of a topic ban. This isn't an editor we should trust to be allowed back into the subject area, instead we should be considering if it needs to be expanded. BTW since people keep asking I've obviously interacted with E-960 per my first diff but AFAIK that is the extent of our interactions. (I could have forgotten something, I recalled the block but forgot the advice I offered until I found it when researching the history.) Since I think no one linked to it before now, the discussion which lead to the block was Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1070#E-960 community imposed TBAN. The clarifications and discussions in 1052 and 1071 were already linked by Wugapodes below and the original topic ban discussion as a permalink above but I noticed these two Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1044#Religion in the European Union — Status quo stonewalling Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1044#Offensive and disparaging comments discussions around the same time which may have added to the concerns leading to the topic-ban. I think that's the extent of topic-ban stuff in relation to E-960 on the boards. Nil Einne (talk) 12:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

  P.S. If anyone wants to nitpick over articles vs parts of articles I'd just say 3 things. One is that you're missing the point. Two well since I like to nitpick too, these are articles covering the subject matter otherwise the edits wouldn't have been a problem. I don't expect E-960 to stay away from the entire Belarus or even Holocaust articles but technically if you wanted to stay away from articles covering the subject matter you would need to. The alternative is to take proper care that no edits cover the subject matter when editing articles which do in part. Either way, when appealing don't make it sound like you've been perfectly behaved only to then go and explain you weren't. Actually the main reason I replied even though it already seems this appeal won't succeed was because I read the appeal and had a WTF moment when I saw E-960 saying the bit about how "since then" as I did recall the violation/block. Which leads to my third comment, repeating my first again, you're missing the point with such nitpicks. Nil Einne (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Nil Einne, I don't agree with your comment, I feel that you keep assuming bad-faith in my case, and I would ask that you withdraw your objection based on the fact that you in the past were Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. Statements like this one for example: "yeah you accepted you were wrong, still found the time to complain" — is this such an egregious violation that I complained some? Over the years the one thing I noticed on Wikipedia is people complaining (I mean just look at the earlier comments in this discussion). Here is another example, this one you left on my talk page back in June[48] saying: "Instead I suspect at least in part, you feel you were unfairly targeted because of your views and/or religious beliefs. This makes it hard for you to edit in the area without causing more problems. Perhaps this will have changed in 6 months, but I doubt it. Although you have to stay out of this area I find it likely that your feelings on the matter will still have filtered through to your edits enough even without any violations" so right there you already made up your mind how this will play out — this is a blatant example of Wikipedia:Casting aspersions you basically said my religious views (or related thoughts - not sure what you mean specifically) will disqualify me for editing, as they will continue to get in the way. I think you should consider what user Elemimele noted perviously: "the phrase 'broadly construed' only strengthens clearly-defined bans. It weakens any TBAN that contains a hint of ambiguity, because it invites the response 'but construed broadly', that encompasses absolutely everything, which is clearly unfair! That, I think, is why this debate has come up so many times" and "E-960 should not be penalised for failing to keep to the terms of a ban whose extent seemed unclear even to the other admins". Finally, to emphasise this point I would like to draw your attention to user Levivich who noted earlier in this discussion: "I have no opinion on the merits of this appeal: when I brought the TBAN violation ANI thread a few months ago, I walked away thoroughly confused about the scope of the TBAN, so I express no opinion about it or whether it was followed or not." --E-960 (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, I want to emphasis this point because it is a crucial one, that I don't think you actually know my religious views, as in those 5 years of editing on Wikipedia I stayed out of editing pages specifically related to Christianity or Secularist Politics in EU, concentrating on history topics instead. So, you are casting the net very wide on this TBAN, based only on ONE and I want to emphasise ONE flare-up related to the issue of Christianity and Secularist Politics in EU. --E-960 (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I don’t agree with Nil Einne either. They are almost entirely wrong. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Wug· and Girth Summit, I'd like to comment on my overall thoughts regarding some of the solutions proposed during this discussion, as what I find very unreasonable (and impractical) is the desire by some users to not only keep the TBAN, but extend it some more, despite the fact that already other editors voiced concerns about its scope and definition. Also, I want to ask, what is the logic of keeping me under a TBAN indefinitely (note that I've been under sanctions for over a year)? Being a bit facetious here, but even in prison you get parole. If the TBAN is lifted, and I learned my lesson, this saves everyone a lot of time on AN discussions like this one next time around. But, if I breach conduct rules on these "issue" topics, I can get a site ban or something, for being a repeat offender — problem solved permanently. So, again what's the point of keeping me under the TBAN as a precaution, just in case I might do something in the future? If I'm still clueless then let me trip up again and flip out on the exact same (or related) topic, so I'll get a site ban (if I totally come off the rails or something next time around). Instead of raising issue cause I changed an image caption to note that the person dressed as King Władysław II Jagiełło is an re-enactor and not an actor. --E-960 (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

E-960, I haven't read the discussion above - it's a long one, and I'm on mobile while making dinner, so I'm not in a position to read through it now. I remember being involved in a previous discussion about the scope of your TBan, but I can't bring the exact details to mind now. I will try to find time in the days ahead to look at this again, but cannot promise anything. I will say this though - as individual admins, neither Wug nor I have authority to override a community decision. Admins can block/unblock people, but community bans appealed at AN are handled by the community, with consensus weighed by the discussion closer. So, even if I were to agree with your observations (no comment either way at present), all I would be able to do would be to offer my own view - if the consensus was against me (I haven't attempted to weigh that), I would have no authority to overrule it. Sorry if you were hoping for more than that. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@E-960: this isn't a game where you get off on a technicality. We're not a court, we don't write laws, and our goal is not write unambiguously. Is your topic ban perfect? Probably not, but do you think the community is going to volunteer tons of time to indulge wikilawyering over stuff you should probably just be avoiding in the first place? Unlikely. If you want a good chance of being unbanned, go do something else. There's a whole wide world outside of Europe. You know what has nothing to do with Europe, Christianity, or secular politics? Biographies of Canadian hockey players, geographic features in Africa, women scientists from Asia. The ban is hard because you keep dancing around the edges of it. Frankly, if you want to play around in the grey area, the onus is on you to make sure that you are behaving perfectly. If that's too hard don't do it. This isn't the first time that it's been explained to you and it's not even the first time that I have explained it to you. I said almost the exact thing to you on my talk page in July. Independently, Nil gave you similar advice in June. So sure, we can reduce the grey area in your TBAN, but don't be upset when it's not in the direction you want.

Remember that you were so disruptive in a topic area that the community got together and decided to ban you; it's not going to disappear just because you find it difficult. Quite the opposite, you find it difficult because you keep trying to find the edges of it instead of leaving the whole thing alone. Excluding comments from the regular factions and looking simply at uninvolved administrators, both Jorm and Nil point out that you haven't given any legitimate reason to lift the ban. The argument you make in this most recent comment is that we should just let you loose and site ban you if you mess up again. Why on earth would we want to do that? Firstly, we don't need to lift the TBAN to site ban you. If you insist on being disruptive, we can just do that. Secondly, how is that helpful to anyone except you? The question is whether you can be trusted to not disrupt the topic area, so why are you even entertaining the idea that you could continue to be disruptive? You're essentially asking the community to give you one last chance but haven't shown why we should. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Wug· and Girth Summit, thanks for the swift response and input. To follow up on the comments I would like to say that I'm not trying to game the system. However, I would like to provide some constructive and practical input, not to be disruptive, but (perhaps) to improve how the TBANs are instituted, in order to make them more fair, clear and effective administrative tools (including for myself). I'd like show that the TBAN recommendations were poorly articulated (and not because of any administrator summary at the end). The original AN case was filed by user Hippeus, and their original recommendation was I propose E-960 be topic banned from religious persecution, intolerance, and conflict. This was actually, a clear cut proposition, which addressed the exact topic which caused the incident (this way if a violation occurred in the future, it could be judged using the backdrop of the original topic which resulted in the TBAN). However, this is where things get a bit iffy, as shortly there after, user Snowded makes a comment and in bold letters writes Strong support for a topic ban for Christianity and European politics, broadly construed and three months off all editing. So, user Snowded "supports" the the ban request set up by Hippeus, yet actually writes something completely different. This created the issue we are in, because as user Elemimele noted perviously: the phrase 'broadly construed' only strengthens clearly-defined bans. It weakens any TBAN that contains a hint of ambiguity, because it invites the response 'but construed broadly', that encompasses absolutely everything, which is clearly unfair! That, I think, is why this debate has come up so many times" and "E-960 should not be penalised for failing to keep to the terms of a ban whose extent seemed unclear even to the other admins". I would also like to highlight the fact that there were 10 SUPPORT and 10/9 SUPPORT FOR THE WIDER BAN (as proposed by Snowded). Also, there were 5 OPPOSE and 1 reversal from SUPPORT FOR THE WIDER BAN to SUPPORT SELF IMPOSED TBAN. So, there was by no mean an overwhelming consensus to apply the wider/broadly construed and vaguely defined TBAN as proposed by user Snowded. This is why, I believe that this TBAN if not lifted, needs to be re-assessed and at least restored to what was originally proposed. Again, to emphasise the point there was no overwhelming support to institute a wider TBAN, in fact if my arithmetic is correct in the end there were more votes to impose the original TBAN recommendation. Fast forward to the current discussion, and some of the users who voted for the wider ban are here now arguing for an even more expansive TBAN — these users should pause for a moment and ask themselves what I can suggest to better define this TBAN, clear things up and make it fair, instead of blindly arguing to widen the TBAN. And, as far as I can tell their views were not the outright majority or constituted an overwhelming consensus even in the original AN. --E-960 (talk) 08:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

