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	37	49
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	13	13

• 10 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 2 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 0 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 2 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 155 sockpuppet investigations
• 21 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 1 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 33 requests for RD1 redaction
• 56 elapsed requested moves
• 5 Pages at move review
• 19 requested closures
• 144 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 23 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

Meatpuppetry across the Michael Jackson articles

Moved this here after this (followup comment here).

I don't know where to address this, but it needs to be addressed because it's affecting our Wikipedia articles in detrimental ways. Like I stated on Laser brain's talk page, there have been meatpuppetry issues when it comes to Jackson fans at the Jackson articles. As new accounts, they show up to the same articles, including new articles that they could not have known about unless told about them offline, show very little interest in editing non-Jackson articles (or if they do, it's to look less like WP:Single-purpose accounts), turn their user page (or user page and talk page) blue as to attract less attention, and then they peddle their POVs. Sometimes they turn their user page blue first, including with the typical sockpuppet use of a dot or series of dots to turn their user page blue or with some sentence. They then blank their user page on the same day, or a week, month, or few months later. Sometimes they start a sandbox immediately. The way they work is a coordinated effort (which is no surprise, going by what sources like this The New York Times source and this The Daily Beast source have reported on), supporting one another to influence discussions (including when one of them took me to ANI). This is an obvious problem because if I, for example, start an RfC at Talk:Michael Jackson, it will mainly consist of these new accounts weighing in, twisting our policies and guidelines to suit their personal feelings with regard to Jackson. This all started with the pending release of Leaving Neverland (a controversial documentary about child sexual abuse) and increased when it was released. For anyone familiar with WP:Student editors, these accounts are similar to student editors, in that they show up out of nowhere with one goal (in this case, to support Jackson/his legacy), edit alike, support one another, and seem coached. They will already be aware of some rules, such as WP:Assume good faith (knowing this one apparently because they are already aware that they will be considered or called a sock or a meatpuppet). I would link to certain accounts here (without pinging them) as examples of their behavior so that editors will see what I mean, but this isn't a WP:SPI. And they would simply cry "assume good faith" anyway. But linking to the discussions here and pointing to the talk page history of the Michael Jackson article is enough to see some of the accounts I mean.

As seen in this ANI thread, CheckUser Berean Hunter has previously looked into possible sockpuppetry regarding the Jackson fan editors. While no sockpuppetry has yet been identified, the meatpuppetry is obvious. I've noted obvious meatpuppets to Berean Hunter via email. And as seen here and here, meatpuppetry and gaming the system was addressed by JBW, who I contacted via email about this. As seen in those discussions involving JBW and via the aforementioned link pointing to Laser brain's talk page, these editors are not above gaming the system to get extended confirmed status. Popcornduff has also seen the meatpuppetry. This new editor has also seen it, and complained to NinjaRobotPirate about it. And Popcornduff and editors such as Excelse, Snow Rise and myself have seen issues with articles like "Cultural impact of Michael Jackson." Note that I'm not linking to that article; this is because it will bring the creator -- a Jackson fan who has demonstrated POV issues with regard to Jackson -- to this talk page. And then meatpuppets may follow. I'm not sure what to do. WP:Meatpuppetry does state, "A 2005 Arbitration Committee decision established: 'For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.'" But can anything be done about this? Will this need WP:Arbitration, like Gamergate did with regard to socks and meatpuppets? I think it likely will. The meatpuppets outnumber non-Jackson fans such as myself trying to keep fan-skewed edits out. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Not counting bots, 107 registered users have posted on Talk:Michael Jackson in 2019 up to now. Of the 107 users, 23 accounts were created in 2019. Their total edit counts are:

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 3, 3, 3, 5, 10, 24, 27, 48, 73, 81, 91, 92, 325

The first nine of those made a single comment at the talk page, but no other edit. It's clear there is a problem at the Michael Jackson pages but the solution is hard to see. Some kind of discretionary sanctions might be useful but the community is very weak at dealing with "good faith" comments by obvious meatbots. Johnuniq (talk) 09:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't have much to add, because I have no experience in investigating sockpuppets and meatpuppets, but I will say this: the Michael Jackson articles are a constant battleground of seemingly inexperienced editors pushing POV views. I would describe them as something of a nightmare in that regard. And unlike other areas I've worked on in my ten-ish years of Wikipedia, they don't seem to go away. I always assumed they were co-ordinating in some way on a Discord server or something. Popcornduff (talk) 10:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• I might be missing something (probably am), but how are these meatpuppets getting round the ECP? I mean, if they're gaming the system to artificially inflate their edit counts then it's legitimate to bust them back to confirmed user status at the minimum. ——SN54129 11:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, lots of Jackson-related articles, such as Leaving Neverland and Cultural impact of Michael Jackson, have no page protection, for a start... Popcornduff (talk) 11:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
    • True dat. Also, see a recent discussion; this thread answers my question. ——SN54129 11:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
• If specific Jackson related articles need protection, then that can be given if diffs are presented to show a pattern of problematic behaviour to the articles. I wouldn't consider comments on a talkpage to be sufficient reason for protection of the article, though offensive or troubling remarks made by a user on a talkpage may be reason to sanction that user. I have indefinitely semi-protected Leaving Neverland. It has been protected for short periods five times this year, and inappropriate edits by IP and new editors are still occuring frequently. I've not looked at the other Jackson articles, and won't have time until later this evening. SilkTork (talk) 12:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

This is quite the spectacle! Flyer22_Reborn has themself admitted to have seen "POV-pushing from both sides". But in this complaint, they're putting all emphasis on supposed pro-Jackson meat puppets.

In a developing discussion [1], user scope_creep has shown a clear conflict of interest and POV-pushing: "He will be come be known as a very successful singer, who used his success to attract young boys to abuse. He may be very very popular as a cultural icon, but as these fans see their own children grow up, it will finally bring it home and that is when it will change."

User popcorndruff once wrote: "the biased language in this article is beginning to cause me physical pain"[2].

Just a month ago, an anti-MJ canvassing plot (to "take back the LN Wiki by any means necessary") was uncovered (evidence and all) [3].

This article alleges that Harvey Weinstein allegedly paid writers to write gossip items about Jackson.

As for Jude1313, they were blocked for edit-warring (four reverts within 24 hours). They made 47 edits in a row to the Evan Chandler article without discussing even one of them on its Talk page, and they proceeded to attack other editors using a lot caps and talking back in a very puerile manner. They also repeatedly blanked their talk page in a very short time frame.

In this conversation [4], user Partytemple called out Flyer22_Reborn for edit warring without good reason. Flyer22_Reborn then proceeded to lash out at several editors she perceived as Jackson fans, calling them "rabid", falsely accusing them of using the talk page as a forum, of possibly being sockpuppets, etc. User SNUGGUMS then stated that Flyer22_Reborn's "rabid Jackson fan" remark was unwarranted, but they once more made the same impertinent remark.

In this discussion [5], Flyer22_Reborn made mention of "many rabid Jackson fans". I composed a pertinent response to her comment, and she then accused me of "rabidness", completely ignoring my quote of Collins Dictionary: You can use rabid to describe someone who has very strong and unreasonable opinions or beliefs about a subject, especially in politics.

There was nothing unreasonable or fanatical in my response, but this is how they try to discredit editors with whom they disagree. This very discussion by Flyer22_Reborn appears to me as an attempt to exercise undue control on certain Wiki articles and silence any voice they do not agree with. I've been on Wikipedia for 13 years, and I very rarely ever edited any MJ-related article until the release of Leaving Neverland ; the amount of activity and conflicts on MJ-related articles has brought my attention, and many of the users Flyer22_Reborn constantly attacks have only been trying to maintain some balance and accuracy in said articles.

Also, they've admitted to trying to conceal this notification from other editors they perceive as "fans". I'm pinging Jakeblaketomakemyheadsshake and Zusammenprall to this discussion. Israell (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

...which really doesn't help your case at all. Jakeblaketomakemyheadsshake was blocked yesterday as a confirmed sock of Awardmaniac. And Zusammenprall is currently blocked although that is still under discussion. Israell, you state above that scope_creep has a clear conflict of interest. Please elaborate because it isn't borne out in what you have presented. I'm of the current opinion that you don't have a good idea of what conflict of interest means.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The above comment by Israell, a Jackson fan, is partly what I'm talking about when it comes to Jackson fans and them showing up to discussions like this one. Israell has assisted and defended these meatpuppets, just like now. Expect others, including perhaps the original creator of the Cultural impact of Michael Jackson article, to show up here. This is why I didn't link to that article, although now it's linked above. But as for how Israell found this thread, Israell likely followed Popcorndruff here. Anyway, take note that every admin I have contacted about this case has been clear that meatpuppetry is going on. Now we have admin Johnuniq noting it above as well. So why is Israell defending these meatpuppets and bringing up old disputes involving me while mischaracterizing things such as "Partytemple called out Flyer22_Reborn for edit warring without good reason."? Israell mentions SNUGGUMS, but SNUGGUMS has been clear that I've, for the most part, acted appropriately at these articles. This clearly is not about me "try[ing] to discredit editors with whom [I] disagree." This clearly is not about this discussion being "an attempt to exercise undue control on certain Wiki articles and silence any voice they [I] agree with." It's about what Popcorndruff and others who have seen the problems have stated. And on that note, Berean Hunter recently uncovered this and this sock with regard to the Jackson articles. The "balance" these socks and meatpuppets have been "trying to maintain" is not the balance that Wikipedia wants. WP:NPOV and WP:Advocacy are clear. I should also note that it was brought to my attention these meatpuppets are likely coming from Reddit. For example, Reddit has a #JusticeForMJ hashtag active.

