Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Open tasks

XFD backlog

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

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

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

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

Appeal to rescind Topic Ban

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

---

Background

• August 2018 – First TBAN imposed at ANI: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive989#Davidbena
• February 2019 – Successful appeal of first TBAN: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive306#Request to lift my topic ban issued against me in August 2018
• April 2019 – Second TBAN imposed: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive308#Hounding and Deliberate Disruptive Editing
• November 2019 – Appeal of second TBAN: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive315#Request to lift topic ban – closed as unsuccessful
• May 2020 – Second appeal of second TBAN: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive320#Kindly requesting admins to rescind my ARBPIA topic ban – archived without formal close
• June 2020 – Appeal of second TBAN at AE: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive267#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Davidbena – declined as out of jurisdiction, and DB advised to reopen a request at WP:AN.

Davidbena's original post follows. – Joe (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Joe, hope it's OK, I added a minor tweak in green to prevent people from getting the wrong idea that this request is forumshopping. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

---

I, the appealing user, Davidbena (talk · contribs · WHOIS), am humbly submitting this petition to rescind a Topic ban imposed against me by Ymblanter in the ARBPIA area; imposed here (no. 55), during my last appeal in November of 2019, and which I had mistakenly tried to appeal on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement noticeboard earlier this year. My wrongly placed topic ban appeal was declined on 13 June 2020 as shown here and where I was asked to submit a new appeal at AN, at a later time. I have duly informed all administrators involved in imposing this ban (Euryalus, Bishonen, Oshwah, Ymblanter), hoping for a fair and equitous resolution of the same.

The reason for this appeal is, first and foremost, because the current Topic ban in the ARBPIA area has been active against me for the duration of a little over one year. I am humbly asking for the opportunity to renew editing in the ARBPIA area, seeing that many of the articles classified under the ARBPIA template are, in fact, historical places (e.g. Kafr 'Inan, Bayt Nattif, Solomon's Pools, Old City (Jerusalem), etc.). Often, the involvement of these places in the 1948 or 1967 Arab-Israeli conflicts are only incidental to their broader historical context and scope, for which I am mostly interested in writing about. If I should ever touch on the Arab-Israeli wars from a historical perspective, I will do my utmost best to maintain an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among fellow contributors. I will also keep foremost in my mind that we, as editors, are to present a fact-based and fact-checked narrative of events, based on reliable sources, and detached from all personal bias and/or taking any side in this area of conflict. I assure my fellow co-editors here that I will not use my role as editor to advocate any advocacy on behalf of any one side in this conflict, but try to be as open-minded as I can to both arguments of the conflict in question (having a healthy respect and goodwill for all peoples who live in and share the same land), stating the facts as neutrally as I possibly can, whenever I am called upon to do so.

I will do my utmost best to maintain an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors, and try to present both sides of the argument (if need be), that is to say, neutrality, rather than pursue an advocacy for any one side, just as requested by WP policy.

Recently, I was asked to fix problems in the reference formatting of an article nominated for DYK that is classified as ARBPIA, as shown here, but because of its ARBPIA classification, I could not do anything to that article.

DISCLAIMER: a) In those articles where there is an ARBPIA template, I have altogether refrained from editing; b) in those articles where there is not an ARBPIA template, my edits in them have not been about anything relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Only once on a Talk-Page did I vaguely mention it in passing, but when reminded that this topic is "off-limits" to me even in unmarked pages, I quickly desisted.Davidbena (talk) 01:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Reading the discussion that imposed your Topic ban, I see it is your second indefinite WP:ARBPIA topic ban (which you neglected to mention in this appeal), and that after the first one was lifted you returned to the same problematic editing. That's all I need to know. Fool us once, shame on us. Fool us a second time, stay topic banned permanently. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  I'll just add that, briefly looking through some of the previous disputes, I come across this comment from Davidbena in April 2019: "Actually, Josephus disproves the theory of modern revisionists of history (who dare dispute the historicity of King Solomon)...". Anyone with that approach to history and to WP:RS shouldn't be allowed within a mile of this subject matter (broadly construed). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  For the record, first indefinite topic ban here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Boing! said Zebedee:, I didn't forget the first topic ban on purpose, but thought that it was more important to write about the second, the active topic ban only.Davidbena (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Considering your second ban was imposed just two months after the first one was lifted, and you were advised at AE to include the full timescale of your bans at any AN appeal, I'd say that was exceptionally poor judgment. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Reading through all this again today, I'm struck by Nableezy's comments below, which I find gracious and constructive. Nableezy is far closer to this subject area and its disputes, and my own judgment is far less well informed, so I'm withdrawing my opposition to the appeal. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• Erk Does Talk:Paleo-Hebrew alphabet fall within said topic ban? (tiptoes away quietly and finally goes back to bed.) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Deepfriedokra, also: Wadi al-Far'a (river) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a river in the West Bank; Madaba Map (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a map of the Holy Land showing the "border between Israel and Palestine" and used by both sides in claims of destiny. Guy (help!) 08:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  The articles you mention are not under the general ARBPIA ban, since the ban only applies to articles where the ARBPIA template has been appended on the Talk-Page.Davidbena (talk) 13:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Davidbena: Err, is it? Your original topic ban was from "all WP:ARBPIA topics, broadly construed". Was there some later discussion clarified it only applied to articles with a template? – Joe (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Joe Roe, What do those articles have to do with the IP conflict? Is the Hebrew alphabet now part of the conflict? Is a mosaic from the 6th Century now part of the conflict? No, it's not. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Sir Joseph: Paleo-Hebrew alphabet: just look at its talk page. There are disputes on whether the script or exists independently or is an Israeli nationalist re-branding of the Phoenician alphabet going back over a decade. Davidbena participated extensively in a contentious merge discussion about it a couple of weeks ago. The Madaba Map, as Guy has already mentioned, is an important piece of historical geography used in contemporary territorial claims: Although the original Madaba Map was part of a Christian edifice situated outside Palestine, it was highly regarded by Zionist archaeologists not only for its universal significance but as a remnant of the Jewish national past in Palestine. The Zionist rhetoric used it to verify the important role of the city of Jerusalem in the Jewish narrative of place. The idea of creating modern maps of Jerusalem, in the spirit of the Madaba Map is best exemplified by Naomi Henrik's mosaic decoration (Figure 7), originally installed in 1957 outside the entrance to the Jerusalem Municipality building and later transferred and reinstalled at the Mount Herzl complex in Jerusalem. [1] Anyone working on the history of the Southern Levant would agree that there is practically nothing about it that isn't politicised. – Joe (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Joe, look again at the Talk:Paleo-Hebrew alphabet. In the section where I was involved in the discussion about this antiquated script, there was no mention whatsoever about "Israeli nationalist re-branding of the Phoenician alphabet going back over a decade." And, besides, I was unaware of its mention. So, does this mean that if the article New York has a discussion on its Talk-Page about Palestinian nationalists or Israeli nationalists in one of its sections that I am not free to talk about the city of New york in a different section? I do not think that this falls under the definition of "broadly construed."Davidbena (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Joe Roe, None of those examples have anything to do with the conflict. You're basically stretching it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  You're basically stretching it, i.e., broadly construing it. FWIW, I think Davidbena has attempted to abide by the expectations of the TBAN as he understands them, but it would've been wiser, as BMK points out below, to avoid the area altogether and focus his edits in a completely different area. Grandpallama (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Grandpallama, I'm not commenting on the appeal, but the page is not even "broadly construed" to be part of the conflict, merely because some people mention "nationalism" on the talk page. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Deepfriedokra, I think what you are doing is muddying the water. To say that Paleo-Hebrew falls under ARBPIA conflict is ludicrous and knowing that most people will not check the page for content. Really shameful that you'd mention it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. A second indefinite ban indicates a serious problem, and the appeal doesn't address that other than to repeat the platitudes that turned out to be false promises last time. Guy (help!) 08:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Guy, I understand your worries, but I wish to remind you that both topic bans against me were the result of my having filed complaints against two other editors, for which I am terribly sorry and I am resolved never again to cast aspersions against them. I am simply asking for an opportunity to prove myself, and, if all else fails, this body can ban me without any right to an appeal.Davidbena (talk) 12:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. First, to clarify for others, although Davidbena's topic ban cites ARBPIA and he implies it was placed by Ymblanter, it's a community ban, nothing to do with arbitration, discretionary sanctions or arbitration enforcement as far as I can tell. As to the appeal, the idea that historic (pre-1948) topics are only "incidentally" related to the Israel–Palestine conflict is deeply flawed. Everything about the ownership, naming and interpretation of historic sites in Israel–Palestine, from the 20th century right back into prehistory, is highly politicised and contested. Both sides in the contemporary conflict lean heavily on contested historical claims. It's hard to believe that anyone familiar with this area could be genuinely ignorant of this. It's especially hard to be believe Davidbena is, because the previous discussions of his topic ban have mainly concerned his edits to historic topics, and he has recently been involved in PIA-related content disputes in articles like Paleo-Hebrew alphabet and Hebraization of Palestinian place names. In fact, I think some sort of boomerang is in order given that this and other edits above seem to be clear breaches of his topic ban. At the very least, we should clarify/reiterate that he his banned from the Palestine-Israel topic broadly construed, not just articles that happen to have this-or-that template. – Joe (talk) 13:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Right, the re-imposed topic ban from May 2019 said "Davidbena is again indefinitely topic banned from all WP:ARBPIA topics, broadly construed", not "all WP:ARBPIA topics with the template on the talk page."-- P-K3 (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Well, that was a misunderstanding on my part. Even so, where the ARBPIA template does not appear, I have still refrained from discussing ARBPIA topics. Only once did I err in this regard, and quickly ceased from doing it again. All other edits were of a general non-political nature, such as archaeological/historical/geographical issues, without raising the issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In fact, if my edits were wrong, I would have expected someone to tell me that I cannot edit pages such as the Onomasticon (Eusebius), although the work has absolutely nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and even though it speaks about towns and villages in the Holy Land.Davidbena (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Joe, I wish to remind you and others here that in the article Hebraization of Palestinian place names it was agreed upon by the contributing editors NOT to add the ARBPIA template, which enabled me to edit that page, where the issues were purely geographical. Only once did I err there, and was quickly reprimanded, and I stopped. When the editors decided that the article belonged to the ARBPIA category it was then that I stopped editing that article altogether.Davidbena (talk) 14:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  I can see how the template issue could be an honest misunderstanding (but to reiterate, your TBAN is from the topic and broadly construed, it has nothing to do with the ARBPIA discretionary sanctions). But are you seriously claiming that the archaeology, history and geography of Israel–Palestine is "non-political"? Hebraization of Palestinian place names, for example, is about the replacement of Arabic placenames with Hebrew ones, particularly after the 1948 and 1967 wars. An editor like you, who is knowledgeable about this subject, should not need a template to tell you that is directly related to the Israel–Palestine conflict. – Joe (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, they are "non-political" when most of the discussions there were strictly about the British governance over the country, before the rise of the State of Israel, and where the article speaks about the naming of sites after the rise of the State, my edits referred only to the ancient history of these sites, preserved in Arabic writing, and which have nothing to do with the conflict between Jews and Arabs. In fact, I stressed the importance of preserving the Old Arabic names since they are a reflection of the Old Hebrew names. What's more, my edits had absolutely nothing to do with the political conflict, but only geography and placenames (except for once when I briefly mentioned the conflict, but quickly deleted it). Again, I would NEVER have edited this page had the ARBPIA template not been removed.Davidbena (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Joe Roe, please clarify how Paleo-Hebrew is covered under ARBPIA. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  I've answered you above. – Joe (talk) 15:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Sir Joseph, indeed, Joe Roe has answered that query above, but also more substantively in their oppose comment — in an especially eloquent and poignant way, I would add. El_C 16:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  El C, as I said above, I'm not commenting on the appeal, but it's ludicrous to say that Paleo-Hebrew is part of the IP conflict, even broadly construed. I once mentioned that I can get any page on Wikipedia to be "broadly construed" and we really shouldn't be doing that. Just because one person mentions "nationalism" on the talk page (which may or may not have anything to do with the conflict) we should not be bringing more pages into the conflict area.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Sir Joseph, the fact is that the Committee has chosen to widen the scope of ARBPIA, as can be seen in ARBPIA4's Definition of the "area of conflict" onto "primary articles" and "related content." El_C 16:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  El C, none of those applies to Paleo-Hebrew. I agree with Boing below. IF we are going to sanction someone or not accept an appeal for a TBAN, it should be for a valid TBAN violation, not for some 1 mile stretch of a TBAN topic violation. Can I edit the USA article if I'm TBANNED from the IP conflict since the USA is related to Israel and Israel is associated with the conflict? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Sir Joseph, I don't disagree that for "related content," the nature of the edits in question must be weighed in relation to ARBPIA, directly. El_C 16:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I have opposed previous appeals. For this one, I just want to point out that I'm disappointed that Davidbena was selective in following the advice he was given for this appeal. While he did notify relevant admins, he did not disclose the full sequence of bans and appeals, as suggested. This whitewashes the history here, for anyone who sees this appeal and is unaware. Grandpallama (talk) 13:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Good point. I've added the background to the top of this thread. – Joe (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Oh dear, that shows the second ban was only two months after the first ban was lifted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, the Topic ban came only "two months" after my first Topic ban, but I think it can be fairly appreciated by my fellow co-editors here that a previously banned editor (such as myself) has no way of knowing that if he files a complaint against another editor (say, an editor whom he thought may have acted injudiciously) that the complaint would backfire and he would find himself banned once more. I'm sorry, but this is what happened to me, and I admit that I was haste in my judgment, and that I have since made amends with that same editor; in short, I will not do this again.Davidbena (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  I'd say that both filing that complaint in the first place, and then not expecting any possible backfire, is another example of very poor judgment. I don't doubt that you are well meaning, but I just think you don't have the ability to see other viewpoints or to understand why your approach has been so problematic. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Clear lack of understanding as to WHY the ban was placed in the first place. And no, filing a complaint is NOT a reason for a topic ban. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Again, I'm sorry, but if I made amends with the editor against whom I filed a complaint is this not a sign of remorse and understanding where I had been wrong? If this isn't, what is?Davidbena (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per the selective sanction history portrayed by Davidbena and the topic ban violations found by Deepfriedokra and JzG --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Guerillero, can you clarify the violations? Are you saying that paleo-Hebrew is under ARBPIA violation? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - It's quite clear from past actions and the comments here that Davidbena really has no intrinsic sense of how he should be editing while under a broadly -construed topic ban. It has always been my opinion that people under such a ban should edit far, far, away from the subject area in question, but that has not been the case here, nor do I see it ever being the case. In fact, what I foresee is an eventual site ban for frittering around the edges of the ban and sticking his toes into the water once too often, Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Beyond My Ken, shalom. If I were to follow your guidelines (which I think are misguided), I would not be able to edit any article (even of geographical/historical/archaeological natures) that has to do with any place in Israel, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, but this is NOT what is meant by being "broadly construed." And besides, I have not discussed Israeli-Palestinian issues since my Topic ban, except for once, and I was quickly reprimanded and I stopped.Davidbena (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  I'm afraid that is exactly what is meant by broadly construed. See WP:TBAN and WP:BROADLY. It would be one thing if the Israel–Palestine conflict had nothing to do with history or historical geography, but it does. – Joe (talk) 15:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  My understanding of "broadly construed" means simply not to bring-up in conversation any mention of the Arab-Israeli conflict, whether in articles that have the ARBPIA template or in articles that do not have the ARBPIA template. However, to speak about Israeli food in a Tel-Aviv article is permitted. As for Arab-Israeli political issues, I have refrained from them altogether.Davidbena (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  While I am skeptical of Davidbena's ability to edit neutrally in this area if his TBAN were lifted, and I think he misrepresents his history of edit conflicts in this area, I do suspect his editing around the edges of this area is more a product of his beliefs about what the TBAN entails rather than a deliberate attempt to push the envelope. That said, if a consensus exists that some of these topics lie within the boundaries of "broadly construed", it's probably to his benefit that this expectation is clarified. Grandpallama (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Joe Roe, that is incorrect. If someone is TBANNED from the IP conflict, they aren't TBANNED from Israel or Palestine articles. Editing an article that has nothing to do with the conflict is not prohibited and we should not be locking down articles where there is no conflict just for the sake of locking it down. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. The scope of the current topic ban has come up above, and I'll comment here to avoid fragmenting any other conversations. It's not a DS ban, but as "ARBPIA" was specifically mentioned, I don't think it's unreasonable of Davidbena to have interpreted it as covering only the I/P conflict itself (even with "broadly construed" - that's such an nebulous concept that what might seem like obvious coverage to some will seem different to others). Yes, it could have been interpreted more broadly, but I don't see Davidbena's interpretation as obviously implausible, and I do see it as being in good faith. If the community wants to tighten the definition of the topic ban scope then that of course can be covered here. But I think any sanction for allegedly breaking the ban through a good faith interpretation of its scope would be wrong, and I would strongly oppose any such move. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Agreed, and very well put. Grandpallama (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• I never understand exactly how broadly is "broadly construed". If I am topic banned from AP2, can I edit United States of America? Christianity? American English? United States Constitution? AR-15? Mass shooting? North America? If I am topic banned from PIA, can I edit Hebrew or Arabic? Islam or Judaism? Military occupation or terrorism? Middle East? If I am topic banned from The Troubles can I edit Great Britain or Ireland? Catholicism or Protestantism? What if I just edit the portions of those articles that don't relate to the conflict? I'm glad I'm not topic banned from anything because I'd have no idea. Without clear lines, sanctioning editors for editing at the edges of a topic ban strikes me as an unfair "gotcha". Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Is Wikipedia's search function broken for you? I mean the this description of what constitutes topic bans is pretty comprehensive. To help you, I've reproduced it below:
    • The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid editors from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia. Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic, as encapsulated in the phrase "broadly construed". For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", this editor is forbidden from editing not only the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather, such as:
      • weather-related articles and lists, such as Wind and List of weather records, and their talk pages;
      • weather-related categories such as all of the categories that are associated with Category:Weather;
      • weather-related project pages, such as WikiProject Meteorology;
      • weather-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with weather: the section entitled "Climate" in the article California, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not;
      • discussions or suggestions about weather-related topics anywhere on Wikipedia, for instance a deletion discussion concerning an article about a meteorologist, but also including edit summaries and the user's own user and talk pages (including sandboxes).
  • Does that answer your questions -- or were your questions just a rhetorical device not actually dependent on answers? --Calton | Talk 07:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
    • That doesn't answer any of my questions. Most of what you've copied and pasted isn't even relevant to my questions (nobody is asking about categories or project pages, etc.). But feel free to provide answers to my questions if you'd like. I think you'll find answering those questions isn't as easy as copy and pasting from the help file. Same with the issue about Paleo-Hebrew raised in this thread. You'll notice several editors disagree on that one, a sure sign of a tricky issue. (Also I'd suggest removing or collapsing all that irrelevant text you copied and pasted, for the sake of our colleagues.) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