In the end, I would again like to quote user Elemimele who said: At the moment, to an outsider reading ANI, the whole thing risks sending a message that WP... can't write an unambiguous ban, but think it doesn't matter because one can always reach a consensus on what it was supposed to mean, later, and inflict justice retrospectively. That just doesn't look fair. This is the case here, the initial TBAN scope was clearly defined, and instead a broad and ambitious TBAN definition was embraced by some users, who now insist that it's being violated. --E-960 (talk) 11:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support Per Piotrus: No need for further punishment, but the ban remains part of the record, and if any problematic editing resurfaces, next one will presumably be much longer, so please be careful. but I also agree with E-960 TBAN is not a punishment of some kind, it's a tool to prevent disruptive editing and it serves as a cooling-off period. This was one year ago, after apologies for misunderstandings, and promising to use more reliable sources, I do not see why can not E-960 edit pages related to that matter, especially substantially edit pages related to Christianity which generally is not the same as "secular politics in European Union"? I think we can give them (last?) chance per WP:AGF. Dawid2009 (talk) 16:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support Let's give this editor a last chance to show that they can be a constructive contributor in their area of interest. Certainly, they realize that their work will be scrutinized. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree, and, as I declared before, I also support lifting the sanctions. I trust this user. I believe that the lesson has been learned. However, (this is to you E-960) I would like you to be extremely careful while editing subjects concerning Christianity or religion in general. If you find yourself in a situation of potential disagreement with other editors, stop making edits and walk away. Assume that you may be mistaken. Simple like that. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support: User:E-960 has done outstanding work on a variety of articles relating to history, an area that frequently intersects with religion. User:E-960's appeal has demonstrated that he has familiarized himself with Wikipedia guidelines since being topic banned and has engaged in constructive editing since then. As such, I think he should be allowed to return to editing fully again. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 02:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
• Note - Hippeus (talk · contribs) has been blocked as sock of Icewhiz (talk · contribs). Quelle surprise. nableezy - 02:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

And Astral Leap (talk · contribs) - sock puppet of the same - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd very much like to hear what @Wugapodes has to say now. Because all I have to say is "I told you so". _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Two weeks ago I said Take your concerns to WP:SPI, WP:ANI, WP:AE or any of the other acronyms, but do not disrupt this discussion with off topic bickering. I'm glad someone finally did that. I find it funny that you're so invested in being right but couldn't be bothered to start or even contribute to the SPI, and I think it's interesting that instead of contributing productively to this discussion you're returning to gloat. That's not exactly the behavior that makes me rethink my WP:BATTLEGROUND concerns. I'd take your gloating more seriously if you weren't taking credit for someone else doing what I said you should have done two weeks ago. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

And how do you know I did not provide said evidence? In fact, as you well know, I did send some of it to you to as well - which you soundly ignored (not replying to my last email). While I can't be sure how much my findings/analysis contributed to what happened now, I know I did something. This was your opportunity to say "oops, I was fooled by socks and didn't realize there was a sockmaster behind the screen trying to torpedo this topic ban appeal, sorry, I'll be more careful next time". Instead, I am hearing "I was right all along, move along". Color me not impressed. PS. Now, to keep this more constructive and on-topic, how about we collapse this entire appeal outside the initial request, ping all non-blocked editors who participated in it with a note that the appeal was disrupted due to the involvement of socks of a banned editor (who proposed this TBan in the first place), and try again? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus: who proposed this TBan in the first place - this is true. They even pinged Wug in that discussion. You got below warning "Piotrus accuses another editor of sock puppetry" but everything you did was informing: "Erin Vaxx made few or no edits outside that topic". This short info is also allowed here. Excluding comments from the regular factions and looking simply at uninvolved administrators, both Jorm and Nil point out (...) Wug, why you mentioned just Jorm who was interacted with E-960 but not for example Cullen328 who support lifting the ban and is example of properly uninvolved (administrator) user here? However let see what other users think in next days (discussion are not helpful if we are focussed on mentioning other usernames instead raching for consensus about E-960's matter, let focuss on his appeal, and focuss does lifting the ban would be useful to constributing into encyclopedia. I have nothing to add to that request except my comment below, I just hope E-960 is going to realise his matter). Dawid2009 (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Dawid2009: It may help to look at dates before accusing me of things. My comment below was from 5 october and Cullen's comment came 14 October. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: I assume good faith to you, I do not accuse you now. With regards. Dawid2009 (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Wugapodes made few mistakes describing the situation (how on earth would he suppose to know everything?) but at the same time they steraed the disussion into the right direction and thanks for that. I believe that was the primary purpose of their action - rolling back discussion into the appropriate tracks. Administrative duties are very challenging folks. Let's just move on, stay on topic and focus on this appeal. Should that be granted? I think it should, especially now. - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support lifting of sanctions per WP:ROPE and WP:BMB. E-960 argued as reliable a source which breathlessly categorises minor, garden-variety vandalistic tagging as "intolerance and discrimination against Christians", and made some very inappropriate remarks in their defense, which a sock of a banned LTA then brought to ANI, resulting in a topic ban from (1) any edit relating to the topic of Christianity, broadly construed, and (2) any edits relating to secularism, broadly construed, in European politics. A sock of a banned LTA later reported E-960 for edits made to The Holocaust and another edit to a history section, which mentioned churches, resulting in a one-week block. I count myself amongst the observers who do not discern a clear relation between The Holocaust and "secularism in European politics". I'm neutral on whether or not mentioning churches in an edit about history falls under the scope of "Christianity, broadly defined". E-960 makes a lot of edits about historical topics, which may have tangential relation to or include terms related to Christianity or politics, but their contributions to historical topics have been uniformly constructive. The two most vocal opponents of lifting the TBAN in this discussion have been socks of a banned LTA, and have highlighted such trivialities as using the word "political" in an historical context.

Recent discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard has included the perspective that Sockpuppets are not allowed to edit. Any successful disciplinary measure initiated or spurred on by a sock should be re-evaluated unless there is incontrovertible evidence backing the decision. [49] I believe that E-960's level of disruption in their topic area has been negligible since their initial outburst at RSN which led to sanctions, and further that their sanctions have been unclear, and most saliently that in order not to encourage continued abuse by LTAs, that any sanctions they initiated should be re-evaluted with prejudice towards lifting. Folly Mox (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Conduct warning

I was pinged here having closed the original TBAN discussion and want to note my participation in two related discussions as well: a Nov 2020 clarification discussion and a July 2021 report. These discussions follow a pattern where the same editors show up to carry on interpersonal disputes unrelated to the topic at hand. This is disruptive and discourages outside input. As I said three months ago when this last came to AN, "I'm not convinced the TBAN as it stands is preventing disruption so much as spreading it to new people and venues. That needs to be fixed in whatever way we think appropriate." To stick to this thread, however, the bulk of discussion has been Volunteer Marek and Piotrus making accusations and having discussions unrelated to the topic at hand.