Berean Hunter Flyer22 Reborn Hey, I'm quite active on reddit and I have never encountered any hashtag of the sorts. Reddit isn't really a place for hashtags - maybe I visit the wrong part of Reddit. Are you talking about Twitter? There are as many anti MJ hashtags active as pro MJ hashtags. The anti Michael Jackson community is quite avid. I invite you to visit the LeavingNeverlandHBO subreddit. I myself joined reddit after joining wikipedia by the way. Zusammenprall (talk) 11:48, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

SilkTork, thanks for looking into this. Other Jackson articles that need semi-protection are the following: Trial of Michael Jackson, 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson, Wade Robson, Health and appearance of Michael Jackson, and Michael Jackson's Boys. Popcorndruff can probably name some more. Pinging admin Yamla, who has dealt with some problematic editing issues concerning the Jackson articles and recently stated that they have "placed many of the articles targeted by Awardmaniac under extended-confirmed protection." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for linking the article - was trying to be helpful and didn't think it through. Popcornduff (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Why does linking the article matter? ——SN54129 16:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The creator gets pinged. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I didn't know those two users were blocked. Once again, scope_creed wrote: "He will be come be known as a very successful singer, who used his success to attract young boys to abuse. He may be very very popular as a cultural icon, but as these fans see their own children grow up, it will finally bring it home and that is when it will change." They've made a very clear accusation, made it very clear they fully believe Jackson to be guilty when Jackson was never found guilty of any wrongdoing. Right there, it shows bias. I remember how user hatethejess was blocked for having a conflict of interest. Well, scope_creed has demonstrated the opposite conflict of interest.

If any supposedly pro-MJ editor used the language scope_creepused, Flyer and popcorndruff would yell at them, call them rabid and warn them. I am pinging Isaacsorry and TrackerMercurial136. Israell (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Israell why was I mentioned in this? Isaacsorry (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22_Reborn... Once again... I've been on Wiki for 13 years! It's only after the release of LN that I've started to pay more attention to MJ-related articles, and I've explained why above. My being a fan is your assumption, and it's completely irrelevant. Besides, it is common for Wiki editors to edit articles for which they have competency. For instance, a viewer of soap operas is more apt to edit soap articles, make sure the information is accurate (storylines, characters, actors, head writers, executive producers, etc.), than somebody who has absolutely no interest whatsoever in soaps. I've only been honest here, yet you constantly point fingers, accuse plenty of editors you do not agree with of meat puppetry, etc. Israell (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

And no, I did not follow Popcorndruff here... News flash! After 13 years, I know my way around Wiki! All you and popcorndruff do is assume, assume, assume (they must come from Reddit, they must come from Discord servers, etc.). You've conveniently ignored the blatant anti-MJ canvassing plot that was uncovered just last month! Those people made very clear their intention was to "take back the LN Wiki by any means necessary". Jude1313 was an obvious meatpuppet and was blocked for that. Israell (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Israell: You may have been on Wikipedia for 13 year but it is clear as day that your a fan and this is evidenced by the comments you have made. You don't seem to be here to build an encyclopedia. Instead your kicking up a stink about my comments. It is worth noting that talk pages are for having frank discussions in a free and open manner within reason. You have also stated that I have a COI. I really don't. I don't listen to Jackson's music, never been a fan. You have also stated I have a POV. I don't. WP:POV is specific to the article. I don't plan to write any of the article, at any time. I was requested to comment on the talk page. I still believe the film should be mentioned in the lede.scope_creep^Talk 17:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Scope creep:I fail to see how liking the music should be relevant in any way. Michael jackson was one of the biggest pop artists in history. The word 'pop' stands for popular music. As in: Most people will like this music. Discounting everyone who enjoys the music of Michael Jackson is discounting half of humanity. You say you are not a fan as if this is something to be proud of in this context. But One could construe that as suspicious as well. Why the interest? You might be part of the just as avid Michael Jackson hate community. Zusammenprall (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Israell, I'm not engaging you further on your mischaracterizations and "shifting the attention to Flyer" nonsense that you and the meatpuppets try time and time again, despite noticeboards such as the WP:Original research noticeboard making it clear that I'm in the right when it comes to article content, and admins agreeing that meatpuppetry is going on. Given this thread that Serial Number 54129 and I linked to, pinging Isaacsorry doesn't help your case either. And pinging new account TrackerMercurial136? Sighs. Also, you claiming that you just happened to find this thread is extremely disingenuous. So is your commentary that you "being a fan is [my] assumption." Your contribution history (which documents you editing a few times every year, and that the vast majority of your editing took place in 2007) shows what you focus on and your editing patterns. And yet you want us to believe that you simply decided to see what was going on at WP:AN today and found this thread about Jackson fans and meatpuppetry? Good grief. No, Jude1313 is not some obvious meatpuppet and was not blocked for that. Whatever you and the meatpuppets think you are going to accomplish by "Flyer and Popcornduff are bad" posts is misguided. Well, unless it's to derail this thread, which I won't further contribute to by replying to you, the usual suspects, or the meatpuppets. It won't change the fact that the meatpuppetry is evident and that a number of these articles need semi-protection. Meatpuppets showing up here will just further prove my case, like TruthGuardians's comment below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Again, speculative bullying. There are some who truly believe that they are god’s gift to WP, some sort of king or king. Truth is, they are only a bully wrapped in experience. TruthGuardians (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

So you just happened to find this thread as well. Got it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22_Reborn, It is common for Wiki editors to monitor noticeboards in times of conflict. The more you bully, the more you expose yourself. Israell (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Last reply to you in this thread you've sought to derail: You've exposed yourself plenty here in this section. Your "we just showed up because we've been monitoring AN all this time" explanation doesn't fly. And it especially doesn't fly if speaking of recent conflict. What recent conflict, other than this thread? Oh, yes, I've been such a problem in this recent discussion that you and the meatpuppets just recently decided to watch AN. No. I wonder what your excuse would have been if the thread had remained at Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I will say that there are some genuine concerns here, but I will also say that it just seems like a bunch of bullies protecting what they deem as their territory when it’s not, it is the people’s territory. A few months ago I was a new editor and was a victim of bullying by Flyer22 and other wiki users that they flock around in packs with. They cry “Jackson fans” this, and “Jackson fans” that, when in reality there is no rule that says “Jackson fans” can’t edit Wikipedia. In fact, as long as they remain balance, are here for more than just one purpose, and are following guidelines, they can absolutely Choose what they are subject matter experts in without being bullied and harassed by more experienced users. These same users say absolutely nothing when pedophile fantasists attempt to hijack Jackson’s pages and push their sick, unsupported POV and using anti-jackson sites like MJFacts as their sources. I don’t have an opinion on the sock puppetry stuff being mentioned here, but do believe that the guideline should be expanded to include sock puppetry bullying. TruthGuardians (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

scope_creed, you're making false assumptions here, assuming bad faith and obviously cannot read, so I'll repeat myself. I've been on Wiki for 13 years and have edited different sorts of articles. Obviously, I'm here to build an encyclopedia. It's only AFTER the release of LN that I've started to pay more attention to MJ-related articles, and I've explained why above. Understood or you need a translator? Yes, you do have a POV, and you've made it very clear. You've very clearly stated that you believe MJ to be guilty, and that may cloud your judgement in votes, etc. Pot. Kettle. Israell (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22_Reborn has admittedly seen TruthGuardians' reply above, a pertinent, sensical, well-crafted reply but she chose to completely dismiss it, ignore all of his arguments, assuming bad faith, calling him a "meatpuppet". Seriously... I rest my case. Israell (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Can't you tell the meatpuppets to Beat It....? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I think they wanna be startin' somethin'.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm unblocking Zusammenprall to participate in this thread.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

There is a blatant exaggeration in this complaint. I resent Flyer22_Reborn for unduly and falsely accusing TruthGuardians, Partytemple and others of meatpuppetry when they (Flyer22_Reborn) and others may very well have engaged in the very behaviour they condemn. See how they give Jude1313 a full pass! Once again, that user just very recently made 47 edits in a row to the Evan Chandler article without discussing even one of them on its Talk page, and they proceeded to attack other editors using a lot caps and talking back in a very puerile manner. They also repeatedly blanked their talk page in a very short time frame, but Flyer22_Reborn doesn't care because Jude1313 is not "a rabid MJ fan."

Lugnuts, I hope you're referring to those meatpuppets that clearly stated their intent to "take back the LN Wiki by any means necessary". Israell (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I feel the need to also say that I am not against the proposed semi-protections, though I do believe the request is exaggerated. I am, however, opposed to the tribal bullying of every new user coming to post on the topic. I admittedly don’t know if this is the correct time, place, or admin to bring this topic up to, but I am researching my options at this point in time. Just at a quick glance I have discovered 33 examples of this bullying from 2 particular users as far back as only 3 months. Something needs to be done about this. It’s always the same 2-3 users!TruthGuardians (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I need to chime in on the sock puppet issue of which I was accused. Yes it is correct that I created five month ago my first wikipedia account which I then abandoned. But I did this solely to protect my privacy and to protect me from potential harassment NOT to manipulate or vandalise - my edit history should make this clear. The name of my first acc was linked to another platform on which a bunch of trolls are gunning for me. I'm a moderator of a plattform about a quite controversial subject.

That is the sole reason I abandoned my first account. A privacy concern regarding the name. The reason why I had to abandon my second account too is - to be quite frank - stupidity on my part. I accidentally linked my second account to my first. - I'm a Wikipedia newby and attempted to make an 'about me' page but accidentally linked this account again to my old name. So moved on and I created my current account in good faith.

My intent was at no time vandalism or the manipulation of votes. In fact: I never participated in any vote I'm aware of. When I abandoned one account I haven't used it ever again to push certain agendas. My edits so far were - in my opinion - of high quality and as good as never reversed or overly controversial. When someone corrected me on something I accepted it.