      So, basically, the skills of applying general principles to specific examples and understanding general principles through the use of examples, these are difficult for you? There's not much point in trying to help someone who is determined not to understand something, so pardon me if I don't waste both my time and yours in your sealioning. --Calton | Talk 00:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

      Ad hominem attacks are admissions of defeat. ^Lev!v^ich 02:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• I don't and have never doubted David's good faith here, and I take him at his word on his understanding of the topic ban and what it applied to and I think the arguments above on whether or not such and such page is covered by it should be reframed so it is less about his mistakes in understanding about the ban previously and more about helping him adhere to it in the future. I also dont think it is reasonable to say somebody who is subject to a topic ban about the ARBPIA topic should refrain from editing subjects even remotely related. David is one of our better resources for the Jewish history in Israel/Palestine, he researches thoroughly and when not discussing modern politics is in my honest opinion an affable and pleasant person who is enjoyable to work with. I think perhaps there needs to be a bit more clarity of the extent of the ban, but I do not see what he has been doing as "frittering around the edges". I dont really think Paleo-Hebrew alphabet, as the example contested above, is covered by his ban (though Sir Joseph I also do not think you are helping David even a little bit here). Broadly construed still has limits and I think that example goes quite a bit past those limits. My view on his ban remains unchanged. If David commits to a. not promoting fringe viewpoints regarding the modern politics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and b. commits to not questioning the motives of those who have opposing viewpoints to him, then I still have no problem with him editing in the topic area. If his ban is not rescinded I would strongly suggest that it be narrowed. David is an asset for a lot of these articles, he brings sources and research that nobody else does. We should let him. Anything that is not directly related to the modern state of Israel and its conflict with the Palestinians should be excluded from his ban. Ancient villages, ancient alphabets, ancient anything should be excluded from his ban. nableezy - 16:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support remove TBAN. This whole ill-conceived mess is a setup for failure. It is too subjective, too vague, too arbitrary, and too confusing. Davidbena has been editing constructively and with forebearance about subjects that may or not have been covered by his topic ban. No one can say for sure whether they are or not.. As Levivich puts it, "without clear lines, sanctioning editors for editing at the edges of a topic ban strikes me as an unfair "gotcha". --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support a narrower ban per Nableezy: something like (a) retaining topic ban on modern-day Palestinian-Israeli conflict, (b) a strict sanction on questioning the motives of other editors or promoting fringe theories in any area, and (c) otherwise permitting editing of Middle Eastern regional topics including ancient Jewish history, geography, etc unrelated to the modern state. (Nableezy, let me know if I've misinterpreted your view). Not normally a supporter of a "last chance" after a previous "last chance" but some of the comments here encouraged a look at Davidbena's wider editing history, and they seem a competent and well-researched editor outside the immediate topic area of modern Israel-Palestine. On that basis the encyclopedia seems better off for their ancient history/geography/cultural contributions, and we should aim to let them carry on in those spaces. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support lifting or narrowing the topic ban, per Nableezy, DFO and Euryalus, and per lack of evidence of continued disruption. To me, whether David properly formatted this appeal by linking to the prior ones, and David's understanding of what "broadly construed" means, are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether David has been editing without being disruptive and the answer seems to be yes. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support lifting the topic ban. The editor has shown remorse, and sincerely plans to edit in accordance with the expectations of the community, including the higher expectations in the sensitive area of the WP:ARBPIA area. I find the fact that Nableezy, who could be considered to be on the opposite site of that conflict from the editor who filed this request, has agreed to lifting the topic ban, and has in fact described this editor in a very positive light, a telling sign that Wikipedia only stands to gain from lifting this editor's topic ban. I would like to add that the rather unforgiving approach of some here, is tantamount to a declaration that no topic ban can ever be rescinded, and editors can't ever improve their old ways. I refuse to acquiesce to such a position, and think that any closure of this request should contain a general statement rejecting that position. Likewise I think there is little to be gained from the formalist approach of some here, with undue stress on whether the filing included all relevant details. In this regards I'd like to stress that the filing editor explained that he thought it would be enough to mention the current, active topic ban only, and I find that a convincing explanation. In short, Davidbena is one of our better editors, who after over a year of his topic ban has understood well how he is to behave in the WP:ARBPIA area, and I think it would be more than reasonable to give him the chance to contribute positively to this project in that area as well by rescinding his topic ban at this time. Debresser (talk) 06:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support narrowing of the Tban per Nableezy and Euryalus, along the lines proposed above. I'm moved by the fact that in this appeal and earlier ones, users who had interacted with him most said that he was capable of working well with others and brought unique skills to the project, but was let down by occasional lapses in judgement and conduct. Let's give him a chance to use those skills to the benefit of the project in a wider range of areas, and perhaps after six months of issue-free editing he could request that the ban be lifted altogether? GirthSummit _(blether) 14:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• Narrow topic ban for now. Per Euryalus. starship.paint (talk) 14:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Narrow, but do not lift based upon what I've seen here. I remain unconvinced that the statements here, which are not radically different from ones made in the past, represent a genuine shift in approach to editing. On the other hand, Nableezy makes a compelling case for why we should not let sanctions to prevent disruption in one area result in blocking valuable contributions by an editor in another area. Grandpallama (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support, constructive and hard working editor who has realized the error in his past transgressions.--Hippeus (talk) 11:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support lifting of the topic ban. This user has put in his time and clearly improved, so it's time to give him another chance. He has never needed to be sanctioned since the topic ban was imposed. Tikisim (talk) 05:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for narrower ban