• Marek accuses an editor of gaming the EC permission
• Marek accuses editors of tag teaming arguing that critics of him are holding grudges about an SPI from two years ago.
• Marek calls for another editor to be topic banned and accuses them of battle ground conduct because he disagrees with the editor's rationale
• Piotrus questions Astral Leap's motives claiming AL is a "relative newcomer" and asking how and why they are interested in this discussion, despite both AL and Piotrus having commented in the November 2020 discussion on E-960's ban scope.
• Piotrus accuses another editor of sock puppetry after they provide evidence of tag teaming
• Piotrus claims that discussion about his conduct is a personal attack

Of course, a battleground usually requires more than one faction, and other parties have contributed to the disruption of this discussion. Levivich has accused them of hypocrisy (again) which rekindled old disputes, and François Robere (under an IBAN with GCB) has gone back and forth arguing with Volunteer Marek. This is a general warning: further disruption of this discussion will be met with blocks for the duration of the appeal. You're all claiming to be experienced editors: act like it. Take your concerns to WP:SPI, WP:ANI, WP:AE or any of the other acronyms, but do not disrupt this discussion with off topic bickering. It is unfair to E-960 that their appeal does not get due consideration because your flame wars scare off uninvolved editors. For that reason I have collapsed off-topic discussion above. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Just for the record, this statement and analysis is mind numbingly wrong. You and I apparently did not read the same discussion. Volunteer Marek 21:54, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

FYI, Astral Leap has been blocked as a sock of a banned editor. nableezy - 03:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

LOFL. Volunteer Marek 03:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Unblock request by Amir Ghandi/Amirhosein Izadi

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

---

Amir Ghandi (requesting through that account due to lost account details) has requested an unblock. They were CBanned in January 2020. Their unblock request is given below, which I copy without tendering my own opinion. We do need a CU review, if one is willing.

My previous account (Amirhosein Izadi) was blocked because of hoaxing, vandalism and making fake articles, which was all true. two years after that i created this account partly because i was not aware of Wikipedia:Appealing blocks and even if i was, i had already lost my password to the previous account. my edits on this account could prove that i did not continue destructive edits as i have two GA articles and surely will maintain this path if i get unblocked.

zzuuzz has done the needful on the CU-side' Nosebagbear (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support unblock pending check user review. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
• Bumping thread for 14 days. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

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

User with 67k+ edits blocked for copyvio

I've blocked User:Enthusiast01, who has over 67,000+ edits and 66,000+ edits to mainspace for copyright violations; they were warned 25 times since 2007 before I blocked them today; more background can be seen at User talk:Enthusiast01#Blocked. I've opened an investigation into their edits at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Enthusiast01, which hasn't been filled out with their edits yet- when it is, I would appreciate it if others could help sort through the mountain of edits. Given my previous posting here on the matter of dealing with copyright violations, and the extent of them in this case, I am posting this here so the communities eyes are on it. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 04:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

One piece of good news in this, roughly 38,000 of their article edits are confined to their top thousand most edited articles. BD2412 T 05:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Cleavage

Toplessness

Naked male, clothed female

Jack off

Doggy style

Ugh. Looking at those top-edited articles, it looks like they had a lot of the same interests Neelix did. I, for one, have no interest in sorting through 122 edits to [[ Clothed male, naked female]], 349 to toplessness, 107 to Doggy style, or 174 to Cleavage (breasts). Hog Farm _Talk 05:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, there goes my browser history again. Why do we even have an article about Clothed male, naked female, is that topic even notable -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 07:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

That article does seem to me to be tacking very close to the wind with respect to original research … firefly ( t · c ) 07:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

We have a separate one for clothed female, naked male, too. I'd tag them for merging but...I don't want to do the research required for a gender-neutral non-OR name for the idea :| ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, nothing is coming up on google searches....so AfD time I think Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Those are porn categories, so you want to be putting them into pornhub or xhamster (or google with safesearch off) as their acronym. CFNM particularly. But you are almost certainly not going to get any sources *about* the topic. You will just get results confirming it exists and is a thing you can look at. Although the UK Metro did a piece on it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

well, yeah, apart from porn categories which I saw......and I don't recall Topfreedom being a notable term...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

It is sort of, its been knocking around for years. Its a feminist movement term. There is certainly news coverage of it/when a protest hits. It makes a handy hashtag. RE CFNM, I was also replying in part to PMC. You couldnt move it to a gender-neutral title as its specifically a fetish involving gender dynamics. Its not OR (I am 100% certain that Enthusiast01 isnt responsible for it) as its named exactly for what you get. Ultimately it either needs to be nuked as not encyclopedic, moved to a 'list of sexual fetishes' or punted to wiktionary as its really just a definition. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: The recent ones are mostly of world history and biography types, so if you don't want to look through the fetish-type stuff, I think this person did edit in other places. Oh well, I can add it to the alcohol and drugs CCI for the list of ones I can't open in class. Sennecaster (Chat) 18:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

For info, both pages are now at AfD: CMNF and CFNM. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Imagine my surprise when I clicked on one of those links, thinking vaguely that they had something to do with the French National Railway. EEng 03:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Hardly any user talk edits either. I've seen this happen far too many times before. MER-C 08:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Off-wiki nonsense and a series of unfortunate coincidences...

The article Matthew Tye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been deleted three times, and is currently protected. The last AFD was 3 years ago, back in 2018. The AFD was closed by Sandstein who deleted the article. Last year, the South China Morning Post posted a story about expats in China which arguably gives Tye some coverage. Not a lot, but some.

• Fast forward a year. Admin WhisperToMe (who has commented on the talk page of Tye's broadcast partner Winston Sterzel) arrives on the talk page of editor Shritwod to advocate for the article's restoration on September 15. Though there are clear instructions about contacting the admin who deleted the article (ie. Sandstein), Whisper began a discussion with the nominator (from that AFD back in 2018) citing that article as a reason for restoration (from back in 2020).
• Four days later (on September 19), editor Infograbber19 happens to make the same mistake, independent of Whisper, and arrives at the nominator's talk page to advocate for restoration.
• Five days later (on September 24), editor Demetrios1993 happens to make the same mistake, independent of Whisper and Infograbber, and arrives at the nominator's talk page to advocate for restoration.
• Turns out that on September 16, the day after Whisper's post in the wrong place, the subject of the article posted to Reddit asking his fans and supporters to help him have his article restored. He provided (slightly incorrect) step-by-step instructions as to how this should be done, along with a list of sources (many of which don't appear to be WP:RS).

Having failed to convince Shritwod (which is not a requirement for restoration anyway), the article (and it's 3 year old AFD) were brought to DRV by Infograbber. Infograbber, whose very first edit was to request the article's restoration, is a new account that has made very few edits outside of this subject. The account has otherwise followed the article subject's instructions precisely, with the exception of showing up on Shritwod's talk page.

Demetrios has since provided an explanation for his involvement, but in doing do pointed out that my original interpretation of the chronology (at DRV) was incorrect. Whisper's randomly-timed advocacy for restoration came a day before the article's subject went to Reddit to request exactly that sort of advocacy for restoration. Whisper then provided an explanation at DRV saying that they read the Reddit thread and thought contacting the nominator was the correct process. And in doing so, they strangely pinged their own account. That's right, an admin responding to accusations of sock-puppetry accidentally addressed a comment to their own account. They then rectified the ping, then changed their story about the Reddit thread, and then changed their story about contacting the nominator. At a minimum, accepting those rectifying edits at face value, we have an admin confirming undeclared off-wiki canvassing and concerted meat-puppetry in support of efforts by an article's subject to secure coverage here. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Stalwart111: The post complaining about it was written by someone else (in other words, someone not "an article's subject"), I recall, not Tye. (It was a comment on some other thread merely complaining about it. I did not contact that person) I didn't see that as off-wiki canvassing: merely as something that jogged my memory to revisit the Tye case. I mean if it's interpreted as such, I apologize for that and won't use external comments as a basis for opening discussions. Anyhow I regularly edit like this, and the explanation for the editing style is that I'm trying to remember something that happened over a month ago. It's me retracing my steps and making changes as I write. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Updated I found the relevant thread. It was the top level comment on this thread that inspired me. In that comment CMilk/Tye was merely grousing about his article being deleted, but not yet advocating for it to be restored. I had decided to contact the nominating admin before CMilk started canvassing. It seems the news about the Wikipedia editors being blocked in China was what inspired him. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