I may be guilty of not familiarising myself with the rules before joining a plattform. But even after reading parts of the rules now, I still maintain I never did sock puppetry. I simply had to change accounts to protect my privacy and I messed up doing that. Looking back, knowing what I know now, there of course would have been better ways to go about it. I just didn't know. Zusammenprall (talk) 19:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

There you go! I hope you'll accept Zusammenprall's good faith and sincere, detailed explanations. Israell (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I haven't really been involved with the Michael Jackson articles except a tangentially related AfD; but now with the evidence and testimony given above, there is clearly POV pushing and meatpuppetry going on by the 'Jackson fan' side. This sort of thing has even been reported on in the media as linked at the top - while that is specifically about social media outlets, it would be extremely naive not to think the same thing is being done on Wikipedia. I think it would be appropriate for many of these articles to be semi-protected or even extended-confirmed protected by the admins in view of the outside campaigns going on in this regard, and the kind of editing it is resulting in. As for Jude1313, I don't see anyone giving him a "free pass" - quite the opposite. And to be clear, blanking his talk page, annoying as that is, isn't the same thing as userspace behavior so as not to seem obviously new, like creating nearly-blank user pages. -Crossroads- (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• I answered one edit request and got three different editors telling me I'm wrong (one of whom was a sockpuppet, two simply siding with the sockpuppet) and I had to repeatedly answer and explain, which is goddamned impossible when their mind is made up. I don't have an opinion as such, but seeing the extent of the issue, I do believe a general sanction should be applied to the Michael Jackson topic area, 30/500, 1RR and the likes. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm pinging Partytemple. Israell (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Interesting that the Partytemple account, which has been absent for months, showed back up just in time for Israell's ping. The Partytemple account showed back up at 01:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC). And then Israell made the ping at 01:34, 15 December 2019 (UTC). Great. Here comes more "Flyer22 and/or Flyer and Popcornduff are so bad" commentary. More mischaracterizations, etc., etc., etc., as if it's going to change the reality of the meatpuppetry that a number of editors have seen and that all of the controversial Jackson articles need semi-protection/extended-confirmed protection. But rant away. One has to ask why Israell so vehemently opposes these articles being semi-protected/having extended-confirmed protection and/or some other restriction. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Timeout. Didn't you ping users from the talk page? What is the difference between you doing and plausibly getting a response, or someone else doing the same damn thing? I get emails when I am pinged, and I check my email often! I dont know about PartyTemple's scenario, but I definitely cant wait until I take a hihatus and comeback to attacks and accusations from you. Please hence my satire. I'm starting to conclude that WP is full of editors that are 3 weeks out of high school. TruthGuardians (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Did I ping anyone a few minutes after they had just come back after months away? No. Partytemple showed back up first and then was pinged. Another coincidence, I take it? I see. The way you and Israell insult people's intelligence is baffling, as if we were just born yesterday. Like I stated, you, Israell and Partytemple can rant away. Doesn't change the reality of the meatpuppetry that a number of editors have seen and that all of the controversial Jackson articles need semi-protection/extended-confirmed protection. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

It doesnt matter when they were pinged or even when the person was pinged responds to that ping. That proves absolutely nothing. The way you bully EVERY SINGLE peron that post to Michael Jackson's page is baffling. You should be blocked from editing any of his pages based on your provably bullying history, sort of like your previous 4 blocks. You think its your terriotory. It's not. You think you are queen of Wiki. You're not. You need to seriously get over yourself and your alleged intelligence being insulted. I dont care when you were born, I know when you act like you were though. In any event, I agree with semi-protections because of users like Jude1313 and the random IP edits that vandalize the pages, I dont oppose that to be honest. I also agree that it doesn't change the reality of the meatpuppetry that a number of editors have seen and that all of the controversial Jackson articles. I just believe that you want it for selfish reasons to prevent you and your kind from falling in the minority since for so long you have managed to bully your way through controversial edits about Jackson.TruthGuardians (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't matter? Of course it matters. The only people it doesn't matter to are those wanting others to play dumb. And my four previous blocks? As my block log is clear about, I was cleared of sockpuppetry. One of the CUs who blocked me unblocked me after investigating. I was blocked once to protect my account, and the other was an unnecessary block that was reversed. There are admins like NeilN, who also has a faulty block log. And? The "Flyer is bad" people (who are always problematic editors sour about me challenging their problematic editing) always cite my block log like it proves their case about me. All it proves is a lack of reading comprehension. As for the rest, it's more of the same from you. Time to ignore you in this thread. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Still the same speclative bullying that I come to expect from my first day even meeting you. By the way, before I even made my first Jackson article edit, all I did was comment on a talk page and was subjected to your cyberbullying. My problem isnt with your sockpuppetry accusations, I read your page and I believe you, it isn't your sometime evident anti-Jackson POV pushes and editor association, everyone is entitltled to their way of thinking and who the hang out with, my ONLY problem is with your lack of warm welcomes, softskills, WP-goodfaith, wiki-etiquette, and most of all, wiki-bullying. Anyway, Ill allow you peace under your tinfoil hat. In the meantime, I'm going to call the Jackson estate to see what they want my next edit to be.TruthGuardians (talk) 04:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't matter at all, and I resent you for your constant accusations. You are the one thinking other editors are too dumb to know their way around Wiki. Israell (talk) 03:56, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

By the way, I actually pinged Partytemple at 00:55 on the Michael Jackson Talk page [6] before Partytemple showed up at 01:20, which defeats Flyer22 Reborn's accusation. ]. I pinged him because he was until very recently heavily involved in Michael Jackson-related discussions and articles, made pertinent contributions, and his consensus (and that of other editors) is needed. I'll remind you that Flyer22 Reborn has also pinged a string of editors (a total of 16) for consensus on that same talk page. Moxy, Berean Hunter. Israell (talk) 04:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Israell's earlier ping defeats my statement? Nope. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Israell (talk) 04:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

And, for others' knowledge, the pinging on that talk page doesn't compare. The pinging Israell is talking about has Israell pinging a string of editors who agree with Israell, whereas this pinging by me is me pinging a variety editors from both sides of two different debates. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Not quite! Israell (talk) 04:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

To others, regarding the "Not quite!" above, look at that post on that talk page. See what is stated. Doesn't compare whatsoever. This is what I mean about the disingenuous comments. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Just noticed this talk after commenting on the talk page how odd it is the article always has new editors all on one side of the debate without willingness to compromise. On the behavior at the talk....most of us will see it as a somewhat heated but nothing actionable. Think may be best to invite experienced editors to the talk page....rfc or whatever.--Moxy 🍁 02:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

The real questions should be as follows: Who are the sock puppets? Have they been exposed? What, if any, real damage have they caused? Does 1-2 bad Apples ruin it for everyone else? Are people just overreacting? People need to stop with the echo chambers, the tribal bullying, and possibly WP need to completely revamp who are admins, why they are admins, and allow complaint processies to have admins investigated for various reasons.TruthGuardians (talk) 02:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Enough w/ the conspiracy theories. It's enough! Partytemple has been a regular editor; isn't he allowed to take a lil' break from editing Wiki and partaking in discussions? Doesn't mean he hadn't been watching the pages, watching the discussions (no need to log in to view them). Moxy, there have been editors on all sides of the debate, and maybe those new editors you're referring to have the ability to think for themselves! Israell (talk) 03:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

What is needed is experienced editors that are familiar with this type of situation is what is being said. As has been demonstrated over and over again at the article is vote staking does not help.--Moxy 🍁 04:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Moxy, I'll remind you that Flyer22 Reborn has also pinged a string of editors (a total of 16) for consensus on that same talk page. Israell (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I got pinged by Flyer22, so I'm apparently one of those 16. However, all my previous interaction with Flyer22 on the Jackson talk page (the only place I've interacted with her) consisted of fervent disagreement about practically everything, and I've written quite critically of Flyer22 in the past. In my view, Flyer22's pings were a good-faith and impartial effort to notify various previous highly active participants in the relevant discussions, and not an attempt to notify friends or people she agrees with, so it's not at all comparable to any possible meat puppetry among Jackson fans. --Tataral (talk) 07:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Great to see some experienced editors there now not matter wish way they are leaning..--Moxy 🍁 14:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any evidence at all to these claims of bullying. It sounds to me a lot like the deflection that some editors do when on the losing side of disputes. -Crossroads- (talk) 06:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Israell: you're bludgeoning and overwhelming this AN thread with long repetitious posts. Where is the need to inform the community four times that you've been on Wikipedia for 13 years, etc? Please try to be concise and don't wear out readers and opponents. It's not true, as you profess to believe, that you need to repeat yourself ad nauseam because your opponent "obviously cannot read".[7] Such a contemptuous dismissal, together with contradictorily accusing Flyer of being "the one thinking other editors are too dumb to know their way around Wiki"[8] is far into trolling territory. Bishonen | talk 19:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC).

I would add that such meatpuppetry can be counter-productive. I mentioned below Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Jackson's Boys (2nd nomination). If people hadn't gone on claiming that a source that clearly existed did not exist then we could have moved the discussion on to whether the sources, only one of which was substantial, demonstrate notability, when I might well have come down on the side of deletion. As it is I got so exasperated by the antics of the meatpuppets that I didn't wish to spend any time on the discussion apart from correcting blatant lies. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: community sanctions for Michael Jackson topics

Problems are evident even in this discussion. I propose that community sanctions be implemented in a manner similar to Extended-confirmed protection for India-Pakistan conflict. It would be desirable to start by drafting suitable wording before any !vote. Should sanctions include the following? Anything else?

1. Administrators may apply semi-protection or extended confirmed protection for any length of time or indefinitely on articles related to Michael Jackson to prevent editing by IP editors or by accounts with fewer than 500 edits or less than 30 days tenure, provided they reasonably believe meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry has occurred.
2. Administrators may apply semi-protection or extended confirmed protection on any talk page for the duration of an RfC related to the topic provided they reasonably believe meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry has occurred.

Point 1 is on the theory that there may not be a need to pre-emptively prohibit edits by non-ECP users—instead, an admin could apply that remedy if there is reason to believe meatpuppetry has occurred. Bear in mind that it does not matter whether a particular editor is or is not a meatpuppet, what counts is whether they act in the way that a meatpuppet would—excessive contributions from such users is damaging.