SUGGESTED COMPROMISE: If it will make the decision process any easier for administrators and/or contributing editors here, I will agree to remain under my ARBPIA topic ban for another year or two (when I will then be free to submit another appeal), but meanwhile, if agreed upon here by the editors, I will be specifically prohibited from adding content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict on all Wikipedia pages - with or without the ARBPIA tag, but I will be ALLOWED to contribute only on geographical issues, or on pre-1948 historical issues, and on archaeological issues in all ARBPIA articles, including the uploading of images to these Wikipedia sites, as may seem fitting to me. Many of my contributions, prior to my ban, have already been to upload images to these pages. In this way, I will continue to behave with restrictions in what concerns the Israeli-Palestinian area of conflict, but contribute in ways that are mutually beneficial to all.Davidbena (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Can somebody close this? Last time David appealed it just sat here until being archived. nableezy - 01:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nableezy: I'll keep my eye on this and make sure it gets closed properly - feel free to ping me any time it looks like nothing's happening (well, you know what I mean). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support lifting ban. David is a knowledgeable editor and has reflected on his actions and is unlikely to repeat them. 11Fox11 (talk) 05:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Per Nableezy above, it'd be a shame if this just got archived without outcome because everyone got tired of commenting. Adding a subject header above, and FWIW support Davidbena's suggested compromise as something worth trying. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Reposting really just to prevent this archiving from lack of engagement. Can an uninvolved administrator please give this a review and determine if consensus exists for any or no action? -- Euryalus (talk) 02:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, I can support this. It seems like a good compromise to see how things go. And I think it essentially sums up the emerging consensus above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support lifting ban --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  Or support compromise. whichever gains most support. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support lifting ban. I think enough time has passed, Davidbena is conciliatory and should be given a chance.--Aroma Stylish (talk) 07:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• Above editor is blocked as a sock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support compromise, narrowing, or lifting ban per above. Lev!vich 22:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Template editor privilege abuse

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

---

Alex 21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has abused his template editor privileges at Module:Episode table. See the discussion at Template_talk:Episode_table#Implementing_Template:Sronly where he has reverted after a fellow template editor brought up objections based on WP:TPECON and he has not found consensus for his edits (nor did he prior to the initial change, which is also required by WP:TPECON). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@MSGJ: who has blocked/unblocked him regarding edit-warring. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I have support for my edits. One editor disagreeing is not a lack of consensus. I see that Wikipedia:Template editor#Dispute with a fellow template editor was brought up elsewhere, so I'll point out that it is the responsibility of the reverting template editor to demonstrate their revert is not out of sheer reflex. No reason was provided for the initial revert other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, meaning that Koavf did indeed revert based on "sheer reflex"; WP:BRD was quoted in the discussion but quickly nullified with the reasons listed at WP:BRD-NOT.

Koavf, shall I be pinging the administrators who have blocked/unblocked you twice in the past seven weeks? Or if we're dating old blocks, as you have, I'm counting 34 entries in your log. Will you be pinging them yourself? -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Alex 21, I don't think your bad faith WP:POINT-y questions will do you any favors on this noticeboard but to assume good faith, yes, please do ping whomever you think is relevant to assess your judgement or lack thereof in this discussion. I've made the report here and this shouldn't be a back-and-forth for the two of us, so I won't be posting here unless someone else requests it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Koavf, are we not here to discuss my "behaviour"? Do you not have any comments regarding the "Dispute with a fellow template editor" quote I provided you concerning your own edits? Nor the comments about consensus? Remember, Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity. As far as I can tell, you are the only editor who has disagreed, and you still have not provided a reason for your revert, other than that "out of sheer reflex". -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Alex 21, Alex, this is not a place for the two of us to bicker. I have made my case that you contravened WP:TPECON and that you have not done your due diligence in seeking consensus before or after your edits and that you have either not understood or willfully misconstrued a policy. I am now explicitly requesting that you stop pinging me and stop attempting to have an interpersonal conversation on this message board: that is not the function of this board. If admins need my input, they will request it here. I left this for them to assess if you are acting in accord with the requirements of a template editor. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Koavf, are you stating that I am not allowed to reply and defend myself against such a false report? I will reply with my side as I wish, it is not your right to say I cannot. Given that you are the reporting editor, my comments will naturally be initially directed towards you, especially when you include WP:POINT-y remarks about unrelated four-year-old content.

Nevertheless, your reply is still required at the template's talkpage. -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Alex 21, I have tacitly asked you to stop pinging me in this discussion and explicitly asked you to stop pinging me. I have told you that I am only going to give my feedback if requested by an admin. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Koavf (not pinged), then only give your feedback when requested, I'm not stopping you. You filed the report, I will be replying to you until asked a question by another editor. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Returning to my own initial comment, I'll be pinging El_C and Ivanvector in regards to the above editor and their report. I believe this editor was recently blocked for contentious editing, in which a self-suggested condition of their unblocking was to discuss changes to accessibility rather than directly reverting them, especially when without reason. This latter action is what resulted in the discussion linked and the restoration of the code that was removed without reason.

The edit history at Module:Track listing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (a module I have directly edited myself) is also quite interesting; there's quite a number of edits from the editor that weren't discussed before implementing, a behaviour that this editor has reported as unacceptable. I'm not quite sure how the standard works here? If someone could explain that, I'd greatly appreciate it.

I would also like to note that I have specifically asked the editor to discuss the content (as per a template's talk page), not the conduct (which belongs here) on the talk page, as shown here. They have sinced replied thrice ([2][3][4]), deliberately doing anything but; see my specification on what I have answered here. I am attempting to discuss the content with the editor and iron out the issues that they may have with the changes, but one cannot discuss changes and gain any form of consensus if the other editor refuses to respond. Discussions must be two-way, not just posting "answer me then I'll answer you" then refusing to do so once I comply with their request. Here's an example of them copy-pasting the same bludgeoning answer ([5][6]), despite me continuing the content discussion between their posts. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk%3AEpisode_table&type=revision&diff=971947134&oldid=971947051 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk%3AEpisode_table&type=revision&diff=971947469&oldid=971947222 ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Koavf, what seems to be the issue there? Are you linking to the diff where I ask you if you're taking credit for my compromising suggestion to you? I would like to point out to the reading administrator that the reporting editor claimed I refused to provide an alternate option[7], I responded by providing three diffs where I did quite the opposite and suggested a compromise (my response[8] and the three compromising comments [9][10][11]). They they claimed credit for my suggestions[12] and when I asked them twice[13][14] if they were doing exactly that, they refused to answer. They then claimed that my pings to them were harassment[15], but somehow, continuing to discuss conduct over content on a template's talk page after being requested not to is not. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Section break

The thread on the talk page was... not illuminating. The above is not better. Let's try another format. I have questions for each of you. Please answer them directly and briefly. Do not mention the other's conduct.

• @Koavf: Per Wikipedia:Template editor#Dispute with a fellow template editor, "A template editor should not revert the edit of their peer on a protected template without good cause, careful thought and (if possible) a prior brief discussion with the template editor whose action is challenged". Please
  • 1) Please briefly (no more than 1-2 sentences) explain your "good cause" for reverting.
  • 2) Was there "a prior brief discussion with the template editor whose action is challenged"? If so, where, and what was its result? If not, why? (You may briefly mention the other's conduct if you answer the last question, but only if their conduct is relevant.)
• @Alex 21: Per Wikipedia:Template editor#Dispute with a fellow template editor, "When a template editor's edit is reversed by a peer, the edit (or a similar one) must not be reinstated by the original or another template editor without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision." Your edit was reversed (rightly or wrongly). You reinstated it.
  • Where was the "clear discussion leading to a consensus decision"?

Please respond in the below space. Best, —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• For Koavf: 1.) Visual changes to templates are supposed to have substantial consensus before they are done. This was not done here: process-wise, there should be a discussion first. 2.) There was no discussion before Alex 21's initial edit and there was ongoing discussion at Template talk:Episode table when Alex 21 reverted: he didn't wait for more than two hours to try to reach consensus before reverting to this preferred version. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

  @Koavf:

  1) OK. That's a procedural issue. Did you have any substantive issues with the edit?

  2) There was ongoing discussion when Alex reverted your revert. However, was there any discussion before you reverted Alex's original edit?

  (Also, after you reverted Alex 21, they asked why you reverted them about two hours later, and then reverted your revert after about 16 hours (and over 3000 words between you).)

  Best, —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

  Mdaniels5757, 1.) Yes, I do: this contradicts what users would expect, doesn't offer an option for hiding or displaying, and is contrary to the examples at MOS:TABLECAPTION, which assume that it's a displaying caption. In addition to the procedural issue. 2.) So, six hours after the conversation started. He is not interested in a good faith attempt at consensus and is just reverting because he prefers it. This is obviously contrary to Wikipedia:Template Editor (in addition to the original edit itself, which was also contrary to that policy). This is the problem: there is an assumption of both good judgement about edits and collegiality about objections and he is ignoring both. Plus the harassment and misuse of {{collapse top}}. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

  @Koavf: OK. Re #2, I think we're talking past each other. Was there any discussion before you reverted Alex's original edit (that is, before 12:15 UTC on the 8th)? —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

  Mdaniels5757, No. He initiated discussion after I reverted his edit. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

  OK, thanks. —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• For Alex 21:

This [16] is the discussion that occurred between my starting it after the initial revert, up to my next restoration of my edit to the module. Noting that my last comment before the restoration was [c]oncerning "no obvious documentation", please don't lie., this is the point where I later collapsed the rest of the discussion [17], as the discussion provided by the opposing editor continued onwards over conduct rather than content. It is at that point that I did consider and currently still consider the end of the discussion where content talk was given more than conduct talk.

Per WP:SILENCE, [c]onsensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident (typically through reverting or editing). Obviously, silent consensus existed but it was clear by the initial revert and voiced response to the discussion I started that this was no longer so. However, when an editor refuses to discuss the content, it is not possible to gain any agreement from them for their opposition, so one cannot contest the opposition.