You acknowledge you saw a different thread (and above) advocating the same thing, with the same instructions, supported by the article's subject, a few days earlier. Then you went straight to the nominator's page the next day to seek its restoration. A new account posted in that thread and then came to your talk page asking for advice as to how they might get the article restored. You knew there was an off-wiki effort to achieve just that. You knew because you were involved in that effort already. Rather than counsel that new account about the inappropriateness of WP:ADVOCACY you continued your own advocacy, and made no mention of Reddit until you were facing accusations of sock-puppetry at DRV. That is wildly inappropriate behaviour for an experienced editor, let alone an admin. Worst-case-scenario, you and Infograbber are the same person and the advocacy, timing, location and editing mistakes all make perfect sense. Best-case-scenario, you're an admin who has intentionally involved themselves in some pretty underhanded conduct. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Stalwart111: I am not User:Infograbber and a checkuser should make that clear. Now, yes I did read laowhy86's top-level comment where he complained, that did inspire me to contact the nominator. I did not contact laowhy86 or promise him anything: the step to contact the nominator was done by myself without prompting from him. I did not interpret that as "canvassing" because laowhy86 was not yet outright advocating for action on his Wikipedia page: he was merely complaining about it, and I felt it was unnecessary to tell the nominator that I got the idea from a Reddit post. Anyhow this is my mistake and I promise not to do this again. As for Infograbber I didn't look into the account at all: I didn't know his background but I assumed it was an infrequent user. At some point later I recall reading the post posted by laowhy where he did advocate for that, but I didn't put two and two together. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

If you aren't Infograbber, you certainly knew why that single-purpose account suddenly appeared out of the blue (3 years after that AFD) to support your advocacy; it wasn't coincidence or luck. They had seen the same Reddit thread you had (or the one you saw later). They were there for the same reason you were. And it wasn't to build an encyclopedia. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Stalwart111: I didn't read their editing history. I personally felt that that they were not making a good case and were spamming too many low quality sources, but I didn't look into their contributions. Since I didn't read their contributions I didn't see that they were an SPI. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:36, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

And I opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/WhisperToMe on myself so a checkuser can confirm that I am not Infograbber. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

And? You were still fully aware of your own motivations for advocating restoration (which, to be clear, are a problem on their own). You knew the AFD was three years old and the best source you could come up with was a year old. It didn't strike you as strange that someone might have had an unrelated miraculous revelation that just happened to neatly align with your own 4-day-old, off-wiki revelation? It didn't occur to you, given your own off-wiki motivations for suddenly advocating restoration, to query if their advocacy might have been prompted by the same Reddit thread as yours? C'mon, mate, we weren't born yesterday. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Stalwart111:

• 1. "You knew the AFD was three years old and the best source you could come up with was a year old." - That's exactly the point: when new information comes up, it can justify re-examining the previous decision. Cmilk's change to being an anti-CCP activist was a relatively recent development and that was covered by the SCMP, which is listed as generally reliable here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources. An article requires a minimum of two sources.
• 2. "It didn't occur to you, given your own off-wiki motivations for suddenly advocating restoration" - I didn't believe Cmilk's argument (which is perhaps why I didn't repeat the post to the original AFD nominator), but my motivation is that I wrote bios on other foreign celebrities in China, like Amy Lyons, Afu Thomas, Lee and Oli Barrett, etc. and since I knew Laowhy/Cmilk was also one and his had been deleted before, I figured I wanted to write one myself. But that meant talking about the deletion with people previously involved.
• 3. "It didn't occur to you, given your own off-wiki motivations for suddenly advocating restoration, to query if their advocacy might have been prompted by the same Reddit thread as yours?" - That would have required actively checking their post history, which I did not do. Because the user had content on his user page, the link did not appear red, so without clicking the account name and checking the contribs I can't see that it's a new account.

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• 1. A year-old source is not "new"; we're talking about two users with the same sudden interest 4 days apart (one of them brand new), and then 3 users 8 days apart. All at the WP:WRONGVENUE. It was clearly prompted by Reddit, not that source or "coincidence".
• 2. So you didn't believe him, but his post "inspired" you to advocate for his article to be restored?
• 3. No, it would simply have required you to remember what had prompted your sudden interest in the same 3-year-old AFD just 4 days earlier.

Your entire explanation is so ridiculously incredible it borders on trolling. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

1. It is in the context that the source did not exist in the last AFD.

2. Yes, in that I remembered that he didn't have an article and thought maybe I could look into establishing one.

3. Well... frankly the whole situation is ridiculous and stupid and I regret being in this. I feel really stupid right now.

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe and Stalwart111: Let's just chill out and let the new SPI sort itself out, alright friends? Did you know that the Killer Whale is actually a type of dolphin? Isn't that a neat fact? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Seriously though, you both have had your say. Other people will weigh in now; you know the drill. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@MJL: That's WP:DYN quality right there! ––FormalDude talk 07:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree. There appears to be material for an interesting DYK!--Berig (talk) 07:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised you don't know about WP:CHECKME, MJL. I've closed the SPI with no action taken. That being said, I do agree that they've both had their say, and it's time for others to weigh in on the matter. Primefac (talk) 07:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Primefac: I do, but I didn't feel it was my place to say anything about that (considering I'm neither a SPI clerk nor admin). Either way, the SPI would probably be a better forum to discuss the behavioral evidence than here imo. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I would like to begin by correcting again something. Above it was stated that the "Matthew Tye" article has been deleted three times already. While an article by the name "Matthew Tye" has indeed been deleted three times, the first one seems to be about a totally different individual. So, in reality, an article about Matthew Tye – the YouTuber – has only been deleted two times. Second, although User:Stalwart111 did mention that i already provided an explanation for my involvement, he didn't elaborate, and i believe it is proper for me to provide the aforementioned explanation one more time here, for the rest of the users that are reading this thread.

• To answer your question, i ended up participating in the discussion, right after Uzer:Infograbber19 posted in the talk page of Tye's business partner, Winston Sterzel (diff). I have Sterzel's article in my watchlist, and after i saw his post, i simply reviewed his contributions and joined the discussion (diff). You can easily see this from the fact that both diffs are from the 24th of September and approximately three hours apart, yet the discussion had began from the 15th of September. Also, this is the first time i see this Reddit thread, and besides, i was interested in the creation of a new article from August, as i wrote in the aforementioned discussion. Furthermore, the Reddit thread didn't begin "a few days before the above nonsense started" (15th of September), but one day later (16th of September). – relevant discussion

Third, about the statement "[t]hough there are clear instructions about contacting the admin who deleted the article" by User:Stalwart111, at the very least, neither User:Infograbber19, nor myself, can be considered to have any experience with article restoration, or knowledge of its guidelines, prior of now. User:Infograbber19, doesn't have more than 50 edits (as of this post), while myself 2,290 edits in the English Wikipedia (and 3,494 in all Wikis), and i have never requested for article restoration. In short, there are indications that neither User:Infograbber19, nor myself, were even aware of a guideline that we have to contact the admin who deleted the article in the last respective nomination. You can even reason that based on what i wrote in my very first comment in User_talk:Shritwod#Matthew_Tye; namely that i was planning to create an article about the individual, and didn't mention anything about beginning a discussion with anyone. As far as i knew then, i could just recreate an article, and if any concerns would arise in the future, it could always be nominated again for deletion. I created my account back in 2019, but i have been active for only 1 year, and everyday i keep learning something new. Last, even though i learned User:WhisperToMe is an admin, i don't know his exact experience/knowledge with article restoration guidelines; however, i wouldn't be so harsh and decisive on him. Even if he knew the guideline, he might have misunderstood it, or could have even confused the closer/admin of the third AfD, as another administrator (User:Amakuru) who replied yesterday (diff) said that he/she did. Demetrios1993 (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I knew that the nominator was the nominator and not the closer, but I would not have filed a DRV if I wouldnt have gotten progress with the collective editors who participated in the prior discussions, and the DRV was filed by somebody else. I didn't review the DRV guidelines because I didnt feel I was ready to do so (if I had I would have read the part about needing to talk to the closer and not the nominator), and I never filed a DRV anyway. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Well, I've said nothing for a few days on the basis of advice from MJL above, but beyond a more substantive explanation from Demetrios1993 (which repeats the same incorrect chronology; this clearly started on Reddit) this has stagnated. An admin has openly admitted to taking off-wiki instructions ("inspiration") from the subject of an article and working to have their article restored. And they have admitted (several times) to not understanding deletion processes. And there is the thoroughly unbelievable explanation as to why they didn't counsel a new account about WP:SPA and WP:ADVOCACY. But, "I regret being in this. I feel really stupid right now" seems to be about as good as we're going to get while there is no appetite among his fellow admins to take action. What's the old parenting line? I'm not angry, I'm just disappointed. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• Why is this admin still an admin? Off-wiki instructions/"inspiration"? Not understanding deletion process? Here's an old parenting line from my father-- "What gives?" --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

That they were appointed in 2003 - at age 16 - might have something to do with it. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

1. The initial post from the subject was not "off-wiki instructions" but merely frustration on his part. While it started on Reddit, it was a griping post from his, not the subsequent "instructions" post a day later.