Point 2 is likely to be controversial since many believe talk pages should be open to all, and discussion closers should not be swayed by me-too votes. However, I pointed out above that a significant number of accounts were created in 2019 with the obvious intention of promoting a fan-based POV in discussions on talk pages. Any thoughts on how to handle that? Johnuniq (talk) 06:53, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

This discussion is to draft the wording—no !votes yet thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 08:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Minor nitpickings, ...less than 30 days tenure respectively... and ...meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry... --qedk (t 桜 c) 08:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@QEDK: Thanks, I inserted "or sockpuppetry". However, I might be missing something but I don't see how "respectively" is useful. Is that to help with the clumsy "by IP editors or by accounts"? Does anyone have ideas on briefly cleaning that? Johnuniq (talk) 08:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Unfortunately no better wording, I believe you can remove to prevent editing by IP editors or by accounts with fewer than 500 edits or less than 30 days tenure, altogether. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• I'd like to see a proposed set of sanctions taken to ArbCom and given their blessing, possibly as an extension of BLP (since many of those affected by the edits are still alive, and the fact that the nexus of the dispute is deceased is really standing in the way of fixing that). That way standard DS alerting and enforcement can be used. Otherwise we can simply RfC 30/500 protection and/or consensus required on this and other articles I reckon. Guy (help!) 12:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

  GS has an identical alerting system (see {{Gs/alert}}). --qedk (t 桜 c) 12:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• I would oppose this. If someone will show me diffs of inappropriate editing on a Jackson related article I will look into it, as would any admin. I'm not comfortable, though, with the idea of preemptively protecting an article. SilkTork (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

  It's not pre-emptive though, anything related to MJ is absolutely trainwrecked with a barrage of SPAs, most of who are not aware of policy and the ones aware engage in endless wikilawyering. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

  @SilkTork: What about the situation described in my "23 accounts were created in 2019" comment above? There is no bad edit to look at, just the fact that established editors have to debate issues relating to NPOV and DUE with a large stream of SPAs created specifically for the purpose of supporting one side of a disagreement. The idea was to only protect if considered necessary, not pre-emptively. Johnuniq (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

  "established editors have to debate issues". Nobody has to debate; people can chose to get involved in editorial discussions if they wish. As I understand it, part of the concerns here are over an editorial disagreement over inclusion of mention of the Leaving Nevermind documentary. Our protection policy says: "Semi-protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used to privilege registered users over unregistered users in (valid) content disputes." The discussion as regards what weight to give the Leaving Nevermind documentary appears to be a valid content dispute with valid arguments on both sides. Applying semi-protection to keep out the newer editors in favour of less weight being given to that documentary is explicitly forbidden by policy. What is needed is someone to come here with actual diffs of inappropriate edits. I don't mean a list of articles, I mean actual diffs as evidence. Statements that someone has edited an article, but without showing us those actual edits, is not evidence of bad doing, but simply evidence of editing. Show us the concerning edits, and we can deal with the individuals. Show us the pattern of inappropriate edits by multiple new and/or IP editors to a particular article and we can semi-protect that article. There may well be some kind of coordinated plan to remove legitimate content from the Jackson articles, but this discussion so far is not showing that, and if this were brought to ArbCom without a) appropriate evidence of wrong-doing and b) more evidence of the community having attempted and failed to deal with it, then it would likely be rejected. SilkTork (talk) 07:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, I know what the protection policy says—that's why a special sanction would be required for something different to cope with an unusual situation. I have participated in disputes with a stream of SPAs and it wastes a lot of time and energy, however I've never seen anything as bad as the SPAs in this case. It's not satisfactory to say that the established editors don't have to waste their time because they can leave the topic for the SPAs—that would solve the dispute but would not be good for content. Diffs would just show a new editor posting a good-faith comment to support the position of other SPAs so perhaps there is no solution. Arbcom has to follow a more bureaucratic path than a community discussion so I don't see them as being a fix. Johnuniq (talk) 08:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

  In this current situation, there is a discussion to remove mention of Leaving Neverland from the lead of Michael Jackson. Ask an uninvolved admin or Crat to look at the discussion when seven days have passed to close it one way or the other (I would close it but I took part in the previous discussion and gave my view). That seems an appropriate course of action, and doesn't involve a more lengthy process or involve more of the community than is required or enforce a restriction on unregistered editors who wish to edit those articles legitimately (which is a separate concern from persistent inappropriate editing of Jackson articles, which isn't the claim here, but which would legitimately prompt semi-protection - which I am willing to do if people bring to me some diffs). SilkTork (talk) 09:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

  I am also prepared to sanction any editor who is making inappropriate edits to the Jackson article if diffs are supplied. Though I will not sanction an editor for voicing an opinion in the debate, unless such an opinion involves personal attacks or other inappropriate behaviour. SilkTork (talk) 09:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

SilkTork, there are a lot of POV edits that I could point to that show problems, including those documented at Talk:Leaving Neverland. See this section I started there about these edits I reverted. These edits, made by this SPA, consisted of the editor altering text away from what the sources state, ungrammatical wording, adding "allegedly" after every other word (when per WP:Claim, we should be careful with "allegedly" and "claim"), other POV wording, removing valid wikilinks, adding "citation needed" instead of Template:Citation needed and when the content it was added for wasn't unsourced. Here is another POV edit I reverted; this one was made to the Neverland Ranch article by the latest Awardmaniac sock. Awardmaniac will return, which is why Yamla stated that they have "placed many of the articles targeted by Awardmaniac under extended-confirmed protection." I only made the "See also" compromise I made there so that I wouldn't have to waste time on an obvious Jackson-oriented SPA. Is that article's quality better by having Leaving Neverland mentioned in the See also section as opposed to being in the article's text? And here at the Trial of Michael Jackson article, you can see me fixing WP:Editorializing/POV.

Debating with newbie editors whose sole purpose is to defend Jackson's legacy is a waste of time. They apply our rules inappropriately/inaccurately and are always about what they feel makes Jackson look best. And they can overwhelm discussions, as others (for example, The Blade of the Northern Lights) have noted of this very thread. And they can influence discussions. What is the point of starting RfCs at Talk:Michael Jackson, for example, when those RfCs are going to be dominated by editors who are only there to defend Jackson? If anyone is to note that some or most of the participants are SPAs, that person is likely to be pointed to WP:Assume good faith. In that case, the most the editor can probably do is add Template:Single-purpose account beside the SPA accounts per the WP:Meatpuppetry policy. Yes, RfC arguments should be based on strength of arguments, but we all know that it's not unheard of for RfCs to partly come down to head counts, especially if the one closing the discussion is not familiar with the topic. And these SPAs currently outnumber non-Jackson fans who keep fan-skewed edits out. The solution is certainly not to just put up with debating these SPAs just to maintain the neutrality and quality of the Jackson articles, or throwing our hands up and leaving the Jackson articles to them. And any notion that these SPAs may turn into legitimate editors whose focus is not primarily on protecting Jackson's legacy can be challenged by simply looking at the accounts that have been used for months to mainly or solely focus on protecting Jackson's legacy or celebrating his music accomplishments, whether sporadically or consistently. I don't consider disputes involving established editors vs. meatpuppets to be valid content disputes, especially when the meatpuppets are misapplying our policies and/or guidelines. Like WP:Meatpuppetry states, "While Wikipedia assumes good faith, especially for new users, recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia is prohibited. A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining. [...] A 2005 Arbitration Committee decision established: 'For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.' " And there is no doubt that meatpuppetry has been going on at the Jackson articles. I don't think we need to locate a specific off-Wikipedia thread or similar to prove that meatpuppetry is going on when it's evident that it is per my original post in this thread and Johnuniq's original post in this thread. Wikipedia often handles obvious meatpuppetry cases without locating the off-Wikipedia site pulling the meatpuppets in. And in this case, per the sources I've included (in my original post) about Jackson fans and how they coordinate, it's not like it's just one site. And Excelse pointed to off-Wikipedia canvassing anyway. No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• If there is consensus, I would it applied to all large cultural icon articles where the talk page is heavily influenced by fans. I have seen fans at work in more than a few large cultural icon articles. scope_creep^Talk 16:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
• I support Johnuniq's wording and the proposal. Community sanctions are definitely warranted, due to the already evident gaming the system by Jackson fanatics/fans; such behavior on the internet is so bad it has been reported on in the media. We are not a bureaucracy; we can do this as a community and without needing ArbCom to 'pass legislation'. Time to be proactive and not reactive. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
• WP:RFAR. I tend to agree with JzG: this should be taken to ArbCom, with a request for standard discretionary sanctions. If such a case is accepted by the committee, the stricter rules for input at evidence and workshop pages would insure that everybody can be heard, and prevent the kind of bludgeoning and repetitiousness Israell has been subjecting this AN thread to. Meanwhile, do we really need an RfC to apply 30/500 protection to Michael Jackson-related pages? The normal rule for persistent disruption is that semiprotection should be tried first, and 30/500 can be used if semi turns out to be insufficient. Can't we simply follow those steps? Also, while protecting talkpages is best avoided if possible, off-wiki coordination is one of the situations that call for it. Johnuniq's striking list of edit counts by new editors who have edited Talk:Michael Jackson in 2019 (1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 3, 3, 3, 5, 10, 24, 27, 48, 73, 81, 91, 92, 325) does strongly suggest that that page needs semi-protection at the least. Bishonen | talk 19:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC).
• While we're at it, is there some reason not to block the SPAs that have made such a giant mess of the discussions above? I'd be fine with semiprotecting the talkpages and articles (I've semi'd talkpages before, it really shouldn't be a big deal), but blocking the existing accounts causing this mess also has to be part of any effective solution. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

  I see no issue expanding this to a community-authorized GS, which would give administrators more leeway to block the accounts responsible for the disruption. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Example wording:

The community authorizes standard discretionary sanctions as general sanctions for topics related to Michael Jackson, broadly construed. In addition, administrators may apply semi-protection or extended confirmed protection for any length of time or indefinitely on articles in the topic area, provided they reasonably believe meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry has occurred. Administrators may also apply temporary semi-protection or extended confirmed protection on talk pages and pages conducting RfCs related to the topic area provided they reasonably believe meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry has occurred.