The decision for the level of consensus was determined by: remembering from WP:CONSENSUS that [c]onsensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity, that voiced agreement for the edit was given by another editor [18], and that there was no further opposition, and that the opposition from a single editor (an editor that had removed themselves from the content discussion) does not automatically mean that there is no consensus. -- /Alex/₂₁ 03:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Alex 21: I feel kind of silly for this, I totally missed the the third party in that section... (In my defense, that section is larger than the module it is discussing.) Whether it meets the "clear discussion" requirement is an exercise left to the reader —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Mdaniels5757, no worries, I can easily see how it could be missed! The same editor replied again today with further support [19] and a suggestion of a flag parameter can be created to allow the caption if it does not duplicate information. This is the same suggestion I've made and commented on myself thrice [20][21][22], but to no response. -- /Alex/₂₁ 03:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Alex 21: OK, thanks. I will make a proposal shortly. —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 03:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

@Alex 21 and Koavf: OK. Thank you both for humoring me with this alternative dispute resolution service. I'm going to make a proposal and explain my reasoning.

• 1. As to the content: we make an it an option, rather than hardcoded one way or the other. (What the default should be is something not within the scope of AN.) Given that both of you have proposed this (with different defaults), I hope there's no objection to this.
• 2. Both of y'all deserve a WP:TROUT for the... abundant... discussion you've created. Come on. I can't decide whose fault it is. Personally, I find the tone of Koavf's comments ever-so-slightly worse than Alex's, but, on the other hand, "[Username], state your opposition to the edit. [sig]" is not a good way to open a productive discussion. In any case, both of y'all should do better.
• 3. As to Alex 21, this report is closed with a second trout. It was 2-1 in favor of their version, and the discussion, if you squint a bit, looks enough like "clear discussion leading to a consensus decision" that I think any action would be inappropriate. That said, (1) the discussion was not particularly clear (or at all, if I'm being honest), (2) any consensus reached was quite weak, and (3) it would have been more prudent to gain another editor's opinion instead.
• 4. We {{hat}}/{{hab}} the section on the talk page and start a new discussion on what the default should be. If both of you consent, I'd like to moderate it in some way so it's less of a shitshow than discussion to date.

Thoughts? —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• 1. I agree with the flagged option, as I was the initial editor to suggest this. Understood that AN is not the location to determine the default, but I agree as long as it is defaulted to not show with the option to show. Templates should cater to the majority of uses and have a case for the minority, they should not cater to the minority of uses and have a case for the majority. To do this, I would suggest using keeping |caption= as an invisible caption, with |visiblecaption= as an optional replacement; not a flag as such, but replacing |caption= with |visiblecaption= to show it. However, as stated, not the place for it, so I'm happy to discuss it elsewhere.
• 2. Perhaps "[Username], state your opposition to the edit. [sig]" is not the best way to go, but editors need to learn that edits reverted without discussion is bad-faith editing and not at all collaborative. Per BRD, it is up to either editor to start a discussion. We'll all get along better when editors try to.
• 3/4. If this report is closed, can we then get the template talkpage discussion closed as well, for completeness's sake? I assume that's what option 4 means with the hat/hab, which I agree with.

-- /Alex/₂₁ 04:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Mdaniels5757, In terms of dispute resolution, sounds good: thanks. In terms of Alex 21's behavior and poor judgement as a template editor, I feel like you are missing this entirely. Do you not think his behavior here is inappropriate? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Koavf: I do think his behavior here is inappropriate. I also, however, think your behavior, and in particular your revert without discussion, was inappropriate (recall that per Wikipedia:Template editor#Dispute with a fellow template editor, "(if possible)", you should have "a prior brief discussion with the template editor whose action is challenged", which you did not). I also don't think that WP:TPEREVOKE is on the table for Alex, given that no "pattern of obviously controversial edits to protected templates without first determining consensus" has been shown. If you wish for action to be taken against Alex, what action do you believe would be appropriate with respect to Alex's conduct? —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Mdaniels5757, I don't have a perspective on that: I'm leaving up to admins' judgement. My goal in posting here was not a matter of dispute resolution but one of point out inappropriate behavior on the part of an editor, so if you think it's just a matter for dispute resolution and then the behavioral issues is either non-existent or doesn't merit any particular action on your part, then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. I just find it pretty shocking that in addition to his misuse of advanced user rights, he's also harassing me on this board as well as on the talk page and that this behavior doesn't merit any kind of action to curtail how he is acting. I figured using WP:AN for harassment would be a really big no-no, but I guess not. This just emboldens him to harass other users in the future, including on the admins' noticeboard. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

How I have I harassed you at this board? Pinging you and responding to you is not harassment. I am required to ping you to notify that I have responded to you in the discussion we were a part of. Asking me not to ping you is you deliberately distancing yourself from the discussion, indicating that you have withdrawn from it.

In fact, if asking me not to do something and then me continuing to do it is considered harassment, then in the same vein, me asking you not to discuss conduct over content on a talkpage and then you continuing to do it can also be considered harassment. Per WP:HARASSMENT, harassment is "to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing"; is that not what you were doing by repeatedly ignoring my requests before I ignored yours? Be careful of boomerangs when you come to AN.

Luckily, I'm not overly phased by your actions there, and I'm happy to continue discussing the content with you in a civil mannter, as suggested by Mdaniels. Shall we close the first discussion and start the second one about the conditions of in/visible captions? -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

People have been indeffed for using thank to poke opponents, although that has occurred in cases much more serious than this. Regardless of Koavf's sins, your inability to stop pinging him when requested is not a sign of collaboration. Johnuniq (talk) 01:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you for the clarification. I know you stated [r]egardless of Koavf's sins, but I do request for my own clarification, is the discussion of conduct over content on a talkpage after being asked not to also considered harassment? -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The action against Alex 21 would be to revoke his template editor right because aggressive reverting using that right is not acceptable. There has probably been enough noise to hide the underlying issue and I don't have the energy to investigate. Diff and the absurd demand show the problem and Alex should be aware that such a style is not compatible with an advanced right. Even if Koavf was wrong and Alex right (I have no idea about that), the correct procedure would be for Alex to not revert (assuming no emergency) and to post a polite question about why Koavf had reverted along with a polite explanation for why Alex's edit should stand. Johnuniq (talk) 01:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the issue between concerning the edit goes back before even I started the discussion. Remember that per Wikipedia:Template editor#Dispute with a fellow template editor, [a] template editor should not revert the edit of their peer on a protected template without good cause, careful thought and (if possible) a prior brief discussion with the template editor whose action is challenged. No such good cause or prior brief discussion was provided by the opposing editor at the time. The correct procedure would have been to not revert at all at the very beginning, and go straight to discussion. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I see that I am unable to convince you so let me express it like this. I will remove your template editor right if you use it aggressively in the future. Johnuniq (talk) 01:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you for the notification. What of the opposing editor's template editor right? -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have got heavy in this discussion because I see that you have done a lot of work at related modules. Nevertheless, I think the template editor right should be used only while in Pollyanna mode. I don't think it would be useful to discuss the general issue of whether Koavf should have done his revert here although I suspect the answer would be seen by investigating whether there was a clear consensus for your change before this incident. Johnuniq (talk) 02:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

No worries. Indeed I have; over 3,000 edits to the template and module spaces. I don't get the Pollyanna reference, but in the future, I would just simply appreciate it if the opposing editor didn't cite a guideline while also not following it themselves. Hopefully we can get to the implementation discussion soon; I've already prepared the sandbox and testcases for the discussion of how to fix the caption issue. -- /Alex/₂₁ 03:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Mdaniels5757, See discussion with Johnuniq below. He deliberately still doesn't get it, as far as I'm concerned. Are you saying that his behavior was acceptable? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Koavf: I never said his behavior was acceptable; indeed, I said that "I do think his behavior here is inappropriate". Johnuniq characterized his use of the permission as "aggressive", and I agree with that. However, your behavior was not appropriate either (and also violated Wikipedia:Template editor#Dispute with a fellow template editor, which you have been citing against Alex). If it were up to me (and it is not), I would still close this without action because (1) WP:TPEREVOKE is a high bar that I don't think is met and (2) if Alex's behavior is poor enough that, per WP:TPEREVOKE, his permissions should be revoked, your behavior also meets that standard (that is, I don't see a way out of this where one of you is sanctioned and the other is not). In my opinion, it is in both of your best interests to WP:DROPTHESTICK. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Mdaniels5757, Okay, well thanks for providing your perspective. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Koavf: Which specific stipulation of WP:TPECON are you alleging that Alex breached to begin with, in making the edit without prior discussion? It's not obvious to the casual observer. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  Swarm, "Changes that should be made ONLY after substantial discussion: Changes that significantly affect a template or module's visual appearance to the reader. "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if were in shades of pink?" ... Bring it up on the talkpage first." which never happened. This initial edit should not have occurred and then I reverted and Alex started a conversation and reverted without any consensus (in addition to harassing me on the talk and this page). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

So, to be clear, the change that was implemented was the generalized visual suppression of any and all captions, as a new default, that did not previously exist before? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Koavf: ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

  Swarm, That is correct: Alex 21's edit was one that "significantly affected a template or module's visual appearance to the reader" by taking a visual element and making it not display, which should have been discussed first and wasn't. Then, after this was brought to his attention, he reverted to his preferred version with no consensus (and harassed me on this page, etc., etc.) ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mdaniels5757: It has come to my attention that the reporting editor has been blocked for a month for an unrelated incident. How do you propose we move forwards given this development? In preparation for the fourth point of your proposal and the second discussion that you had suggested, I had prepared sandbox edits and testcases, ready to present. What is the best way to proceed? -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

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

User:JohnRichardSmith666

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

---

I am not sure, but is this a continuation of a banned account somewhere? Seems rather suspect to me. Govvy (talk) 14:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The draft he has created contains all kinds of BLP violations - seems to be an attack page.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Yep, I read through that, was part of the concern I had for reporting here. Govvy (talk) 15:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Do you know who he is a potential sock of? If so, let us know so we can see if WP:DUCK applies. If not then try at WP:SPI. GiantSnowman 15:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea, but I am very suspicious of the type of user that creates a draft like that and thought it prudent to post here, thinking maybe one of the admins might notice something. Nothing else I can think of or do. Govvy (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

This would likely be Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Callump90, a recurring self-promoter (or someone closely involved in some social media drama). The case is stale, but seems to be re-activated after a longer break. Callum Precious was a previously-deleted article. Anyway, blocked the account as likely sock and deleted the draft due to serious WP:BLP concerns (and as sock-created, mostly nonsensical and/or private content). On a sidenote, putting controversial WP:BLP content into Wikipedia with "citation needed" tags is absolutely unacceptable. Thank you for the report. GermanJoe (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I've G10'd the draft anyway - doing more digging there is no reason for this to remain up other than to bully/attack a troubled minor. I think there may be some IRL links to what's going on here, but that's not any of our business at this time. Ed talk! 17:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Wow . Put both on my watchlist. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Dam, that went a fair bit deeper than I thought. Govvy (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Bunch of files in Category:Wikipedia files requiring renaming

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

---

Jonteemil added about 138 files to Category:Wikipedia files requiring renaming with double extensions. (and a few that are named like "Company SVG logo.svg")

Unlike Commons, Wikipedia:File names doesn't list double extensions as a reason for renaming. It would probably not be very controversial, but.. it's not in the guideline and I don't know how long adding it may take. In the meantime, the category is very difficult to navigate.

From the admins I ask one the following:

• A rough indication of how long it'll take to change the guideline, and this being a period of less than a week OR
• Support from several admins to carry out the about 138 rename requests for files with double extensions, including/excluding the "Company SVG logo.svg" cases (this will take a while) OR
• Support from several admins to decline them all pending a guideline change. (this could be done quickly with little effort) I have already backed up the move links at User:Alexis Jazz/Double extension links so the moves could be done after the guideline has changed.