2. Also wiki processes change from year to year so I have to review processes once in a while for finer details. Look at what Wikipedia:Votes for deletion (now Articles for Deletion) looked like back then, same with Wikipedia:Deletion review. Of course I have been consistently active since 2003 but even within a year or two there may be policy changes. As for my adminship, Jimbo Wales said around then: "I just wanted to say that becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*." That was the mentality when I became an admin. If anything I consistently play a role as editor and hardly ever use admin tools (the last notable time was helping inexperienced editors at a meetup for women in art in Hong Kong get their articles fast-tracked). Despite having the admin status I rarely do admin stuff. I'm aware things have drastically changed since the old days. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• Sock, socksocksocksock.... sooooooooocccck. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I submitted a checkuser to show it wasnt and that was declined, but you are welcome to re-start my checkuser if you still have concerns. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• This doesn't look good; if there were a Recall process I'm sure we would be trying it out. That said, I don't see cause for an Arbcom case; "being out of touch" is not cause. There are no blocks since 2014; the recent protection actions involve putting a URL in a wikilink in the summary, mistakenly full-protecting instead of template-protecting, and full-protecting their own talk archives. However, the deletion log is substantial and completely fine. The specific article that started this thread is more likely a COI issue (editing about a friend) than a socking issue. I suppose we could vote to encourage WhisperToMe to either become more up-to-date on site policies or resign the tools, but I doubt that would do anything. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
  • PS: while some people are forgetting about WP:CHECKME, it seems everyone is forgetting that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guide to filing cases says not to use CheckUser for Suspected administrator sockpuppetry – contact the Arbitration Committee. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

English spelling of a book

According to this screenshot, the correct English spelling of Ekti Khuner Shwapno is Ekti Khuner Svapna, so the article Ekti Khuner Shwapno should be redirected to Ekti Khuner Svapna. ম সাদেক (talk) 12:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

That link is to a 404 error page. In any case, this issue should be raised on Talk:Ekti Khuner Shwapno. Please see Wikipedia:Article titles for our policy on naming articles, and Wikipedia:Requested moves for more information on how to request a move, if appropriate. - Donald Albury 14:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

OP indef'ed, page in question speedied WP:G5 Meters (talk) 03:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

User:JonathanBaird

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

I'm inclined to block JonathanBaird, but as this user has accumulated over 700 edits and gained extended-confirmed status, I feel that they deserve a community review and one last chance to communicate with the community. I don't believe they have yet actually talked on a talk page; all their activity on talk seems to be either reverts with disingenuous edit summaries like "Fixed content" or "fixed typo" or questionable page moves. Most of this editor's recent edits are creation of redirects of questionable utility with summaries such as "Fixed content" – better would be to just let the MediaWiki software generate the automatic default summary for new redirects. This user caught my attention with a couple page moves that drew flags I patrol for which I cleaned up. Here they changed a categorization with a disingenuous claim of "fixing a typo" after creating Category:Sports venues in Asia by country and city. There might be some value somewhere in this editor's contributions but I don't view them as a net positive. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Their last >70 edits are all creation of useless redirects like Third husband of Megawati Sukarnoputri with false edit summaries of either "Fixed content" or "Added of the content"<sic>. These all occurred at a rate of 2-3 a minute over a ~four hour period today. If it's not WP:GAMING, it certainly looks like it. Support an indefinite block until they explain what's going on. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

It is difficult to see an editor who creates absurd things like "Category:Venues of the 2042 Asian Games" as productive. That's just one example of the strange things that they do. They never respond to feedback from other editors - they just delete it from their talk page. Their edit summaries are obtuse, misleading or both. I have not examined all of their edits but looking at a random sample failed to produce evidence that they are improving the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Given the user's misleading edit summaries and refusal to respond to communication I believe an indef block would be useful to force communication from this user. Communication is mandatory on a collaborative project, if they respond and can convincingly address these concerns they can later be unblocked. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

As already mentioned. A block just might get the fellow's attention. Editing with one's nose up in the air, can be quite off-putting to others. GoodDay (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Indeffed by Orangemike. But what about the contribs? Can anyone see any good reason not to nuke as many of those as can be nuked? This seems to be right up there with Neelix. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Neelix was more entertaining. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Block Citrivescence indefinite

Please block citrivescence globaly by Defender because they keep send warnings to my talk pages (cross-wiki). Every day they report users to an admin and they block diffrent IPs. I want to get unblocked also. Citrivescence is not participating in the Women in Red articles becuase of his/her behavior. 204.184.47.151 (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

"I want to get unblocked too". So you're admitting you are evading a block here? RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

IF they weren't before, they will be now. Blocked for 1 month for vandalism and harassment of Citrivescence. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Devlet Geray asking for unblock

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

---

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

Per a request on his talk page, User:Devlet Geray is asking for last February's indefinite block to be lifted. Since he has waited six months this request is timely. At present he is also under a community topic ban from 'all topics in Asia related to Turkey or Turkic peoples, or Iran or Iranian peoples, broadly construed. The block and ban were imposed through a community consensus. Even if his block is lifted, he remains under the topic ban unless the editors here decide otherwise. EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, they haven't actually made an appeal, they just straight-up asked "can I be unblocked now"? Personally I would have directed them to WP:GAB rather than post an empty appeal here that is almost sure to be shot down. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• Devlet Geray has 7,200 edits on the Russian Wikipedia and was also indefinitely blocked there, in March 2020. In the block notice there is a link to ru:Википедия:Недопустимость оскорблений, угроз и агрессии which (per Google Translate) looks to be similar to our WP:NPA policy. EdJohnston (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

That page is also interlanguage-linked to WP:NPA, which I would take to indicate it's the equivalent policy in Russian. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• Ivanvector has a point; it's hard to know if this was an unblock request, or just asking if it would be OK to make an unblock request now. I kind of assume the later. There is literally a 0% chance of an unblock without an actual WP:GAB-compliant unblock request from DG, and assuming DG has some level of clue, I would assume they know that, and that this wasn't the actual request. Discussion at this point would be a complete waste of time; I'd suggest no one oppose or support until DG actually makes an unblock request with substantially more meat on the bone. If they don't do so in 1-2 days, this could be closed as a misunderstanding, with no penalty for actually requesting an unblock at any time in the future. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

They've not addressed the reasons for their block. That's an unblock sine qua non. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that... HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Effect of Apple’s iCloud Private Relay

Hello!

Communities typically block edits from IP addresses that obscure individual users. Usually, it has been about “open proxies” or virtual private networks (VPNs). Now, there's a new Apple service called iCloud Private Relay that obscures the IP addresses of desktop and mobile users of the Safari browser.

As Apple users adopt this new service, we estimate that 3-5% of all logged-in and logged-out editors will have these obscured IP addresses. If we don't change anything, they may be blocked within a few months. This wiki may be severely affected. A lot of people editing here use the Safari browser. Next, other browser providers may do the same. The problem will grow.

The communities, users with advanced MediaWiki permissions, the Wikimedia Foundation and others need to work together. We all need to decide how the security of the wikis can be maintained. At the same time, the pathways to editing should remain open for all good-faith participants.

Read more on Apple iCloud Private Relay. Answer the questions and comment on its talk page.

Thank you!

SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@SGrabarczuk (WMF) I have already made some comments at the Meta talk page, however I do not think that the rather alarmist phrasing of this message is in any way helpful. As stated at Meta - this is no different to open proxy blocking. The individual users are not targeted by the block, merely the proxy. firefly ( t · c ) 21:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Spot on @Firefly. SQL^{Query Me!} 21:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I would also encourage this be rephrased. WMF communication surrounding this seems to imply that this is a game changer that will generate a bunch of collateral, and I think that is framing the debate in a way that overstates the novelty of the development and misses the way we have handled equivalent services for a long time. This is an opt-in service that will be used by a fraction of people who own apple devices. It's essentially a VPN, and people will have to turn it off to edit, just like they have to turn off any other anonymiser, and just like they have to turn off their VPN when they want to watch Netflix. For what it's worth, I don't see "mass IP blocks" happening any time soon, at least not in a way that hasn't been happening for years: The majority of exit IPs are already caught in webhostblocks. Our reliance on IP addresses for anti-abuse work is indeed problematic and deserves discussion, but that issue is largely unrelated to Apple's Private Relay. --Blablubbs (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I take great issue with the title of this thread. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 23:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@K6ka, I've changed it. For the sake of transparency, if anyone reading this later is interested - originally, the title was "‎Soon, mass IP blocking may happen". Anyway, please feel invited to talk about the Apple iCloud Private Relay. I hope the title issue may be considered as fixed. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@SGrabarczuk (WMF) - thank you, sincerely, for changing the title. :) firefly ( t · c ) 06:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you as well; the new title is much more appropriate and more accurately summarizes the issue at hand. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 16:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest you discussing this at meta:Talk:Apple iCloud Private Relay, since this same announcement has been posted to a few venues, and people following the issue will benefit from less fragmented discussion. MarioGom (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Whatever is decided at meta, each wiki is going to do its own thing. I say it is a proxy, treat it like a proxy. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree. It's not like this is the first time we've dealt with something like this. I can't be the only person to remember when Wikipedia:AOL made AOL OpenRide available to everyone in ?2006. While AOL may have been far smaller than Apple and weren't doing it for the same reasons so ended up enabling X-Forwarded-For, until they did we dealt with it the same way we should deal with Apple, Mozilla, Microsoft, Google or whoever tries this. Block their open proxies. If editors are unwilling to turn it off, so be it, they can't edit. We shouldn't give some company a pass just because they are big or popular. Nil Einne (talk) 12:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• What we will need is a sensible block message telling people how to turn off this proxy while editing Wikipedia. Other than that, I don't see a need for unusual action (Apple's anonymisers should be blocked just like all others). —Kusma (talk) 13:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  Kusma, (shameless self-promo) we have {{CDNblock}}, it just needs tweaking for "how to turn off Private Relay" and we need to fix how we display block messages when someone is affected by multiple blocks. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 13:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  Now I'm curious: what happens when someone is affected by multiple blocks? (IP range and user?) And is this a common problem, or just one that becomes more common with increased range blocking? —Kusma (talk) 14:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  If someone is legitimately impacted because the range they're using is hardblocked due to unrelated abuse, any admin can enable IP block exemption for their account. If they don't already have an account they will have to create one, and may have to go through WP:ACC to do so. IPBE is a userright, we can't give it to a logged-out editor. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  @PEIsquirrel: I think what Kusma was asking is "If someone's account is blocked and their IP is blocked which block message are they shown when they try to edit?" 192.76.8.77 (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  @PEIsquirrel: Yes, exactly, that is my question. 192, thank you for clarifying! —Kusma (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Kusma: I'm inferring from general (as in not specific to enwiki) docs and guessing a bit, but as I understand it, a blocked user sees MediaWiki:Blockedtext, with fields filled in depending on the source of the block (see the talk page for the field index). There are basically two possibilities:

  • If you're logged in and your account is blocked, then "$2" is the message in the block log for the active block, and that will transclude any templates inserted in the block log.
  • If you're logged in and your IP is hardblocked (and you don't have IPBE), or if you're not logged in and your IP is blocked, then a slightly different message renders (log out and reload the page to see it) and "$2" is the block log entry for the IP, which will also transclude templates from the block log.

  Autoblocks and partial blocks use a different interface page, as do global actions (I think). The docs don't indicate and I can't follow the source code, but it makes sense to me that if you're logged into a blocked account and also on a hardblocked IP, you'd see the block message for the account. Maybe someone with more technical knowledge can confirm or clarify. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• This really isn't a new problem at all, it's just {{TMOblock}} with a different skin. If Apple's anonymizing service is being used for abuse, then it will be blocked, just like all the others. No changes are needed to any enwiki policy that I can think of. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

This seems massively overhyped. Mac/iOS/iPadOS users are already in the minority of users, and iCloud Private Relay is a paid service. Aside from myself, I don't actually know anybody IRL that pays for Apple One/iCloud+. However, I can think of multiple free open proxies that don't require an Apple device to use. Why isn't the WMF overly concerned about these? -FASTILY 02:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Usually to use a VPN you need to search it out and download it, even for something like Cloudflare WARP, which takes a certain kind of person. Apple's service is one way of making it rather mainstream, by making it a core feature bundled into the OS, which (in theory) is something anyone might enable. Perhaps one day it will be enabled by default, and for all users. I suspect that's the difference. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, however we don't know that they will enable it by default, because we're just speculating. But even if they do, I strongly suspect the impact to our bottom line will be negligible. Like I said, it's a paid service used by a minority of a minority of users. Without elaborating, if I were an LTA/abuser, this certainly isn't the path I'd take. -FASTILY 01:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Eostrix Blocked

The Arbitration Committee has determined through private evidence, including evidence from the checkuser tool, that Eostrix (talk · contribs) (a current RfA candidate) is a sockpuppet of Icewhiz (talk · contribs). Accordingly, the Committee has resolved that Eostrix be indefinitely blocked. For the Arbitration Committee, Beeblebrox (talk) 01:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Eostrix Blocked

User:Спасимир

It appears from comments on their Facebook page from friends and family that our colleague User:Спасимир has sadly passed. Please can someone protect their user page, per WP:DWG? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Assistance requested

I'm currently assisting with an edit-a-thon, Architects Build Wiki. A new user encountered an IP block, and I am not able to track down the issue (I'm presenting in the edit-a-thon in a few minutes.) Could somebody help me understand what's going on?

The IP range is 191.101.170.0/23 and I have created an account on his behalf, but that was not enough to permit him to edit. I'm going to confirm his account, but I'm not sure if that will do it either. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth: that range is both locally and globally blocked as a colo/open proxy. If you really really want one user to edit from there, you could temporarily give them IPBE. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

global block details ; local block details. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

What Xaosflux said, and also that so long as there is a local block on the IP, it "takes precedence" over the global block and thus only local IPBE is needed, not global. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 17:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks. I actually have another user with the same issue, on a different IP address: 212.102.33.141 I'll see about granting those exemptions. I haven't done this sort of thing in a while, but I can probably figure it out from here -- appreciate the quick guidance! -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:35, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Pete. Please keep the IPBE short (e.g., one week) and tell the users they can go to WP:IPBE if they need an extension. Risker (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Unban request by Roqui15

Ban appeal by Roqui15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) copied over from their user talk (permalink).

For this unblock it's ok for me to be banned from participating in the discussion or editing on the List of largest Empires page, including the talk page. And be able to edit everything else.

I admit my mistake of using more than one account and I understand why I caused a disturbance. And of course, I agree to don't use more than one account again, even when I think it's justified. I will not "bring" anyone else to help me with my wikipedia edits, whether it's family members or friends, whether is in an article or in a discussion. I will always be civilized, courteous, and polite in any editing or discussion with other editors. I would like to be able to contribute again to Wikipedia in general and I will not get into violent disputes with other editors or disturb Wikipedia in any other way like I did before.

And my edits will be always by the support of a trusted source. Thank you Roqui15 (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

- Cabayi (talk) 13:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• No recent block evasion as far as I can see, based on checkuser evidence. --Yamla (talk) 13:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support if Roqui15 is actually agreeing to all of the conditions listed by Deepfriedokra on 7 June, 2021 on their talk page. Roqui15 previously stated, "I'm ok with all of the unblock conditions above". I think largely, that means WP:1RR in addition to the topic ban. --Yamla (talk) 13:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment for those wondering, it seems this ban was under WP:3X so I don't think there was a formal cban discussion, although there's quite a lot of stuff on their talk page which may help explain part of the history and also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roqui15/Archive. Nil Einne (talk) 13:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  3X exists so that we don't have to have a discussion. The discussion that approved that was this one. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  @PEIsquirrel: Not sure I see a reason to discuss 3X here? I didn't say anything which disputed the legitimacy of 3X or suggested there needed to be a discussion. And I linked to the 3X redirect so people unfamiliar with this part of the policy could check it out, and this already links to the RfC for anyone unaware of the history of 3X. IMO if anyone did want to dispute 3X, that's irrelevant to this discussion since it is part of policy and their comments should be ignored. (They are free to try and get that policy changed somewhere else if they follow our norms of course.)