--qedk (t 桜 c) 21:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

This is better than my wording. Do you want to start a new section with a proposal using that text? Johnuniq (talk) 03:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Done now. --qedk (t 桜 c) 12:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I see that two posts by TruthGuardians (incl. his vote) were removed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=930957084&oldid=930956693 Israell (talk) 03:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Two posts full of insults by TruthGuardians were removed, indeed, and the user was blocked for ongoing insults, harassment, lack of good faith, and accusations of...well, look here. Israell, if you wish to defend such remarks, you are skating on very thin ice. You have already been warned about your own behavior: defending the comments by TruthGuardians (what a telling name) is just as inappropriate and blockable. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

TruthGuardians (talk · contribs) (account created 9 June 2019) is the editor with 325 edits mentioned in my "23 accounts were created in 2019" comment above. It's good when a small number of fans contribute in an area of interest, but it is not reasonable when a significant number of single-purpose accounts dominate discussions. Johnuniq (talk) 04:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I totally disagree with all of this, and I am honest. TruthGuardians is of good faith, and he's the one that was repeatedly bullied during his tenure on Wikipedia (Partytemple agrees). Maybe you disapprove of his choice of words, but he never lacked good faith. Israell (talk) 04:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

(responding to ping) Some examples of off-wiki canvassing with relation to pages about Michael Jackson on Wikipedia:-

• [9] (archive.is/Q2r0R) "The Michael Jackson Wikipedia page needs to be corrected. It’s full of mistruths and distorted facts....."
• [10] (archive.is/10Q8G) "A new wiki page on Cultural Impact of Michael Jackson needs input - Join the page and be a contributor..."
• [11] (archive.is/D3xxs) "Someone has completely edited MJ's vitiligo entry to try and post as much biased information about Michael and vitiligo as possible, can fans get together and fix this?"

Off-wiki canvassing is absolutely rampant. It seems that these editors are exhausting patience of just everyone who deals with them and the post by Flyer22 Reborn confirms one of such experiences. A few months ago there was an ANI thread[12] which led the topic ban on one user and final warning for another user. None of these measures have worked out. It is not that Michael Jackson is a contentious subject but the editors who are mostly attracted to edit these articles are mostly those come with unusual backgrounds they don't have enough understanding about WP:RS, WP:DUE, WP:FANCRUFT and rest of the other guidelines that play important role in deciding the fate of the article and in fact that they are not really able to write a few meaningful sentences in the English language which makes it very hard for others to spoon-feed these editors. They believe they have valid justifications for their POV edits, one of them includes their frequent comparison of irrelevant articles with the articles of this subject. What I propose is that we must support 500/30 restriction and topic ban a bunch of problematic editors who have proven history of disruptive editing in this subject. Excelse (talk) 11:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I do not oppose semi-protection. That said, and this is my observation, MJ-related articles have only gotten better ever since a group of editors (incl. Hammelsmith I do not always agree with, one of most polite editors I've ever come across), have gotten together to improve the articles. Attempting to silence a whole group of "pro-MJ editors" is objectionable. It's just like political articles. Attempting to silence all "pro-Trump/pro-Tommy Robinson/pro-Alex Jones and so on" editors is not the way to build an encyclopedia.

As documented above w/ evidence, a plot by anti-MJ fans to "take over the LN Wiki by any means necessary" was uncovered. It is incorrect to pretend only MJ fans have their eyes on Wiki. Canvassing is forbidden, but mentioning problems w/ certain Wiki articles is not. There was indeed a problem w/ a number of articles, and they were greatly improved these past months.

And I'd like to direct your attention to this tweet by Taj Jackson, Michael Jackson's nephew: There is a lot of false info on the Michael Jackson Wiki page that is wrong and proven false. @Wikipedia what are the steps to correct this?[13]

You'll notice that he did not ask MJ fans and admirers to rush to Wiki and make it a fansite! He directly asked Wikipedia what are the steps to correct false information. There is nothing objectionable about that. The Michael Jackson Wikipedia article is one of the most viewed page in the world! It is a fact that false information was posted, and it had to be addressed. And yes, there was POV-pushing on both sides, and all I want is fairness and accuracy. Israell (talk) 13:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

See: [14]. Just hours ago, a brand-new account nominated (on their second edit) the Charles Thomson article for deletion, an eight year-old article at that! This is a clear as rock water example of POV-pushing by possible anti-MJ meatpuppets. My point is, editors should not be demonized for "liking" MJ or not; what matters is fairness, accuracy and abiding by this site's rules. Israell (talk) 07:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Regarding the Hammelsmith commentary above, one should look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1013#Hammelsmith. Israell's views on Hammelsmith there certainly contrast their commentary on Hammelsmith above. The "I do not always agree with" comment is an understatement. Regarding the Taj Jackson post mentioned above, I've been with the Michael Jackson article for years, and I don't know what "a lot of false info" Taj Jackson was referring to. Either way, that post no doubt brought a lot of editors to Wikipedia to "correct" the Michael Jackson article and other Jackson articles. It matters not if he intended for that to happen. It's widely known that Twitter accounts with many followers influence people and can cause followers to get riled up and head to whatever site to support the cause of the Twitter poster and/or their own related cause. This is why people have been accused of using their Twitter followers to influence matters on other sites, including harassment of people. It's why some Twitter influences (including celebrities) do not (on Twitter) mention the names of people they may be in dispute with, because they don't want their followers going and harassing people. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I fail to see the contrast. Hammelsmith is indeed one of the most polite editors I've come across on Wiki. I remember an exchange I had w/ them on a talk page, and they were very gentle in their response. Other editors and I had issues w/ their many edits we found to be disruptive, their disregard for warnings and possible bias, but I've always found them to be polite in their interactions with us. And yes, I do not always agree with them, but I do approve of some of their edits, so I fail to see the understatement.

Now, here's what happening. A brand-new user that went by Uranarse[15], on their second edit, nominated the Charles Thomson article for deletion. The template clearly stated: "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. Although not required, you are encouraged to explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page." So did I. The template also clearly stated: "If this template is removed, do not replace it."

That user went on to replace it, saying: "Page marked for deletion, should not be removed without discussion." I once more removed the template, saying: "Uranarse, you were not supposed to replace the template I removed. The template says: “If this template is removed, do not replace it.”"

And guess what? They removed it again, telling me: "You have not followed the guidelines of fixing the bio to make it notable. You are edit warring." I tried on their talk page to make them understand that "or" is the keyword ("You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason.), but obviously, they would not understand. They then pinged me on the Charles Thomson talk page with the same undue remark, and I had no choice but explain it all over again.

I then contacted an admin who took care of the matter and blocked them citing WP:ATTACKNAME. The admin also removed the template and confirmed to me that did I remove it myself, I would not have broken the three-revert rule 'cause a challenged prod is not supposed to be replaced. And I suspect Uranarse to be a sockpuppet of Jude1313. This is another clear example of disruption coming from the anti-MJ camp. There should be no disruption from either camps. Israell (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

RfC on establishing general sanctions on the topic of Michael Jackson, broadly construed

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

---

The community authorizes standard discretionary sanctions as general sanctions for topics related to Michael Jackson, broadly construed. In addition, administrators may apply semi-protection or extended confirmed protection for any length of time or indefinitely on articles in the topic area, provided they reasonably believe meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry has occurred. Administrators may also apply temporary semi-protection or extended confirmed protection on talk pages and pages conducting RfCs related to the topic area provided they reasonably believe meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry has occurred.

There is ample evidence above that meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry (including off-wiki canvassing) is rampant in this topic area and as things stand, it is impossible to prevent disruption by taking care of accounts one at a time, thus making more stringent measures necessary. --qedk (t 桜 c) 12:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Notify past participants
@Flyer22 Reborn, Popcornduff, Johnuniq, Serial Number 54129, SilkTork, Israell, Berean Hunter, Zusammenprall, Scope creep, Lugnuts, Moxy, Crossroads, Bishonen, JzG, The Blade of the Northern Lights, and Excelse: --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:05, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• Yes please. Popcornduff (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• I approve of semi-protection. Israell (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• I am currently going through the articles to see if they need semi-protection. I am only able to do it when I have a free moment, so its slow, but I've looked at Michael Jackson's Boys. It was legitimately redirected once (there were no sources, and it was a stub that didn't assert notability), legitimately nominated for deletion twice (notability is questionable, despite being the focus of an academic article), and was once inappropriately blanked, a blanking that was reverted within 60 seconds. There is no vandalism. I'm not seeing protection as justified for a page that has been subject to one inappropriate edit in eleven months. I have done some minor editing on it to improve unclear or incorrect statements. I am now looking at Health and appearance of Michael Jackson, and I hope to do the others that Flyer listed by the end of the day. Until we have appropriate evidence of multiple users coordinating to edit the Jackson articles inappropriately, I'm not in favour of any blanket solutions. I'll report back when I've finished looking at the articles. SilkTork (talk) 15:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

  I have semi-protected Health and appearance of Michael Jackson due to a long history of inappropriate IP edits. There were a few positive IP edits in the period I looked, but these were often simply reverting negative edits by IP editors. I saw some editorial disagreements, and reverting by some editors, mostly Flyer, but these seemed mostly within normal editorial parameters, and the reverted edits were often giving more weight to the use of the creams than is appropriate from what we can determine from reliable sources, but weren't pro-Jackson, don't appear to be coordinated, and though sub-optimal, were not sanctionable or particularly concerning. Editors seem to have the article under control. SilkTork (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