I rather wouldn't be stuck with a maintenance category that's difficult to navigate. I also don't want to lose my file mover rights, which is why I'm asking admins. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Btw, as the list is easier to work from, I'd remove the rename template exactly the same way from those 138 files, whether they get moved or not. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: I think this situation is covered by WP:FNC#5. Double extensions are obvious errors that cause confusion as to the actual format of the file, so I'd be surprised if there was much controversy in renaming them. The "Company SVG logo.svg" naming style is context dependant. If there's no information in the title, it's probably okay to move per WP:FNC#2, but if it has the company name and states that it's a logo, there's enough information that it probably should not be moved per WP:FMNN. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: If it's covered by WP:FNC#5 that would be fine. (I will await some more comments to confirm if that's the generally held opinion)) They don't necessarily cause confusion over the actual format though, for example File:Back from the Grave, Volume 4 (LP).JPEG.jpg. SVG logo examples: File:FeldaUnitedSVGlogo.svg, File:Free Geek Logo SVG.svg and File:Health Care Property Investors SVG Logo.svg. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, okay, that's not so obvious then. I think the ".JPEG.jpg" may be worth renaming especially if they're recent uploads, but a scan of the category suggests none of the files look badly named enough to require immediate renames. I don't know much about the file namespace, so I'll bow out here. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Infinite IP blocks?

I notice that we have some infinite IP blocks, some dating back to 2006, infinite IP blocks. I would hope that we would not need to set blocks for longer than five years. I think that we should remove any infinite IP block that is older than five years, and convert any IP block to a timed block if it is less than five years. It is of zero issue to reblock any IP address that re-abuses for another five years. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

There's consensus that indefinite IP blocks are generally inappropriate, serve no meaningful purpose to the project, and should be lifted, see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 158#Proposal about some indefinite IP blocks. tl;dr for the non-technically inclined: IPs can and do change, so the same person that was vandalizing Wikipedia 5+ years ago certainly isn't at that same IP anymore. Also, things have changed in the past few years; we now have not one, but two bots identifying and blocking open proxies. -FASTILY 03:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

There's also a list which includes IP ownership information at User:ST47/indef-blocked ips. It used to be worse, a few different people have gone through some of the oldest ones and cleaned them up. Though, I'm not sure why we're accumulating so many new indef blocks on individual IPv6 addresses... ST47 (talk) 03:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Probably misclicks. Twinkle defaults to indef blocks for certain rationales ("spam only", "vandalism only", etc). Twinkle (and other semi-automated tools) probably shouldn't allow people to indefinitely block IP addresses. I hate confirmation prompts, but MediaWiki should probably ask for confirmation, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Twinkle doesn't ever default to indef for an IP; if that's the case, it's a bug. I agree that it should just prevent it from being manually selected, though; that's an easy change. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 09:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I usually check that list once a year, and leave a message on this thread reminding all admins to go through that list and search for indefinite IP blocks by their username. Many times, an admin will do this accidentally using Twinkle or another semi-automated tool and where they accidentally left the duration set to "indefinite". If they shouldn't be there, they should be reduced to a definite duration. If they should be there, the block reason should have an explanation as to why. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Oshwah. I generally don't overly pay attention to long term blocks here, more focusing elsewhere. I know that at meta and enWS that we are down to none, though note that the circumstances are different. I also know that when I was doing stewardry we stopped doing infinite blocks on IPs and the consequences at places has not been catastrophic. IMNSHO it should only be stepwise to infinite IP blocks, not the prime initial response. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Is there any reason we should not now remove all indefinitely IP blocks imposed more than three years ago, and to convert all indefinitely IP blocks imposed less than three years ago into three-year blocks?--Ymblanter (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

That makes complete sense to me, I don't see why an IP should have an indef at this point. Edit: Looking at the list, I do have a caveat, some of these are blocked proxies, which I would think need to remain in place. A few look to be LTA socks that were ranged blocked as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

There was a discussion last year that unblocked all indef'd IPs from before 2009, handled by a bot. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Do we have any data on how many of those IPs are now re-blocked? Or have contributed? Perhaps we can release another tranche of the old infinite blocks. –xeno^talk 15:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I went through 2 or 3 thousand in the block log and didn't see any marked by the mark blocked gadget. 2009 was chosen as it was essentially the toggle point; there were maybe a couple hundred total from 2009 and later, compared to ~20,000 before 2009. Per Wikipedia:Database reports/Indefinitely blocked IPs there were 126, roughly a fifth of which were from the last year. Many of those have been undone​. That is, the scale is entirely different, I'm not sure there's a "tranche" left to go through! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the analysis! Looks like a case-by-case thing then. –xeno^talk 16:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• A number (indeed, the majority) of those are proxies, TOR, webhosts, self-requested blocks via OTRS, and more importantly Oversight blocks. Why would you want to be removing them? Black Kite (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  I thought it is quite uncommon for IPs to stay at the same location for years. If I remember correctly, open proxies very rarely live longer than 6 months.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  Only 2 are oversight blocks - I agree they should not be modified except by oversight team.

  169.241.10.83 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was blocked by request of school district administration in 2006. I modified it in 2009 and wrote 'softblock' in the log summary but set it a hard block - I'm not sure which I meant to do or is appropriate now, 11 years later. Anyone can modify that one as they see fit. –xeno^talk 18:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  @Black Kite: I am not saying that there are not legitimate blocks among that lot, I am saying that there will be illegitimate blocks in that range. To me that is contrary to our blocking policy. I also know that internet-wise that since those blocks have been in place much has changed in a global WMF system, tools, bots, etc., even IPv6. With eyes wide open we should be removing the many blocks with review as required, and where there is problem we will be (re-)imposing blocks. I just would just prefer long-term blocks to have an expiry date, not be set and forget. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive user U1Quattro

User:U1Quattro has a long long history of conflicts here at WP. Recently they nominated some articles for deletion which no one noticed until after an article was turned into a redirect. Me and another editor, User:Davey2010 proceeded to add sources to the articles in question (Isuzu Forward and Isuzu Giga). U1Quattro, however, decided that this was unacceptable and began relisting, tag bombing, and generally showing that they are not able to function here. Basic things like calling other users "idiots" are troubling, but I am more worried about the users refusal to engage in discussion. When reverted, they always double down. After some prodding, U1Quattro will sometimes post on a talkpage, but never without first re-reverting. CF TVR Cerbera, Maserati Granturismo.

The user has several IBANs with a number of other users already, but understands the rules here at Wikipedia well enough to usually stop shy of anything getting a more severe reprisal. The user loves starting ANIs at the drop of a hat. Most recently this one, which led to more IBAN activity. On their user page they state the following:

You get on my nerves, I will bite hard. Plain and simple. If you don't like it, then avoidance is key.

Not a good attitude to a collaborative project IMHO. Personally I do try to steer clear of this user because it is very stressful to interact with them, but this year U1Quattro has begun editing articles on old Japanese commercial vehicles which is an area of interest of mine.

The user is a self-proclaimed deletionist but often deletes things indiscriminately. Sometimes they introduce errors through haste or carelessness. As an example, here is one set of troubling edits laid out as I attempted to get U1Quattro to own their errors and apologize for sloppy editing (introducing factual error: changing the meaning of a sentence not because they disagreed with it or because it was disputed but just through sloppiness). As usual, they responded aggressively and will not own their mistakes. At TVR Cerbera U1Quattro changed the classification of the car, a question which does not have a clear answer. There are tons of sources that support A, B, or both A and B in this question, and so it is deserving of a discussion. I reverted, citing WP:BRD, but naturally U1Quattro re- and then re-reverted.

Anyhow, any user can change and I had sort of been expecting U1Quattro to mellow out over the years, but they are just as strident, combative, and generally unpleasant to deal with as they have always been. I am not sure if I ought to ping some of the many other users with which U1Quattro has had disagreements with in the past; please advise. This ANI post is, btw, done reluctantly and after long consideration as U1Quattro has thus far succeeded in pushing out a number of users with whom he has argued with, but it is becoming a bit tough to do good work as of late.  Mr.choppers | ✎  05:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

There are signs of just generally lazy editing, many of these AfD's boil down for me to "article quality bad, delete lol" and they very rarely produce many valid specific criteria for deletion. Incivility does appear to be a genuine concern here and, as noted, their behaviour hasn't changed much past being rather hostile and oftentimes defensive from what I can tell. Ed talk! 05:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment: First of all, I don't have several IBANs as OP claims here. I only have one ongoing IBAN with a user. Second of all, Davey2010 has started this mess by the use of offensive language and causing disruption. Instances can be seen here, here, here and here so I'm not the only one to blame over here for behavourial outbursts. The articles were nominated for deletion per WP:GNG and they still cite a majority of manufacturer sources which is something against WP:RELIABILITY. Third of all, as far as TVR Cerbera goes, the OP claims that there are "several" sources that call that a sports car but so far I have seen none. I, however, added the sources which call it a grand tourer. Fourth, about my user page, that is my personal name space. I can write what I want there, I don't think there is a need to point that out. Fifth, about Hino Ranger, I had already notified this user that if they have corrected the errors then it is fine by me. I don't see any issues with that neither I see a need to apologise over a petty mistake. I'm not the only one to blame here simply put, there are others who have been at fault too including the OP.U¹ _quattro TALK 06:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

"Actually no, You started this mess by reverting the article back to a redirect even tho it was sourced ... Sure you might of disagreed with the sources used however your next option would've then been AFD again. You also started all of this by edit warring with various people.....

As for offensive language - Sure I'll give you the first one but other than that I've remained calm and patient throughout.

Something quite clearly needs to be done here with this user. –Davey2010^Talk 11:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• U1Quattro may well be a productive editor; I haven't seen any evidence of it but that's partly because the most eye-catching feature of this editor is the slew of fights they get in. I see now that I blocked them a while ago for violating an iBan. Here is one from this year, a Floquenbeam block, which U1Quattro tries to blame on the other party. What is noteworthy in all these is the "OH ITS NOT ME ITS THEM" attitude, which contrasts nicely with last month's "The admins have the right to tell you and they told you to stop. So stop and STFU." And that user page is just asinine, completely unbecoming of someone who wants to work in a collaborative effort. Yes, that one comment by Davey wasn't great, but that's not blockable--though Davey knows I don't always appreciate their language. But while I have no intimate knowledge of the amount of disruption caused by the edits that this discussion started with, they warrant investigation, as does the attitude. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• The user should be community-banned. What they write on their user page alone - "You get on my nerves, I will bite hard. Plain and simple. If you don't like it, then avoidance is key" - indicates that they are not temperamentally suited to participating in a collaborative project. Their block record confirms that impression. Sandstein 14:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Sandstein, I wonder if it's later in the day where you are, if the sun of human kindness has already sunk; for me the day is still fresh and young, the cup half-full and all that, but I know that's just my silly optimism. Thank you--you are right. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Where I am it's late in the afternoon on a hot summer's day and I'm sitting in a shady garden just having opened a can of cold beer (the first today; maybe not the last), but I still can't find enough kindness in me to say that Sandstein is wrong, especially given U1Quattro's outburst here, which shows a total lack of self-awareness. Who knows, maybe without this editor cars will drop off the list of topic areas, like professional wrestling and hurricanes, that seem to a non-fanatic to be uncontroversial but actually keep generating drama. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Cheers Phil. All the best to you. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: Drmies the statement about the admins was said to a user who was disruptive as well as aggressive. I don't say that I'm not at fault in the disputes I get in. The other party is as equally responsible as me. Which is exactly what happened during that AN3 discussion as well as over Isuzu Giga which you have pointed out.U¹ _quattro TALK 16:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Considering Fram and Phil Bridger's comments above, U1Quattro, I have an idea, and I wish you'd had that idea too: why not start by scrapping, on your user page, everything between "As a human" and "not welcome"? Your career is dangling by a thread here, and surely we can't all be completely wrong and you the only one who's right. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • U1 - I'm not at all equally responsible for this no where near and to say I am is yet again taking the "Blaming others" approach, Sure I could've saved us the edit warring and done the RFC myself however given I'm not the one who had a problem with the image I sort of saw it as being pointless. Obviously you're aware of WP:BRD too. –Davey2010^Talk 17:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• I have never claimed that I'm always right. Neither here, nor anywhere else. I have pointed out that other parties are as responsible as me for starting the dispute Drmies. The sense of humour thing has nothing to do with collaborative effort as discussed by Phil and Sandstein. I have, however, made some changes to the user page.U¹ _quattro TALK 18:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