Further explanation Nil Einne (talk) 18:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

A standard part of ban appeals for me and I suspect a number of participants is to check out the ban discussion to get an idea of what lead up to the ban, and so help them decide whether any conditions imposed are needed or sufficient or if any other conditions should be imposed; and ultimately decide whether to support or oppose the appeal. The appeal mentioned socking but didn't really explain why the editor was banned or link to any cban discussion and so give me an idea of why this was here at AN instead of just something handled via an unblock request. (Do note that many of us including me are not admins and so we don't deal with block appeals ourselves only ban appeals. And those occasional block appeals where despite the lack of a ban, an admin doesn't feel comfortable unilaterally unblock and so asks for feedback; but in those cases the admin generally explains the situation.) So I went to check out the editor's talk page to find it. From there I found out it was 3X ban and so there was likely no formal discussion, which again is fine but is not the case for many appeals. To stop further participants getting confused or spending time looking for a ban discussion, I mentioned the nature of the ban here since no one had yet. However I indicated some degree of uncertainty in my comment as I couldn't be sure there was no formal discussion. I only went by comments I saw on the talk page and didn't spend any time looking for one since I doubted there would be one. But I did link the the SPA and mention the talk page as these IMO provided a good idea of what lead up to the ban and were probably the best alternatives to a cban discussion. Note that if there was a ban discussion I stand by my view that it would be something participants might want to read before !voting and I would have linked to it if no one else had. Which is a different thing from saying we should waste time having such discussions. OTOH, I don't see the discussion which established 3X is particularly useful or necessary for any 3X appeal, in the sense that while ideally all participants should understand why we have it as part of policy, most should already be familiar with it. Given the proposed condition, after my post I checked out the archives of Talk:List_of_largest_empires where I found Talk:List of largest empires/Archive 9 particularly illustrative of the history. But I also found Talk:List of largest empires/Archive 10 and Talk:List of largest empires/Archive 11 interesting as the latter makes me wonder if Roqui15 is technically 1 day too soon for the WP:STANDARDOFFER. As an IP, CUs can't link Special:Contributions/2001:8A0:FE8F:8B00::/64 to an account meaning we can only rely on behavioural evidence like those talk page comments, and there seem to be several socks bothering that page. I'm not sure if there are more than one complaining about the size of the Portuguese empire. However it's possible some of the editors Roqui15 allegedly invited stuck around. So without a fair amount of further investigation it's hard to be sure who it was. And given it's only 1 day off, it didn't seem worth it. Hence my decision not to link to any of those archives or comment on them. And instead I just decided to leave it at the existing SPA and talk page links. Well until your comment made me think you misunderstood the point of my earlier comment and/or don't understand how some of us review appeals.

Nil Einne (talk) 18:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

As I said below, I'm rather involved in this. Suffice it to say that behavioural evidence indicates that Special:Contributions/2001:8A0:FE8F:8B00::/64 is someone else. TompaDompa (talk) 18:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support if Roqui15 is actually agreeing to all of the conditions listed by me on 7 June, 2021 on their talk page. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Let's try it with the aforementioned conditions and then revisit them later. And I always forget to say "one account restriction," but of course. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Adding WP:IBAN with TompaDompa per TompaDompa's comment below. @Roqui15:, please respond to TompaDompa's concerns on your talk page. @TompaDompa: I'm hoping the expanded TBAN does not prove necessary. Successful unban requests are a rarity. I should hope such a boon would not be squandered. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support with no recent block evasion, I think they may have learned their lesson. Agree with the WP:1RR restriction & topic ban. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support with one-account restriction. User seems to understand now that meatpuppetry is effectively the same as sockpuppetry, so the issues which led to the original block ought not to recur. I don't see much reason for other restrictions at this point, let's just see what happens. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I consider myself too involved for it to be appropriate for me to outright support or oppose this, but I have a few observations/comments to share.
  • One year can be plenty of time for character growth (especially for someone rather young, which I gather this user is), and I think the lack of additional (detected) sockpuppetry for the last year or so is evidence that this has indeed been the case here.
  • Besides articles that would be covered by the proposed topic ban, the user has edited biological articles such as Siberian Tiger a fair amount. As far as I can tell, those edits demonstrate their ability to contribute constructively to Wikipedia.
  • I would probably explicitly specify "Portuguese history, broadly construed" in the proposed topic ban in addition to what was suggested on the user's talk page, since that area was their main focus on the article and talk page in question and some other pages where they used sockpuppets (e.g. Northeast Passage).
  • The user was blocked on Portuguese-language Wikipedia for WP:Harassment directed towards me for things that happened here on English-language Wikipedia. I think a one-way interaction ban should at least be considered.
  Those are my thoughts. TompaDompa (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

indefinite blocks

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

---

Is their a standard for issuing indefinite blocks for new users? I got hit with one for experiment ing a move and resolved it but I’d like to know — in handling vandalism − do users get blocked indef on the spot? Nikcannon 10:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikcannon (talk • contribs)

From what I can tell, Nikcannon, you changed some names in a list of predefined tropical storm names, and then you moved the article to what was clearly a test title, and then I imagine you learned that there are technical reasons that articles can't be moved back to old titles without an administrator's help. We discourage experimenting in articles like this, but you are welcome to do so in your user space: see Wikipedia:User space and H:SANDBOX for some more info. Don't try to move the Wikipedia sandbox, but you can pretty much do as you please with your own user sandboxes. You really shouldn't have been blocked for this, and I'm sorry that you were treated this way.

@The Land: per WP:ADMINACCT I would like to know just what the hell were you thinking blocking this user indefinitely for an obvious test edit? In case you need reminding, Wikipedia:Assume good faith is a policy, WP:BITE is long-standing best practice, and we have escalating warning templates for users who are editing in nonconstructive ways, of which {{uw-test1}} would have been a good choice here. Please explain yourself. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

At the time, it didn't look much to me like a test edit. However, after reviewing it this morning, I realised I was being unduly harsh and unblocked, explaining my actions on the user's talk page. It still doesn't really smell like a test edit to me- it's a strange pattern of editing from a newcomer to go through 1) adding non-obvious userpage templates, 2) moving pages, 3) raising noticeboard reports. However, if Nikcannon is planning to contribute to building an encyclopedia, all is well and I'll happily apologise. The Land (talk) 14:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Also I'll add that if it had been anything but a page-move I doubt I'd have been so inclined to block, but where page-move vandalism occurs it is particularly difficult to deal with, and that is what I perceived this to be. The Land(talk) 14:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm, seems like my nose was right.... The Land (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Yup, you made the right choice!.--Berig (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Best ya read up on the rules, before making any more bold page moves or edits. Starting with signing your posts. GoodDay (talk) 13:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

What I think GoodDay meant to say here, rather than just being snarky for the sake of it, is that we have many pages written on how to do things on Wikipedia. I'll leave some helpful links on your user talk page. By "signing", GoodDay means that when you write a comment on a discussion page (like this one) you should sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~), which will be replaced by your user signature by the software. If you type out a signature yourself, the software doesn't recognize it and then a bot (User:SineBot) comes along and adds another one. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Yamla and 331dot: respectfully, I'd like to get you both to take a second look at your declines here, too. I do realize that your rationales were valid in both cases, and you both review a lot of these and the new user didn't lead in that direction in these requests, but when you're reviewing an appeal do you not review the circumstances to determine if the block was valid in the first place? The blocking policy suggests that you should. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 14:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Ivanvector, not arguing that my decline was appropriate, I'm just trying to get some clarification. Is it your position that this particular unblock request was sufficient? And/or is it your position that even a blank unblock request (which was not the case here) should not be declined out-of-hand but instead should be investigated? Both positions are reasonable, just looking for clarification here. --Yamla (talk) 14:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The block may have been harsh, but given that the unblock reason was "blocking editor wp:assume bad faith", I fully support the decline. I still have to see evidence that the OP is a new user or intending to contribute. —Kusma (talk) 14:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