  Wade Robson already has pending changes protection. SilkTork (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks to QEDK for the ping. We ought to be proactive when it comes to articles with a high likelihood of touching BLP (Jackson of course is dead, but much of the PoV pushing and meatpuppetry concerns the living). I support this measure as proposed. ——SN54129 16:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• I support the proposal. I stated more above. With that comment, I stated, in part, that there is no doubt that meatpuppetry has been going on at the Jackson articles. I don't think we need to locate a specific off-Wikipedia thread or similar to prove that meatpuppetry is going on when it's evident that it is per my original post in this thread and Johnuniq's original post in this thread. Wikipedia often handles obvious meatpuppetry cases without locating the off-Wikipedia site pulling the meatpuppets in. And in this case, per the sources I've included (in my original post) about Jackson fans and how they coordinate, it's not like it's just one site. And Excelse pointed to off-Wikipedia canvassing anyway. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support per my comments above this section. Although the main subject is not WP:BLP, it should be still noted that MJ fans have frequently violated WP:BLPs while touting Michael Jackson. One example is List of artists influenced by Michael Jackson which has seen frequent violations of WP:BLPCAT and here, MJ fans falsely claim just any popular celebrity to have been influenced by Michael Jackson. Excelse (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• Sheesh, support. Looking at this discussion alone, as an uninvolved editor I see that it's obvious something has to be done. -- llywrch (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support per clear evidence of off-wiki canvassing, non-neutral editing, and related abusive behavior documented above. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support per the clear evidence and reasons given by me and others above (including preceding the RfC). But in a nutshell, the online POV pushing done by Jackson fanatics is so bad it has been reported on in the media, concrete off-site evidence of doing so in relation to Wikipedia has been linked above, and we've seen it occur here on Wikipedia. -Crossroads- (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support. I don't have any particular interest in Michael Jackson, apart from recognising that he was very popular as a performer and a songwriter, but I happen to have got involved in two deletion discussions about related topics, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Jackson's Dangerous Liaisons and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Jackson's Boys (2nd nomination), where people turned up and tried to derail the discussions with blatant lies, such as calling two sources one and saying that an 18-page article completely about this documentary in a peer-reviewed academic journal is not an 18-page article completely about this documentary in a peer-reviewed academic journal, as well as a single-purpose editor, who had, apart from creating a user page, had done nothing previously apart from a few edits to a copyright-violating article about Michael Jackson, removing the template saying that this was a single-purpose editor. This is clearly a topic area where people who have no interest in building an encyclopedia come here to push their point of view, so something needs to be done to prevent that, and this looks like the best way to do so. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support I am persuaded. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support When a dozen new accounts with no other edits are created solely to pile-on in a talk page, something unusual is required. The sanctions do not have to be used, and if an admin overdoes it with protection, they can be asked for a change, or overruled in a discussion here. Johnuniq (talk) 01:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support the proposal as stated. Bishonen | talk 17:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC).
• Support. I've had a look through some of these articles, and we really do need GS here. Take, for example, the hagiography that is Cultural impact of Michael Jackson, where Jackson's eccentricities are explained away with a whole paragraph written by a musicologist, and the issues with children are reduced to one sentence, which is "some of the public did not believe an innocuous relationship between Jackson and children, despite the evidence of wrongdoing being slim (and at times ludicrous) and the evidence of extortion being strong.", sourced to that same book. Black Kite (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Black Kite. You might have seen, but issues with that piece were addressed on the talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support The amount of accusations and counter accusations reminds me of WP:GS/MMA and WP:EEML so I will endorse regimes that show account holders whose purpose is not the improvement of WP the cold shoulder/door. Hasteur (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support The evidence of ongoing widespread disruption of MJ topic area articles organized off-Wikipedia is persuasive. Administrators need the tools to bring the disruption under control. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support – the promotion, NPOV violations, canvassing, and other frequent disruption caused by fans of Michael Jackson needs better counter-measures. – UnnamedUser (talk; contribs) 03:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support - considering the amount of controversy he has been in (both in life and in death), as well as other sources of disruption, it would be wise to prevent further issues with general sanctions - whatever we decide those sanctions shall entail. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 19:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
• Make that change – gonna make a difference, gonna make it right. – Levivich 22:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support Request quick action via WP:SNOWBALL. A week with no objections...make it happen ASAP. Buffs (talk) 05:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
• Note: Just pointing to this comment by an SPA in case anyone missed it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support - This whole thing is starting to make me wonder about the weight we are giving to the "living" part of BLP policy. I'm starting to think that maybe, in this current era of celebrity (and the continued reporting and marketing thereof, and in deference to people "associated" with the person in question - family, friends, business associates, etc.), that even after a person's passing, that we may need to have some policy in place in which BLP could be determined to apply to topics concerning certain individuals (as a central topic hub, as it were), even if they happen to no longer be alive. - jc37 17:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Donald Trump factoid spam

Can we swing with a heavy hammer at all the "Donald Trump is the first [person from the article] to be impeached" contributions? I mean come on Q ^{T C} 22:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

It would help if you could tell people where this is happening, by means of diffs. I believe that Trump is the third US president to be impeached, which seems to me, from across the pond, to be the important thing. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

You can check the history for Home Alone 2 or check these diffs:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trump_National_Golf_Club_Westchester&diff=prev&oldid=931678139
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Home_Alone_2:_Lost_in_New_York&diff=prev&oldid=931707063
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=931707355&oldid=927880983&title=WWE_Hall_of_Fame_(2013)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Apprentice_(American_TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=931707746
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_York_Military_Academy&diff=prev&oldid=931708369
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Pennsylvania&diff=prev&oldid=931708770
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Exostosis&diff=prev&oldid=931709022
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ivana_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=931709704
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Little_Rascals_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=931710559
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=57th_Primetime_Emmy_Awards&diff=prev&oldid=931710977
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zoolander&diff=prev&oldid=931712153
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Playboy_videos&diff=prev&oldid=931712624

Q ^{T C} 22:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

If they all have a similar format, maybe an edit filter? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

It's all one user AFAICS, so no need for that, surely. User:Murica2020 seems to have created their account purely for the purpose of adding such stuff to articles. Look at this for instance, added to the Ivana Trump article: "On December 18th, 2019 Ivana Trump became the first former Czechoslovkian [sic] model to have an ex-husband impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives." Unbelievable. Now that OverlordQ has warned them, I hope the next admin who sees another related addition from them, or other trolling, blocks indefinitely. I'm on my way to bed myself, unfortunately. Bishonen | talk 22:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC).

Oh, my bad, from the way it was written I assumed it was a whole bunch of people (it seems to have become a meme on social media). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

That account is clearly WP:NOTHERE and maybe should've been blocked already. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Looks like User:Robmillernow may be another. See: [16] as well as [17]. --Masem (t) 00:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it got posted to Reddit, so theres going to be some copycatting. Q ^{T C} 03:02, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah....mentioning something in the article on Trump (and/or his presidency) is definitely worthwhile, but going this....overkill....is not. I will note that both accounts mentioned have since been blocked (Murica2020 indefinitely as WP:NOTHERE and Robmillernow for 1 week due to disruptive editing. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

And now there's Special:Diff/931758715 and Special:Diff/931778745, from different IPs. I'll do something about a filter, instead of waiting weeks as with the Epstein didn't kill himself crap. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 05:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Logging at filter 1018 (hist · log). Will need further refinement before disallowing, but let's see how common this is. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 05:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• yep. I hate Twitter 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 15:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

And now Newsweek too Q ^{T C} 16:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

There's good reason that the current iteration of Newsweek has been questioned as an RS... --Masem (t) 16:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• See WP:EFN § Set filter 1018 to warn?. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

  Suffusion of Yellow, we've got a new IPv6.[18] – Muboshgu (talk) 02:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

  I blocked that IP for a month. I possibly should have blocked the range Special:Contributions/2600:1700:BEE1:1B40:7DF2::/64 but we can monitor that. Johnuniq (talk) 02:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Move Draft:Seth Anand Ram Jaipuria School back to mainspace for AfD

The page Draft:Seth Anand Ram Jaipuria School has existed as an article for a dozen years. I suggest that an administrator moves the draft back to mainspace at Seth Anand Ram Jaipuria School and then brings the article to articles for deletion to obtain consensus for notability or non-notability. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with moving it to article space specifically for the purpose of the AFD. If its notability is uncertain, it should be in draft space. If it is in draft space, it should be moved to article space by an editor who is willing to defend its notability. If no one is willing to defend its notability, it can be left in draft space. If that means G13 in June 2020, that means G13 in June 2020. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Please review WP:DRAFTIFY. We don't send 10-year-old articles to draft space. --Izno (talk) 15:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

You don't need help from an admin: you can do all that yourself. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

This is been put in the Articles for Creation queue to help get it ready for mainspace again (or for getting it removed via G13). Let it sit and see if the author wants to improve it. Moving it to Article space just to AFD it flies against both the spirit and intention of Draftspace. If you trully think it needs to be deleted now, make your case at WP:MFD. Hasteur (talk) 00:04, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Deleting the draft by G13 would be backdoor deletion in this case as the article has been around for 10 years - it would be against WP:DRAFTIFY Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted the move as clearly inappropriate. Send to AFD or PROD or whatnot as appropriate. --Izno (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that, Izno. I was going to do the same myself, as it is pretty clearly the move to draft space, rather than the move back, that flies against the spirit and intention of draft space. If an article needs to be deleted it should go through the proper process, rather than the use of draft space as a backdoor route to deletion that we see regularly. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Unblock request: Steverci

Steverci (talk · contribs · blocks · count · rollback · admin · logs)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Steverci/Archive

Steverci has submitted the following appeal:

Dear Wikipedians, I humbly ask that you consider my appeal for my editing sanctions. In the past I hadn't bothered to understand how to properly edit Wikipedia and just wanted to aggressively push how I wanted certain pages to look, whether by getting into edit wars or by making extra accounts. I have put off making this appeal for a long time to make sure I truly return to editing Wikipedia with a new mindset so as not to repeat the same mistakes of the past. I have extensively studied WP:CONS, WP:DR, WP:EQ, WP:RS, WP:BLP, WP:N, WP:SOCK, and other similar pages to familiarize myself with Wikipedia's guidelines and rules. My block has allowed me the time to reflect on what I did was wrong and that the administration was right to impose sanctions on my account because of my behavior. I now believe the sanctions are no longer necessary because I have a completely different outlook from what I had years ago. I now understand that Wikipedia isn't a battleground to fight with others but an encyclopedia that users work together to improve. I promise that I will not resort to sock puppeting anymore and I will work on building consensus with other users instead of edit warring. Thank you for taking the time to read this appeal, and I hope you all will consider giving me the chance to prove the genuineness of my words by editing Wikipedia productively once again. --Steverci (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

No socking seen, and no objections as a CU if someone else unblocks. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Releavant SPI Archive linked(and sad that @TonyBallioni: didn't link this directly). Hasteur (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

All relevant links are on the userpage, I mean. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• Hold Presented as is, I'm heartened to see that socking is no longer on the table, however I think in light of the topic area that this user had interest in (Armenia-Azerbaijan) and WP:ARBAA, we might want to impose a topic ban on Armenia and Azerbaijan topics widely construed to let the editor come in and see what they will do in less contentious topic areas. Hasteur (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

  Also relevant (on the user's talk page) is a declined unblock request that was declined for lack of action by administrators for over 2 weeks. Hasteur (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

  I don't get the relevance. What does that signify?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