A note: somehow or other this discussion drifted away without any sanction for U1Quattro at all. That was unfortunate. Given that they continually get in conflict with a rotating cast of other editors, I would like to suggest that a long enforced break would be beneficial to the project. --JBL (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• I see that, JBL--it shouldn't have just disappeared. There was a clear consensus for an iBan, for starters. Let's hope that there's a couple admins around who will close this properly, no matter what the outcome. I'm thinking that a three-month block would be a good start. They made a few minor changes to their user page, so I'll forgo calling for an indefinite block. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes please. Or a change in behavior, that would be just as nice. As it stands, U1Quattro is doubling down at TVR Cerbera and being allowed to continue exactly the sort of behavior that so many find problematic. The problem isn't so much what the user page states but that it perfectly expresses not only how U1Quattro feels about other editors but also how they edit. How many editors have to chime in before there is an administrative response? Thank you,  Mr.choppers | ✎  23:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Again the issue is being about the same page about which the OP claims is a sports car while they have failed to present any sources that state it is a sports car. They used the undo button when I was trying to add the source and still did not bother with adding the sources when they had started a talkpage discussion. I had added the sources which supported what I had said. This behaviour by the OP shows that they are just as responsible as me for the disruption at TVR Cerbera.U¹ _quattro TALK 01:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  they are just as responsible as me for the disruption is not an acceptable standard. If you are just as responsible as another user for disruption, both you and the other user risk sanctions. If you are repeatedly just as responsible for disruption as another user, especially multiple other users, you risk serious sanctions. The acceptable standard is: complying with WP:PAGs, regardless of what another user does. ^Lev_!v^ich 01:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  If the other user is responsible then they should also be sanctioned instead of me taking all the blame for the disruption caused. If we take TVR Cerbera as an example, the edit warring was started by OP and they deserve equal sanction for violating WP:3RR.U¹ _quattro TALK 02:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I was not engaging in an edit war, I followed the WP:BRD guidelines (and have continued not to violate 3RR even after U1Quattro refuses to restore the original content as they are supposed to do as per BRD). Bold, Revert, Discuss. It's not Bold, Revert, Re-revert. And TVR Cerbera is not the issue, this is just a part of a years long inability to be civil, to interact properly, and to be a good faith editor.

U1Quattro has mastered the art of the red herring, always doing their utmost to change the discussion to something that suits them better. I implore the admins to look at U1Quattro's talk page, history, user page, block log, etc etc. Something has to be done. Clearly U1Quattro is absolutely refusing to even consider modifying their behavior, continuing only to blame every single other editor who ever disagrees with them about anything, however minor a detail.  Mr.choppers | ✎  13:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:BRD is not mandated by wiki policy. Yet the OP continues to mention and has been trying to force me to follow it. Further, the OP has also violated WP:3RR which is infact mandated by policy. They have also refused to engage in a discussion at TVR Cerbera which highlights their inability to discuss things. I'm not saying I'm right but the OP has been wrong and has violated a policy for which they should also be sanctioned.U¹ _quattro TALK 16:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support CBAN per Sandstein. Based on the discussion here and at numerous prior ANI threads, it seems this user is completely unwilling to take any feedback on board. I have yet to see any acknowledgment of a problem, never mind a commitment to improving. I think any further discussion is hopeless. Lev!vich 16:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I had my fair share of scrap with U1Quattro, which is why I backed off of him so I wouldn't get tangled with how he talks to people. Threatening to take it to Arbitration or report me for "misconduct" and "damaging his credibility" as well as making the odd false accusation, but I won't go into too much details since it already been said and gone. However I made the choice to not clash with him because I knew, from how he speaks and edit would make any rational user on here to become fed up with his attitude. --Vauxford (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• I saw Davey's most recent 3RR report against U1Quattro the other day (maybe it was yesterday?) but I was busy and didn't do much digging; I had chastised Davey in a similar report not too long ago about reporting editors for 3RR when they were also revert warring. I was going to indef block U1Quattro for the "idiot" comments in that dispute but, I don't know, I was busy or something. After reading this I'm leaning towards agreeing with Sandstein that U1Quattro should just be indeffed until they get it. What is it? It's the attitude that they can do no wrong, that they can pick and choose which community standards to follow, that others' transgressions forgive their own, that if they're sanctioned then someone else must also be sanctioned and if not then there is nothing to learn, that they have no obligation to take suggestions or advice from anyone. Basically what Levivich said, but worse because U1Quattro has had these things explained repeatedly and they continue to not improve, and there's only so much rope that admins can extend. @U1Quattro: if someone doesn't decide to block you as a result of this report, it's very likely that the next time your behaviour leads to a report on one of these conduct noticeboards, you will be, and for a long time. What will you do to avoid being reported again? Don't talk about other editors in your response. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Since I was pinged above: I do not have time to review the newest situation in any detail, but I have observed U1Quattro's interactions with other editors for a while now, and believe that if U1Quattro can't stop feuding/fighting with so many people, they should be indef blocked. So, if the closing admin believe this can be construed as yet another case of feuding/fighting with yet another editor - no matter how minor it seems in isolation - then I support a CBAN; if not, then I have no opinion either way. That's probably of limited use, sorry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Ivanvector I have done what the administration required me to do at my user page. As far as behavioural issues go, I would avoid getting across some editors present in this thread due to behavioural issues of their own. Other than that, I will do effort to change my behaviour with how I deal with editors here.U¹ _quattro TALK 17:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • This is a very unsatisfactory response. I suggest you read WP:NOTTHEM and try again. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • That doesn't sound convincing. I'm not under the impression that you have any clue what went wrong. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Then I will bow out simply because any response that I give which does not contain the words that I'd cooperate with every editor I come across no matter how offensive they are or how bad their attitude is, my response would be considered unsatisfactory.U¹ _quattro TALK 18:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

No, you fail recognize your own mistakes. That's the problem. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support siteban given the response directly above this. Preemptively refusing to collaborate is an attitude incompatible with editing here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: I refuse to collaborate with editors using language like this. If you think using the word "idiot" warranted an indef block then what about this?U¹ _quattro TALK 18:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:CHEAPFLOPPYBOOMERANG . — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Alexis Jazz I'm not making an unblock request. Even when blocked, I won't. Because when I'm expected to contribute with such people for being unblocked, I'd rather stay blocked.U¹ _quattro TALK 20:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

U1Quattro So you are essentially asking to be blocked in order to have a healthy discussion about your behaviour because you can't comprehend WP:NOTTHEM otherwise? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

It mightn't be necessary, but I would like to point out that U1Quattro's link above regards a third editor, not me (OP). It's a boomerang flung after someone else.  Mr.choppers | ✎  20:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support regular indef block till user adequately addresses their problem with interactions (and any other condition agreed to here) per subsection below in which Ivanvector says he blocked. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support CBAN per Levivich, for consistent intransigent behavior, even continuing on his talk page after being blocked. Resowithrae (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Blocked

U1Quattro has made 10 edits in this discussion, each one failing or outright refusing to acknowledge that their own poor attitude is the reason we're here talking about this, not the defensive reactions of the users they keep getting in fights with. A reasonable person ought to have long ago clued into the fact that getting in fights all the time might not mean that everyone else is to blame, particularly after so many editors have tried to explain, but U1Quattro just will not listen, and we've all wasted enough time. U1Quattro is indefinitely blocked. There is fairly strong consensus to elevate this to a site ban but that discussion should continue. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

As I note above, I think this is a reasonable outcome, pending an agreement from U1Q to significantly alter their interactions with others. If that happens, I'm OK with this not being a community-imposed CBAN, requiring another community discussion to unban. Just a normal indef bock is fine. Also I noticed the edit summary that U1Q linked to just above, and just want to say somewhere for posterity, "no, you don't have to put up with that". I've left a warning for the other editor. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

+1 all of the above. I'll counter-note, however, that it seems as though U1Q was campaigning against any development of that article for several days before Davey's clearly frustrated outburst. Not that that makes it okay, but, you know, context does matter. Also also: Davey had already acknowledged and apologized after the first time U1Q dropped that diff in this thread, and U1Q bringing it up a second time to a different admin is clearly asking the other parent, and more evidence of their battleground mentality. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• FYI I've apologised to U1 for that outburst[23], As explained on my talkpage I've worked 3-4 days on that article trying my damned best to source it and improve the article as much as I could .... so i'll be honest it was disheartening and frustrating to see someone come alone and simply wipe away the work I put in,

Still I shouldn't of said what I did and I apologise for that edit summary, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

IMO, absolutely warranted by a country-mile but still uncivil - thank you for your apology and outstanding work to recover these articles :) Ed talk! 21:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I have observed U1Quattro pushing several other editors over the edge in the past. I could be wrong, but I remember at least User:Typ932, User:Vauxford, User:Ybsone, and User:1292simon all getting in hot water over altercations with U1Q. There are probably more. I don't know if their statuses warrant any sort of reconsideration? Obviously they should have all been better at dealing with situations, but it has been frustrating to watch mostly good editors leaving and getting blocked.  Mr.choppers | ✎  22:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Mr.choppers Why should I be reconsider over this? After the IBAN between U1Quattro and Ybsone I backed away and tried to avoid the commotion as much as I could. Because I knew I would of end up in all sorts of mess if I kept getting involved. I already learnt the hard way of that happening to me anyway. --Vauxford (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Gonna chime in here and say Tps leaving was more to do with me than it was him. (U1 for whatever reason jumped on my AN3 report but either way U1 wasn't the reason). No comment on the rest but Tps IMHO should be struck. –Davey2010^Talk 00:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Allright, then I was worrying for nought. Good.  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Draftifying old unmaintained content translation tool articles

Yesterday I approached S Marshall about draftifying an old article which had been created in 2016 and whose original author is no longer active. In our discussion, it came out that they plan to draftify up to 1200 more similar articles based on a consensus dated from July 2017, which had never actually been implemented.

In August 2017, the community extended G13 to cover all draft articles that have not been edited in six months, regardless of whether they went through the AfC process. This means that these 1200 articles, if moved to draftspace, will languish for six months and then be summarily deleted. I don't believe that this was the intent of the July decision.

WP:DRAFTIFY says that moving articles to draft space is not intended as a backdoor route to deletion. As the changes to draftspace in August 2017 made the July 2017 decision an effective deletion of these articles, I propose that the decision to draftify them all be revisited, and these 1200 articles be dealt with through the deletion process in some form, either individually or en masse.