How would someone provide evidence that they are a new user?-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

For clarity's sake: Who made Nikcannon aware of this page (WP:AN) & the Wikipedia:Blocking policy page? GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Warnings and block notices on talk pages often include a link specifically to Wikipedia:Blocking policy, and it's not hard to find AN from there (editors believe a block has been improperly issued, they can request a review of that block at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard is an excerpt from that page). As of this revision, the user's talk page had several such links that were easy for a new user to follow to get here. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

It looks like baiting an admin to act and then attack the admin.--Berig (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• I was looking simply for an explanation of what was done and what was going to be different. It didn't seem like a test edit to me, but I apologize for not seeing that. 331dot (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

There's something not quite right, concerning the 'new' editor. But, I'll keep that to myself (for now). GoodDay (talk) 14:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

This is the OP's only substantial edit, sneaky vandalism much worse than the subsequent page move. —Kusma (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Interesting! That adds some background to Nikcannon's intentions here.--Berig (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• I too don't think Nikcannon is a new user. Although the username doesn't follow the same pattern, I suspect Nikcannon is a sock of Typhoon Namer 325. At least two checkusers were involved in that small sock farm, Materialscientist and Jpgordon, but unless they retained notes, the accounts are stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Mmm... the pattern of behaviour between Nikcannon and Typhoon Namer 325 really is pretty similar. Turns up, creates a sandbox, puts odd names into hurricane articles, demands people assume good faith. The Land (talk) 15:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

No longer keeping it to myself. I recommend somebody (who knows how) open up an SPI. GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think CU is even needed here, the behavioral evidence is very compelling that this is Typhoon Namer 325. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• Bang! went the boomerang! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Backlog at AfD

There are some discussions from nearly the beginning of the month which are still open at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old/Open AfDs... If they hadn't been open for so long, a few might be eligible for a relist, but the rest seem close enough calls that even though I usually trust myself, I don't want to touch them for fear of unwarranted Wiki-drama about non-admin closes. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll have a crack at some after lunch. Thanks for bringing it to the wider community's attention though. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Request

Hello wikipedia Administrators. I am from Vietnam and would like everyone to help me with this. I used to write wikipedia for the fictional character Zhao paner in Guan Hanqing's Chinese opera. Saving the Dusty-windy(趙盼兒風月救風塵 Zhô Pan Ér Fēng Yuè Jiù Fēng Chen) one of the greatest Chinese playwrights of all time. there won't be anything to talk about until this post is DELETED by eliminator vietnam 🙂 so can I ask how to determine if the character deserves to be deleted or not? First about the character and work: Zhao paneer is one of the earliest feminist role models in theater in China, she is a model of courage, intelligence, and dare to take responsibility for the work. at the same time stood up to expose the lost feudalism, which constrained women. The character Zhao paneer gives people an insight into life worth pondering while also filled with the urge to fight for women's rights.
Saving the Dusty-windy is one of Guan Hanqing’s most famous representative plays, displayed at the bottom of the society, prostitutes and social evil tenacious struggle of the brave and resourceful. The plot of the layers of depth, the shape of the Zhao panr the chivalrous, witty.

2nd about the author: Guan Hanqing, also known as Yizhaisou (Old Man Studying the Past), was honored as the best among the four well-known writers of Yuan Opera, and the greatest playwright of the Yuan Dynasty (1279-1368). He was born in Dadu (today's Beijing), capital of the Yuan Dynasty, around 1220 and died in 1300. During that period, Mongolia was in the process of destroying the Jin (1115-1234) and Southem Song (1127-1279) dynasties, with many social upheavals taking place. Born to a doctor's family, Guan Hanqing read widely and learned to write poetry and music from the time he was a child. He was very fond of zaju, a poetic form of drama set to music, and with his good friend Yang Xianzhi, founded a zaju composing society.
plays combined love stories with real life and social contradictions, rather than just setting love stories in an isolated environment, as well as devoting much space to direct and detailed depictions of enduring affection and the tortuous path of love. They embraced a broad range of social phenomena and exposed various social problems. Guan Hanqing's dramas on love and marriage all centered on the female protagonists and paid tribute to their spirit of pursuing happiness and resisting evil.

The eliminators said that the article was incomplete while I had stated enough about the main content, work reviews, personality, authors, character introductions, and adapted works. they said the writing was sketchy when I was clearly writing about the characters in the comedy and not the content of the other comedy. while actually in Vietnam there are many more sketchy posts that they don't delete. I am really upset about this.Hope the Administrators here can help judge.
Here are some examples of sketchy posts that Vietnam eliminators refuse to delete https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Machine https://vi.wikipedia.org/.../Tony_Stark_(V%C5%A9_tr%E1%BB... https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper_Potts https://vi.wikipedia.org/.../V%C6%B0%C6%A1ng_Ng%E1%BB%AF... https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandalf https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chung_Linh https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%90o%C3%A0n_Ch%C3%ADnh_Minh https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%90o%C3%A0n_Ch%C3%ADnh_Minh https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cao_Th%C4%83ng_Th%C3%A1i https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%E1%BB%81u_ch%C3%B5ng https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%AE%B5%E6%AD%A3%E6%98%888... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disansee (talk • contribs) 12:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

We cannot help you with issues on the Vietnamese Wikipedia, you will need to use whatever process that Wikipedia has to address your concern. 331dot (talk) 12:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Disansee: Hi Disansee, welcome I'm sorry to hear you're upset about this, sometimes its difficult to "keep your cool" with Wikipedia, I'm sure we can all agree with that! Unfortunately, this seems to be an issue where we're unlikely to be able to assist, as I doubt many of our contributors here are also active on the Vietnamese Wikipedia ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 12:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Remove me from the file movers group

I have no interest in moving files any time soon. So, please remove me from the file movers group. After doing so, please leave a message at User talk:GeoffreyT2000 linking to this removal request. The administrator who removed me from the template editors group in September 2018 did not leave a user talk page message, so now I am explicitly asking for a link to this removal request to be posted on my user talk page. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

GeoffreyT2000,  Done. In the future, you can request these changes at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: The notice in Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions#Removal_of_permissions actually directs people to the AN/BN noticeboards to have their permissions removed. bibliomaniac15 02:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Bibliomaniac15, I was not aware of that. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

bad certificate

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T263006

The top cert in the chain being used when I open Wikipedia expired on Sept 30, making it difficult to use Wikipedia. I don't know where to report that other than here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.247.35.26 (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi IP, you might be referring to the LetsEncrypt expiry. You may need to update your device ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 15:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Threats being made to me

Someone claiming to be Bill Stevenson (and who is likely him) is threatening me on my talk page, disliking the article created on him (which was created utilizing all the information I could readily find on them). They dislike that it describes their fraud charges, which I wrote about based on credible contemporary news articles. They are making threats of utilizing their fortune to get me kicked off the website, and god knows what else. Just thought this should be brought to the attention of admins. SecretName101 (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I’ve blocked him for making legal threats such as [50]. If he has a problem with how he’s represented in the sources and on Wikipedia, there are better ways to go about resolving that. clpo13_(talk) 17:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Clpo13: I believe you blocked the wrong user. DanCherek (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you’re right! That’s what I get for editing on a phone. clpo13_(talk) 17:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

This was mentioned on a Wikipedia criticism site, which led me to look at Bill Stevenson (businessman), and while the threats are indeed nasty, it occurs to me that the user (who is also Delawarebill based on the latter's first edit summary) may have a case under WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE; I'm not sure the article demonstrates sufficient notability for a BLP whose subject has requested deletion. Do we need an AfD or can this be redirected to Jill Biden? See the edit summary by Folly Mox in the most recent edit for their assessment of why this person is notable. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

He's certainly made his bio article more notable. -- GoodDay (talk) 04:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I've put this up for deletion. Mangoe (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

It should be summarily deleted per WP:G10. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, the bio article was created on August 20, 2021, so it's existed for over two months. GoodDay (talk) 05:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Which is an indictment of how Wikipedia fails to enforce its own policies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

He certainly may have a point on the possibly WP:UNDUE nature of the of some of the editing choices. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)