  @Bbb23: An unblock request that lies for 2 weeks without being dealt with by any administrator (even if procedurally acknowledging it) suggests that there was no interest in statusing it. If we could get one of the admins who reviewed it and declined to take action to explain their reasoning (a stretched reading of WP:ADMINACCT) it would help us understand why. Hasteur (talk) 13:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse SO with conditions - while the unblock appeal reads distinctly like saying what it's expected we want to hear, since I've seen appeals refused for not following that path I'm not inclined to reject on those grounds. It's been more than long enough for the standard offer to apply, given no socking identified by the CUs, I'm willing to give him a go. Hasteur's suggested TBANs seem reasonable, unless Steverci has any particular reason why they shouldn't be off limits for the first 6 months? Nosebagbear (talk) 14:51, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse SO unblock (with or without conditions) per WP:ROPE. Miniapolis 23:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support unblock, with conditions. Steverci's indefinite topic ban on all topics pertaining to Armenia is still in force, as far as I can tell--see Callanecc's note here). (I assume Azerbaijan is covered under that as well?) I support keeping that in place, because duh, but also because it will be an opportunity for Steverci to prove good behavior, by abiding by it and then asking for it to be lifted, if they desire, in three months. There was a 1R for Turkey as well--I *think* Callanecc dropped that requirement later. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

  Per Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2015#Armenia-Azerbaijan_2 it looks like the topic ban was reduced to 1RR. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

  NVM, didn't see entry at the bottom of the log. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support unblock, with conditions per Nosebagbear, Drmies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
• Weak Support, with conditions per Drmies. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:47, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Legal threat by 72.71.211.16

User:72.71.211.16 made a legal threat in the edit summary of this edit: [19]. Clovermoss (talk) 19:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocked, attempted to do a WP:DOLT check but the source isn't available in my region. Help, please? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: It's a news source published by ABC and mostly focuses on how the city of Boston approved the parade request, with some focus on refusing the request to have a straight pride flag at city hall. The parade itself was approved, since "they cannot deny a permit based on an organization's values". The article does say that the parade is "controversial" but doesn't explicitly call it an anti-LGBT hate organization. Clovermoss (talk) 20:04, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jo-No Erasmus: I checked the Washington Post article. Washington Post elaborates on John Hugo, saying "Hugo and his fellow organizers want to include an "S" for "Straight"" and later on, provides a comparison to "similar calls other majority groups that view themselves as persecuted". I can check and summarize oath sources if you want me to. Clovermoss (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

We should find a source for the "hate group" somewhere, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll look into it. I'm not a major contributor to the article, just someone who was patrolling recent changes. I'll try to do my best, anyways. I'll see if I can find anything directly calling it a hate organization. Also, sorry for the previous incorrect ping - my autocorrect sucks sometimes. Clovermoss (talk) 20:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Detroit News states "Counter-demonstrators accused those organizers of promoting an atmosphere of violence toward the LGBTQ community" after the parade had taken place, and there's an image in the article with a sign stating "Make normalcy normal again". It also mentions police confrontations and arrests. The last source in that sentence is an archived version of the organization's own website. I'm not seeing the organization being explicitly being called an anti-LGBT hate group in the current sources. What should the course of action here moving forward? I'm not really experienced when it comes to handling legal threats and content relating to them. Clovermoss (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

First a key point, while we block editors for making legal threats, ultimately we can't stop them actually taking legal action. The number who have actually done so is tiny, especially compared to the number who've made threats, and even most who have tried have failed poorly, and so editors probably want to carefully evaluate whether the threat seems to have any merit. But each editor needs to decide for themselves what the threats means for them. Remembering also that in many jurisdictions, it may not be necessary to warn before taking legal action so if you are concerned about such things it does affect all of your editing here.

In terms of wikipedia itself, what editors should do is simply ignore the threat. Treat is as a complaint about content and look into whether the complaint is justified and take action based on that without regard to the legal threat. I have modified the content since if someone pointed out to me that the sources don't actually support the claim being made and when I checked I found they were right, I would have modified the content accordingly.

Maybe those sources to support what we said before do exist but especially given we directly mention a potentially non notable individual, someone needs to clearly provided them first. (If they provide them, they are free to re-add.)

Personally, I think the best solution is simply to delete the article. I'm unconvinced they are notable since most of the sources seems to be primarily about the parade and those I looked at often don't seem to really distinguish the organisation and the organisers of the parade.

Nil Einne (talk) 21:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

We block people for making legal threats because it makes it next to impossible for people to discuss things calmly with the person making that threat. People need to choose between making edits to Wikipedia and making legal threats, but either way the person making the threat might be right or wrong. In this case I can't find a reliable source saying directly that this is a hate organisation. My preference would be to delete the article on the basis that I can't find any sources other than news reports about it, but there seem to be a lot of editors on Wikipedia who regard such news sources as adequate to keep an article, although any historian or social scientist would regard them as primary sources, which we are not supposed to base articles on. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: and @Phil Bridger: Thank you for your responses, I appreciate them. Usually I'm not afraid to edit articles, but the whole legal threat thing just made me hesistant to do anything at all with the article (other than reporting and discussing it here). I'll keep all of this in mind for the future. Again, thank you. Clovermoss (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Unblock request

Can one of you maybe head over to User talk:Arcanery and look at their unblock request? It's been open for a while. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 14:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

(Non-anything observer) Considering that they have been allowed to swamp their talk page with >4,000 words—about 500 edits over two days!—I think they are the one needing the luck, especially considering their continued aspersions, IDHT and the general battleground "it's-them-not-me" approach. And what's with the multiple "Case 01" stuff? Goodbye talk page access, hello peace and quiet for the admin corp. ——SN54129 14:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

TPA revoked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:RfPP is a little backed up

File:37 pending requests!.jpg

Earlier this month. El_C 13:34, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

going back ~ 20 hours, if any would "care to lend a warm and helping hand-- Say Jack Frost and the Hooded Crow". --Jethro Tull-- Deepfriedokra 18:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

(all already gone, thanks to Ymblanter et al. ) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Ymblanter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepfriedokra (talk • contribs) 22:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Redoing ping to Ymblanter. Graham87 00:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Changes to Oversight team

At his own request, the Oversight permissions of Someguy1221 (talk · contribs) are removed. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks Someguy1221 for his long history of service to the functionary team.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katie^talk 03:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Bizarre pattern of whitewashing by Dab134124 and an IP editor

The edit history of Dab134124 (talk · contribs · count) shows a bizarre pattern; 90% of the editor's activity consisted in removing information that could potentially be perceived as negative towards Britain – both the erstwhile British Empire and the modern-day United Kingdom. I am flabbergasted with the unusually wide thematic range. Just see:

• [20] removes (Great Britain's wealth derived from West Indian sugar and slave trade, 1776 starvation), 194–195 (Alexandra Hospital), 211–223 (electricity, Anguilla in 1967, OECD blacklist). Nevis is also known by the sobriquet "Queen of the Caribees", which it earned in the 18th century when its sugar plantations created much wealth for the British.
• [21] removes sourced text There are some similarities between his and Scottish (self-)projections, which compared Indian tribes with Scottish clans and their fight with the English.
• [22] replaces, among others, the anglophone world (which includes Britain in a negative context) with "the American society"
• [23] removes sourced text So with this white discrimination of African American soldiers, these troops were often sent to Europe where they were used to fill vacancies in the French armies. Unlike the Americans, the French held high opinions of black soldiers, which made for a more positive environment when working together. Ironically this made African American troops more passionate about fighting for the French Army. This newly created patriotism by African Americans then led to the creation of the 369th Infantry Regiment.
• [24] replaces against the British Army as Rebel (Patriot) commanders with "for the American cause", I assume so as not to make it that obvious that anyone ever fought Britain
• [25] in the sourced text led to a growing resentment against British meddling, adds unsourced "perceived" before "British meddling". Sure, Britain never engaged in meddling, it was only a "perception"
• [26] removes several paragraphs that mention that the article subject, much praised in the article, was opposed to (and by) the British
• [27] removes the sourced who some British officers regarded as "shaky"
• [28] adds and decisive defeat of Spanish and French attackers, in case anyone had doubts about who lost the battle
• [29] replaces sourced British woman with unsourced "UK citizen"
• [30] subtle whitewashing at three places
• [31] removes a passage that mentioned disenchantment with Oliver Cromwell's rule over Scotland
• [32] changes sourced wording the displacement of indigenous Australians, which may imply a role of the English, to unsourced "them [the English] becoming one on the dominant ethnic groups in Australia"
• [33] simply removes Great Britain from the list of countries
• [34] removes a passage on cruelty inflicted by British troops on civilian population
• [35] removes a sourced text that mentions that the British copied an invention and that a specific military act of Britain was perceived as treason
• [36] removes a sentence in which the article subject is mentioned as fighting against the English (and others)
• [37] removes a mention that an engineer working for Sweden during Swedish-British wars was English
• [38] removes sourced text The remainder of the [English] prize crew were made prisoners by the Spanish
• [39] replaces a passage that suggests Britain's responsibility in East Timor carnages with a passage on involvement of other countries (albeit sourced)
• [40] removes the name of a Spanish commander who fought against the British
• [41] replaces the British and American governments, in the context of a false blame, with "the American government"

I have reverted all edits that I saw as spurious and left a notice on Dab134124's talk. But am am seeing that the editor continues in the same style.

There are hardly any edits by Dab134124 that would not consist in removing some negative information about Britain.

Today I also noticed that 212.116.64.26 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been doing pretty much the same type of edits over the last month.

Now, what will be the correct course of action here? — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I blocked the IP (warned sufficiently) for a month and gave the named user a final warning (not warned sufficiently), even though they are likely the same person. That it far too much unexplained removals, even regardless of anything else. Communication is required once one's edits are challenged. Please let me know if the named user continues to exhibit this disruptive behaviour, or if the IP (or any IP) resumes it. El_C 13:27, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I will keep them on my watchlist. Although it was more a matter of luck to spot the IP as the two overlapped only in one article. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:28, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

@El C: It did not work [42][43]. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Dab134124 blocked for one week. El_C 23:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Newly created accounts obvious socks

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

---

• FarregHo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Marcshi 1988 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jackie Peterson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Yoyo Mina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These newly created accounts have joined wikipedia just for ToTok (app) and to vote delete in the deletion discussion. It is very very likely that they are sockpuppets.--SharabSalam (talk) 13:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Normally we deal with socks at SPI, in this case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jackie Peterson. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:10, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, I thought that when we have a WP:DUCK case we report it here, right?.--SharabSalam (talk) 13:15, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I am pretty certain that SPI is still the place, per Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Handling suspected sock puppets, even in duck cases. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

SPI is the right place, because it keeps all the data about socks in a central location, in a uniform (parsable) format, with structured archives. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:28, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Cherkash creates controversial maps showing Crimea as a part of Russian Federation without proper notation related to territorial disputes

The user Cherkash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) creates multiple maps on Formula_One topics deliberately depicting Crimea as a part of Russian Federation (example1, example2) without proper warning or a reference to territorial disputes. The ongoing discussion about the borders of the countries has not been resolved (the recent attempts from the User:SSSB looks inconclusive). The maps show neither "de facto" status of the territories (which would need to mark Northern_Cyprus, Nagorno-Karabakh and some other regions in alternate colours), nor "de jure" (United Nations recognised Crimea as Ukrainian, no notes about Taiwan not depicted as a part of China), nor according to List_of_FIA_member_organisations (which is consistent with United Nation but comprises Taiwan and Hong Kong as separate members).