Here are a couple of options that I can think of:

• Bring back the X2 CSD criteria and use that instead, at least for the obviously uncontroversial ones;
• Tag them all for proposed deletion (ideally with a method to deal with anyone who reverts them all just to make a point);
• Use the AfD process as usual, handling uncontested nominations as expired prods.

Other editors more familiar with the history of the content translation discussions will surely have other ideas, and those are most welcome. – bradv🍁 13:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - Unless they're notable per the extended G13 to cover all draft articles that have not been edited in six months | consensus you've already indicated exists. I'm inclusionist by nature, but I agree, drafting an article should never serve as a backdoor to deletion, that gamesmanship! Delete them unless they're notable. W.K.W.W.K...^Talk 14:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Wekeepwhatwekill, how and where do we determine whether these are notable? I agree with your standard, but I'm not clear on how we can decide that for 1200 individual articles. – bradv🍁 14:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Bradv We already have guidelines to show us what's notable. They would work well in all of these cases! :) W.K.W.W.K...^Talk 16:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
      • @Wekeepwhatwekill: To clarify Bradv's question a bit: Suppose we stumble across an old CXT-created article whose topic does not meet our notability guidelines. Bradv is asking how we should delete the article, not whether we should delete the article: should we revive the X2 speedy deletion criterion, use PROD, use AfD, or move them to draft space? Mz7 (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Mz7 ok....got it. I move for X2 speedy deletion. W.K.W.W.K...^{Toss a coin to the witcher, ye valley of plenty} 18:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Bradv has a point that draftify doesn't mean what it did when this was determined. Also, though I may be being a bit glib since I've admittedly not closely examined that massive old discussion, I don't see the urgency that would necessitate drafti-deleting them en masse. Restrictions have been placed on the content translation tool, and we're just left with these 1200 possibly non-notable and/or sub-par articles. 1200 sounds like a lot until you realize that's the normal number of new articles created every couple days here, so it doesn't seem like an "it's just too much work to handle them individually" issue. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Alas, it seems that after three years, interest in cleaning up the mess created by the poorly rolled-out content translation tool has diminished considerably. I would like to begin by thanking S Marshall for their continued efforts in this area. However, I also think that this discussion to revisit the 2017 decision to draftify the 1200 articles on that list is reasonable. It seems to me that the simplest solution at this stage is to use WP:PROD in lieu of draftifying. I'm not sure we need to do the PROD-tagging en masse. As I understand it, S Marshall has been going through the list somewhat organically and individually moving them to draft space; I think a reasonable alternative is to simply use WP:PROD instead of moving to draft space. Mz7 (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Bradv, Fixing them is an option. But they can't really be left in mainspace and if can be bothered to fix them then why should we care? Guy (help! - typo?) 16:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that they can't be left in mainspace, nor do I have an opinion on whether they should. But if the idea here is that we can dump them in draftspace and let people work on them, that won't work. It probably wouldn't have worked in 2017 either, before the G13 expansion, but it definitely won't work now. – bradv🍁 17:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• This whole backlog attracts a lot of attention from those who want to decide how someone else should fix it. It doesn't get much attention from people who want to muck in and fix it.
  I shan't be using PROD. I've tried, and what happens is, the PROD patrollers look at it and see what superficially looks like a plausible/fixable article, so they want to send it to AfD; and that's a set of interactions that makes me tired and demotivated. Mz7 is welcome to PROD them all and then deal with the deproddings.
  Those of you who want to change how I deal with it: please come up with a suggestion that you, personally, are willing to implement. Or else leave it to me, in which case, please just let me do it this way.—S Marshall T/C 17:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

the PROD patrollers look at it and see what superficially looks like a plausible/fixable article, so they want to send it to AfD — isn't that the deletion process working exactly as it should? It sounds like you are saying you are moving these to draft because you don't want to deal with deleting them through the usual channels, but WP:DRAFTIFY is explicitly not supposed to be used like this. If you're feeling tired and demotivated by this task, take a step back from it; there is no deadline. – Joe (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, and I have taken a break from it. I didn't edit at all in 2018, and then I came back in 2019 to find that nobody had done any work on the backlog in my absence. The issue is that we're now four years after the WMF's stupidity created this issue in the first place, and there are BLPs among these articles, and they do contain mistranslations. Please, please read the whole discussion with an open mind, reflect on it, and understand the whole problem in context before opining that it's fine to leave these in the mainspace.—S Marshall T/C 21:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

isn't that the deletion process working exactly as it should?

Not really. Because in cases like this, the process is so inherently glacial and frustrating that no one wants to do it. So the articles sit, stagnate and basically just cling to the hull of Wikipedia like barnacles. The deletion process, in this case, is actually detrimental to improving the Wiki. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• We should take a look at each one, even if only brief, but I can't find a proper list of the 1200 affected articles. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/CXT/Draftification list July 2017 is a mixed bag. @S Marshall: if you want help, you have to provide at least the list or affected articles, or for those already moved, drafts. I could probably help, but I NEED a list. Right now you are about to draftify 1200 articles (I assume you haven't draftified all of them yet?) and I have no idea exactly which articles that will be, which is a bit frightening. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Sure. I used to work off WP:AN/CXT/PTR, but someone called User:ToThAc decided that list had been superseded by another list in their userspace that I found much harder to work with; so now I'm keeping the list of stuff I haven't looked at yet in my sandbox here.
  I should be clear that I absolutely do not intend to draftify 1200 articles in the next few days. I've been looking at them at a rate of about a dozen a week -- and of those, at least half of them pass my sniff test. When they do, I simply mark the affected article with {{translated}} on its talk page (to make the article Terms of Use compliant) and then remove it from my list without draftifying. It's only when I'm not completely confident that I speedy-move it to draft space.
  What you're looking for here is software mistranslations. When the WMF deployed that tool, they encouraged people to move articles from one wiki to another. Unfortunately, the way it was deployed encouraged users from foreign-language Wikipedias to use the tool to move articles to en.wiki even when those users didn't speak English. And a lot of the articles were then fixed up into plausible English by people who didn't speak the source language. Unfortunately, this means the algorithm introduced translation errors that nobody has detected yet.
  If you'd like to help, please do start with the BLPs, because I've found some amazing howlers. Feel free to edit that list; the fact that it's in my userspace shouldn't deter you in the slightest.—S Marshall T/C 19:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@S Marshall: I see no issues with Blokdijk (en ik begrijp Nederlands), 1 down, 1199 to go. What do you mean with "mark the affected article with {{translated}} on its talk page (to make the article Terms of Use compliant)"? Like this? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, exactly like that! Thank you. The Terms of Use thing is because translating from one language Wikipedia to another is technically copying within Wikipedia so we have to credit the original authors on the foreign-language wiki for their work. (Strictly speaking there's a lacuna in that procedure, if the foreign-language article gets deleted but we keep ours; the contributors can no longer be identified so we're in breach of our terms of use. It's a rare but not unknown case which I view as an administrative headache rather than an editorial one.)—S Marshall T/C 21:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Unless this discussion reaches consensus on an alternative procedure, I intend to resume my work on this backlog on the basis of the 2017 consensus, which will mean continuing to draftify.—S Marshall T/C 14:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@S Marshall: Can you put this on hold for a few days while I think about alternative procedures? I have a reputation. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• No problem.—S Marshall T/C 20:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• I guess it's unsurprising there haven't been a lot of new ideas here – we have fairly well-established processes for deleting articles, and there doesn't seem to be anything too unusual about these other than there are a lot of them, and not a lot of people want to work on them.
  At this point I'd suggest adding something along the lines of {{Cleanup translation}} to each of these articles, which will provide two functions: (a) place these articles in a tracking category, and (b) advise the reader that the content needs help. Then, as time permits, we can go through each of these articles and nominate the non-notable ones for AfD. I would be willing to help with this process. @S Marshall and Alexis Jazz: is this a workable plan? – bradv🍁 13:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Well, when you say "there doesn't seem to be anything too unusual about these", I don't really agree with you, and I would respectfully refer you to all the excitement in the discussion that I previously linked. There were a lot of longstanding, respected editors in favour of some drastic, prompt and novel actions, and that's why the community used an edit filter to stop any more of these articles being created, and it's why when I (personally) suggested that we invent a new speedy deletion criterion for these, it gained sufficient consensus to be implemented within a few days. Have you read enough of that discussion to understand why?—S Marshall T/C 14:31, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  Perhaps you can explain what I'm missing. From what I can see, there were originally about 3600 articles that needed to be dealt with, and now we're down to 1200. Presumably those aren't the worst offenders, which is why you boldly deprecated the X2 criteria saying it was no longer necessary to speedy-delete these. In the discussion, you yourself objected to draftifying these articles, saying Draftification is exactly the same as deleting them. Nobody is going to fix these up in draft space. So if we can't speedy them, and we can't draftify them, why can't we enlist the readers help in fixing them up, and AfD them as necessary? What am I missing? – bradv🍁 14:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  It boggles the mind that these articles still haven't been tagged as possibly containing faulty translations. That should have been the very first step. – bradv🍁 14:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• You're right to say that there were originally 3,600 and we're down to the last third of them. A lot of the 3,600 were low-hanging fruit, capable of being summarily deleted or promptly removed from the working list. What's left are the edge cases, neither the worst offenders nor the obviously unproblematic; they need to be reviewed by a human. You're also right to say that I thought draftifying them was the wrong call. I'm working with that process now because firstly, that was the consensus, and on Wikipedia the consensus is king even when it's wrong, and secondly, it's an easy way for me to get stuff out of mainspace. If I work the easy way, then there's some prospect of me finishing the job in the next couple of years.
  The problem with AfD is the process. At the time these articles were created, the content translation tool encouraged users to generate machine translations and dump them directly into other-language Wikipedias. If I had a mind, I could do this at the rate of about five or six articles a minute, into any language including ones I don't speak. And people did. The effort involved in AfD is utterly disproportionate. Besides, AfD participants assess for notability and the existence of sources, very few of them have read WP:MACHINETRANSLATION or have the foreign-language fluency necessary to understand why we have that rule. So I send the article to AfD and they go "It's plausible English, there are sources, so you need to go and fix it!" and it all gets thrown back onto my plate, and I'm simply not going to do that any more. You, however, are welcome to go through the list in that way.
  Why can't we enlist readers to help in fixing them up? Well, as I'm sure you know, we don't have that many active editors, and the ones we do have are doing their own volunteer work, much of which is important. This conversation in a highly visible place has led to one (1) volunteer editor checking one (1) article.—S Marshall T/C 15:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@S Marshall: That was just to test the waters..

@Bradv: I like your idea. Do you already know how to tag them? Or do I need to figure that out? Once we have them sorted by source language like that, we can enlist the help from other language wikipedias. Adding the {{translated}} template to all talk pages should be a similar job. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I think Bradv means tagging them with {{cleanup-translation}}, or possibly developing a custom tag for this article category. Have you spent much time on other language Wikipedias? I hope you're able to enlist help from them, but in my experience the culture is very different, and the editors who're willing and able to help with en.wiki translations are all already here.—S Marshall T/C 15:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Have you spent much time on other language Wikipedias? m:Equals sign parser function template conflicts you see. We first need to get these articles sorted by language. (which could be done with {{Cleanup translation}}) I would be happy to go over the entries that originated from nlwiki and we may find others who are willing to do the same for other languages, but we must categorize the articles first before we can effectively enlist help. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 08:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

The languages have been partially populated at WP:AN/CXT/PTR so you can probably get most of that information by cross-referencing. Failing that, the tool links to the source article in the edit summary of the first edit. How do you propose to deal with Bradv's initial question about dealing with the ones that don't belong in mainspace?—S Marshall T/C 10:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Any page created by a computer should not be reviewed by a human before being deleted. You'd think after redirect spam, portal spam, etc., everybody in the community would be on board with the wisdom of "nuke spam on sight" as opposed to "let's go through thousands of semi-automatically-created pages one by one to make sure we don't accidentally delete any precious snowflakes". Draftifying them, which gives 6 months for anyone who wants to to work on them (why doesn't ARS rescue drafts?), seems like a very reasonable compromise position for the remaining batch of borderline computer translations. Lev!vich 16:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• The trouble there is identifying which ones were created by computer, of course. Some editors used the content translation tool exactly as they were supposed to, translating from a language in which they were fluent, checking the machine translation and turning it into idiomatic English before uploading it. Nowadays I automatically pass any article translated by Rosiestep because I've checked enough of hers that I trust her to have done it right. Likewise Endo99 who was quite focused on biographies of female French athletes. We can't just use a bot to depopulate the list, there's too much good stuff there. A human's got to check each one.—S Marshall T/C 18:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Backlog at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection...