I hereby made a conclusion that User:Cherkash deliberately creates such maps only to conduct the idea of "Russian Crimea", which may be explained by his/her Russian origin (many captions are in Russian). The maps are used on multiple pages in different languages (the example), hence the harm is substantional.

I request for the removal of these maps from the mentioned pages (or at least protect the discussion from being resolved), and oblige User:Cherkash to change the map according to one of the options: "de facto status" (change colours of Northern_Cyprus, Nagorno-Karabakh and other Russian-occupied regions, with the essential disclaimer that the status of these territories is questioned), "de jure status" (Crimea as a part of Ukraine, Taiwan as a part of China/not a part with the corresponding explanation added) or according to FIA (which still recognises Crimea as Ukrainian).
Unas964 (talk) 16:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

The files have been created on Wikimedia Commons, not on the English Wikipedia. Moreover, any user can create any maps there, and many maps in fact have several versions, corresponding to different territorial claims. The real question is that our articles here must be neutral, and, indeed, we usually use maps where Crimea is clearly marked as disputed territory. Have you tried to discuss this with the user?--Ymblanter (talk) 18:11, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Btw you have to notify the user of this discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:12, 25 December 2019 (UTC) Apparently, done now--Ymblanter (talk) 20:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I have been a part of this from the very beginning and I was mentioned in Unas964's report so let me give you my take on the situation.

Back in mid November Unas964 started a thread at Talk:2020 Formula One World Championship#Map essentially saying exactly what he has said above and we have had a long debate on de facto vs. De jure borders with no clear consensus. This discussion reached a natural end with no new comments from 4 December to today (25 December) and so I made a request for closure at WP:AN/RFC and placed a notice at Talk:2020 Formula One World Championship#Map explaining this (since then Unas964 has complained there that it shouldn't be closed, not sure what that means for the closing process.)

Now to get to the very core of what Unas964's complaint is about in relation to Cherkash. My reading of the situation is that Cherkash's intention is for the map to show de facto borders (Wikipedia is of course independent to both the FIA and the UN). The maps incidentally show the 2 most well known de facto regions (Taiwan and Crimea) correctly. It appears to me that someone need only inform Cherkash that he has missed a lesser known disputed border and he would fix it.

I therefore think that the only problem here is Unas964's continued inability to assume good faith by suggesting my opinion is based exclusively on political motives (see Talk:2020 Formula One World Championship#Map) by saying that I am pro Russia and I'm trying to politicise the article to reflect my alleged political bias towards Russia and by suggesting Cherkash is likewise biased towards Russia (see the paragraph above that begins with I hereby made...).

The rest of Unas964's complaint isnt actually a complain but is rather him expressing his opinion on why the map should show de jure borders and should therefore be ignored in relation to this thread.

By the way: what do you mean by protect the discussion from being resolved - that contradicts the point of having a discussion.
SSSB (talk) 19:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

@Unas964: Why don't you add a better map, then? Concern with Wikimedia content should be voiced there IMHO. If a WM image (map etc.) is unsuitable for Wikipedia inclusion, you simply don't include. You may also try to find a better image instead. I see no problem if you'd clone the maps, correct the borders in accordance with WP policies, and add these new images to articles. — kashmīrī ^TALK 02:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: I did create one alternative map (could be seen here), but it was reverted by User:SSSB since the outcome of the discussion was still open. Foreseeing the same result if trying to upload another files here or on different pages, I decided to get into the discussion. Besides, there are no options to change/revert the existent maps on Wikimedia Commons (the example is restricted at least for me) either. Anyway, the key problem remains: the maps does not represent any consistent formula (de jure/de facto etc) and no captions are added in regard to the status of temporarily occupied (as Crimea) or disputed territories.--Unas964 (talk) 14:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@Unas964:, the discussion is taking place to determine which consistent approach to take and then any regions which have been incorrectly coloured can be mentioned and we can set about trying to fix those mistakes. You are more than welcome to add the caption this map shows de facto status if you wish.
SSSB (talk) 14:31, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Right, I didn't see the discussion there, my bad. Sure, here is the right venue. Maps, like everything else, have to comply with WP:N. Since the majority of the world (including the UN) has not recognised Crimea's annection as legitimate, Wikipedia must follow that generally accepted view. @SSSB: No, if maps were to follow de facto status, then they will show Afghanistan and Yemen split into two entities each; show Palestine within Israel; or show the Guantanamo Bay as part of the US. But we don't do it for a reason. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I took a look and see this is only a tip of an iceberg spanning both Wikipedia and the Commons. For a couple of years, User:Cherkash has been quietly replacing the key maps used across the entire Wikipedia/Wikimedia system with his versions that show Abkhasia and South Ossetia as independent entities and Crimea as part of Russian Federation. For blank maps, the changes frequently were only in the code, so that later editors, when creating customised maps, will unknowingly colour-code Crimea as part of Russia. When the globally used map File:World.svg could not be safely edited due to the possibly high number of watchers, User:Cherkash created a new file File:BlankMap-World.svg with his version of countries, started replacing the links all over, and made sure to tag World.svg as superseded by their own map[44]) to which they created lengthy documentation.

They also went on to create a number of maps with their political version that they inserted in widely-read articles, especially ones about Formula 1 racing; see File:Formula_1_all_over_the_world-2019.svg under "Other versions".

This is a pattern of editing that is also typical of low-level propaganda wars. Because Wikipedia MUST adhere to the principle of neutrality, I think we need to make sure that User:Cherkash cannot continue in this way.

I have now uploaded a cleaned-up version of File:BlankMap-World.svg but to go through all their contributions to restore WP:N will take considerable time and effort, one which I cannot commit to. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• Surely we should, as has already been suggested on the talk page, have a map that doesn't show any borders but simply the locations of the various grands prix? That way we avoid bringing irrelevant political issues into articles that are not about those issues, but we would still illustrate the geographical distribution of grands prix. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

  Yep. But I also had in mind long-term damage to the project. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

  @Kashmiri: have you remembered to mark Taiwan as Chinese territory? (Taiwan is only de facto independent and in my experience that often gets overlooked) and what un-neutral about de facto borders? Surly if the map is consistently de facto then it is neutral? (And I know some regions have ben missed)
  SSSB (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

  I would be very wary of using de facto maps in any article that is not about the territorial dispute itself. OK, Taiwan has remained de facto stable for several decades and Crimea for several years, but where there is a current conflict the territory controlled de facto by the warring parties can change from day to day. I would still say that we should avoid showing boundaries unless they are relevant to the particular article. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

  @SSSB: Don't worry, User:Cherkash has already conveniently marked Taiwan as Chinese territory. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

  Also, as I wrote, more than half of Afghanistan is de facto controlled by the Taliban, so why not including it? Also large parts of the Middle East were de facto controlled by the "Islamic State" in the last couple of years. Have you remembered to mark this appropriately? — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Lyulya kebab

Could someone familiar with DS take a look and see if WP:ARBAA2 applies? COuld determine if the notices should be placed on the talk page? There is nationalist edit warring afoot, and I SP'd per request at WP:RFPP. -- Deepfriedokra 00:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Twinkle, policy citations, controversial topic on first 2 edits, I'll AGF but I'll be shocked if this editor is truly new. Slywriter (talk) 02:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what's going on here, but ChefDarrbinyan and ChefDarbinyan are  Confirmed to ChefAzamuyan. Littlecat456, who created a user page for ChefDarbinyan, has a history of both logged-in and logged-out vandalism. They're all indefinitely blocked now. It's just a gut feeling, but I suspect there may be more Chef-themed sleepers hidden somewhere. That's all I've got for now, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

So DS shouldn't be needed. Just run-of-the-mill socking-- Deepfriedokra 10:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The Vietnamese Revolution: Fundamental Problems and Essential Tasks

Hello, I am attempting to create an article for the book: The Vietnamese Revolution: Fundamental Problems, Essential Tasks, by Vietnamese President, Le Duan. Whenever I attempt to start the article I get this message: "The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism. If you receive this message when trying to edit, create or move an existing page, follow these instructions:

       Any administrator can create or move this page for you. Please post a request at the Administrators' noticeboard.
       You may also contact any administrator on their talk page or by email.
       Be sure to specify the exact title (especially by linking it) of the page you are trying to create or edit, and if it might be misunderstood (for example, an article with an unusual name), consider explaining briefly what you want to do.
       If you wrote any text, save it temporarily on your computer until you can edit the page.

Thank you." I made a request before to give me permission to create this article, but editing is still blocked so I am not sure what to do. Thanks! Jp16103 14:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Lol Jp16103, the filter thinks that you're accusing someone of having ...mental Problems  :) ——SN54129 15:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that the Scunthorpe problem is still alive and kicking. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit the redirect The Vietnamese Revolution: Fundamental Problems, Essential Tasks that Zzuuzz created for you the last time you asked. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 15:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

If the edit filter is preventing people from creating pages with the phrase "fundamental problem" in it, that should probably be adjusted, no? – Levivich 17:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I'm sure we have people adept enough at writing edit filters to fix this. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Motion regarding Palestine-Israel articles 4

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 1 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case is amended by inserting, at the end of the list titled "ARBPIA", the following list item:

• General 1RR restriction

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:19, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion regarding Palestine-Israel articles 4