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

---

Top of the morning to you all; some help over there would be appreciated. Lectonar (talk) 08:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Removal of patroller right

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

---

Hi admins, can I ask if someone can remove my patroller right. I haven't used it in god knows how long, and probably wont use it in the near future. Thanks Nightfury 11:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nightfury: just to be sure, you no longer want the "new page reviewer" or the "pending changes reviewer" flag? Salvio 11:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Salvio giuliano New page reviewer please. Nightfury 11:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nightfury:  Done. Salvio 11:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Recreation of a deleted shortcut

Someone has taken it upon themselves to recreate an already deleted shortcut, literally one week after it was deleted. I suspect someone wants to bludgeon the process. I request this request be closed down as being done too soon (yes I know consensus can change, but in one week? ) and that this redirect be protected from being re-created for the time being. W.K.W.W.K...^{Toss a coin to the witcher, ye valley of plenty} 11:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 August_4#Cup Foods (closed). Let's let the RfD run its course. Salvio 12:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

User Nishidani

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

---

Nishidani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Dear administrators. I am new here. I don't know how you guys work on fighting hate, haters. On viewing the khazar page, I saw an edit by user Nishidani trying to normalize its myth used by anti-Semites (including the one inspiring others including some who have apologized. In understanding why he would do that I saw in his last edit writing much on the Human Shields page... in his edit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/972379035 he wrote on his revision: "as part of its win the minds and hearts of goys"... - His words. This talk about Jews vs goys is clearly nazi style. Making the world as if it is Jew vs non Jew, supposedly. This gives (twisted) understanding to his edit on Khazar Page too. In asking about it he hinted an intimidation something about previous efforts which I have no idea. Thus the issue: a user that has openly showed his feelings towards ALL JEWS, plus trying to silence ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Khazars#Nishidani_anti_Jewish_trend ) a new user in criticising him. Thanks. Regards. Peace. Adrienis (talk) 13:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Nishdani's edit summary mentioning "goys" is worrying, but might be explained as his view of the IDF materials and not his personal point of view (even though that remains worrying, but a little less). The issue at Talk:Khazars#Nishidani_anti_Jewish_trend is a content issue, and can IMHO be resolved fairly easily. Debresser (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I thought the plural of goy {גוֹי ) was goyim" (גויים). --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I know the plural word...I also know the wording neo Nazis use it... which is why it just shocked me to see such a usage/user with such obvious hate would be allowed on wikipedia. I refer to his views on world vs Jews... not about idf, which I haven't addressed. Though it shows his motivation and point of view on anything related to ANY JEWS. The middle east is not the subject of this discussion. But neo Nazi trend is. By now? The issue is overall hatred not even kahzar nor middleast.Adrienis (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Content dispute? Pointing out faultiness of source of reverted content? There was a prior thread. Needs looking at. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Should I revert his edit at kahzar (myth, amazingly still pushed even after DNA proof against it) page which he reverted again trying to rationalize it...? It is not about content dispute. But hatred and its motivation in editing vs honesty and sincerity. Plus. Isn't there any guideline on wikipedia against a campaigner clearly using content and (editing/removing/adding etc.) as an attack on entire race, creed, etc.?Adrienis (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Adrienis, you forgot to notify the user. That step is not optional. I have done this for you. --Yamla (talk) 15:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I have edited the section heading above to remove the word 'hatred'. User:Adrienis should be aware of our policy on WP:TALKHEADPOV, "Never use headings to attack other users". EdJohnston (talk) 15:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Yamla. I tried to, but his talk page is "protected". It seems.Adrienis (talk) 15:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I'm still learning.Adrienis (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear Yamla. Nashidi saw my message on kahzar talk page. Though I didn't revert his latest edit. Adrienis (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

To deeofrieddorka. Here is an example of this preferred (mistaken) usage by fascists : From ADL: which they refer to using derogatory terms such as soy goys But the problem is of course the entire view of the non-Hews vs All Jews trend/campaign.Adrienis (talk) 15:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC) If I haven't mentioned it. Asides from motivation in editing and being on an attack, apparently using wikipedia as part of an overall goal. The issue is also about of promoting a HATRED ideology on wiki.Adrienis (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Strikes me as a somewhat ridiculous overreaction. Personally I always though goy simply meant "non-Jew", full stop. I'd use it like pākehā in the appropriate circumstances. Slow down a bit on the wild accusations? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• elmidae, Please see it again for what it really is. Not just about "using" the word at all. But: 1. Twisted ideology of usage to portray the world as "world of ALL non-Jews vs Jews". 2. The specific use 'goys' with the S at the end. Only used by fascists. Though not the only use by them.Adrienis (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay this odd confluence of two newbie editors who should not be touching I/P articles threatening me here and on my talk page, now find their attitude supported by an established editor whose edit summary indicates he did not read what I wrote (Norman Finkelstein's book demolished the hasbara theory of Hamas and human shields accusations, and that is RS - rendering all contemporary newspaper coverage void of meaning). I guess I'll have to delay cooking and waste a half an hour pulling these lunatic accusations apart. Iwas told in November last year by Safety and Trust to expect provocations this year, as a coordinated attempt to rid Wikipedia of people like myself for being, yeah 'anti-Israel'. So I guess I'll have to delay cooking and waste a half an hour pulling these lunatic accusations apart. Nishidani (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• In other words. What Nishidani stated in the original https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/972379035 is that we all Non-Jews of the world won't get fooled... Middle east politics is not the issue here (which is why I haven't touched the subject) one shouldn't mask it' under so called "politics". But that twisted ideology is the issue. Which explains his push for khazar myth among other things.Adrienis (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Background: When I made that edit, I was mostly engaged in reading Ishay Rosen-Zvi’s 'Pauline Traditions and the Rabbis: Three Case Studies,' Harvard Theological Review 110 (2017): 169–194. So I eliminated it with the edit summary:

(All of that propaganda was dismantled by several studies since the end of the war, and was definitively buried by Norman Finkelstein's 2018 analysis of the Israeli lies. Contemporary newspapers only represent news feeds from the IDF as part of its win the minds and hearts of goys, and has no place here

The allusion in the edit summary is to Norman Finkelstein, Gaza: An Inquest Into Its Martyrdom. University of California Press, 2018 978-0-520-29571-1 pp.69ff., who cites evidence showing that the massive amount of foreign IDF echo-reportage about Hamas’s putative use of human shields was dismantled by post-war research, by organizations like Amnesty International. It was pure foreign-directed hasbara (which one of these editors, and now Shrike, wants to put back in.

Goy?

Why did I write goy there? Because I paused from reading the article by Ishay Rosen-Zvi to glance at wikipedia and saw a ridiculous edit on Hamas and human shields.

Ishay Rosen-Zvi, together with Adi Ophir, wrote a few years back a very important book, Goy: Israel's Multiple Others and the Birth of the Gentile, Oxford University Press, 2018 978-0-191-06234-6. Since reading books is something rarely done these days, I guess the best summary will have to be from a Haaretz review:

In Israel, too, identification with the nation-state overcomes the traditional taboo against exogamy. This is done not in concurrence with the liberal ethos, but by basing Jewish identity on nationalism and on the national struggle. Here we can see that when non-Jews, according to halakha (immigrants under the Law of Return), participate in the struggle against non-Jews according to halakha and to nationality (Muslim Arabs), they are accepted into the community of the Israeli nation, and hence are considered Jews for the purposes of friendship, communal life and marriage. Indeed, when the fact that halakha prohibits their burial next to people who are considered Jews by the Rabbinate is (re)discovered by the media, public outrage ensues. Partnership in the Israeli national project is enough to turn them into non-goyim. Tomer Persico,'How the Jews Invented the Goy,' Haaretz 9 November 2019.

I grew up reading all major writers I could lay my hands on, which meant also the likes of Philip Roth and Isaac Bashevis Singer, where, following standard usage in Yiddish, it is a normal infra-Ashkenazi term for non-Jews. Any student of Israeli politics will immediately recall the verbal bunfights between a self-confident Ben-Gurion, whose line was to ignore what goyim thought, and the Foreign Minister of the day Moshe Sharett, with his ‘deeply rooted Jewish distrust of goyim’, always getting the MFA to fuss over how Israel’s case was to be presented to foreigners.Denying that the term is extremely widespread in Jewish and Israeli-Hebrew usage is disingenuous, or smacks of unfamiliarity.

Singer in an interview once made a thought experiment imagining

what it would be like “ if we would have , now , here , a goy who would write in Yiddish ... we would say , “ What are you doing writing in Yiddish , why don ' t you go back to the goyim , we don ' t need you.’ Paul Kresh, Isaac Bashevis Singer, the Magician of West 86th Street: A Biography, Dial Press, 1979 p.349

My formal studies once showed how an immense amount of conversation in countries whose languages are not thought to be easy for outsiders (Japan/China) use terms which, in translation or officialize, are systematically elided, erased. The same thing is going on in this disgruntlement at the use of ‘goy(im)’: it is put over that only antisemitic Nazis use it, when it is a term thoroughly domesticated in Jewish usage (and I can see no harm in that). Every day every orthodox Jew will thank god for not being a goy (she-lo asani goy). That is none of my business, and is perfectly legitimated by tradition. The harm arises in pretending that is not the case.Nishidani (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Kedrick Brown

has been hijacked and rewritten. Can someone handle that please (split or discard)? Cheers, --Achim (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done - restored old version - will start new draft and invite Kdb0152 (talk · contribs) to edit there. Ed talk! 18:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Btw Achim55, in future you can go to the page history and use a tool like Twinkle or RedWarn to quickly restore it and warn the offending party. Ed talk! 18:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

WTF is going on here? Kdb0152 is a WP:SPA and likely connected to the the questionably-notable actor. The user subsequently moved the article to Albert Kedrick Brown (I moved it back because Kedrick Brown appears to be the common name). The content that Kdb0152 is adding includes: "Houston made and Littlerock raised, actor Kedrick Brown is making major waves in Hollywood. This talented actor is catching the attention of major network execs, directors and producers throughout the film and television world. Brown began acting at the age of twelve. He graduated from Midland Robert E. Lee High School as an UIL All Star Cast Member and decided to further his acting training after being convinced by his Theatre Arts teacher. Brown then went on to earn his Bachelor of Arts in theater from the University of North Texas and trained in the University of Houston’s M.F.A. program with a focus in acting". That is... differently neutral. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I think a user is following me

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

---

There is a user that has an uncanny ability to show up on almost any page I edit, even on pages I create. This is user frequently reverts my edits, often leaving little explanations which frustrates me. I don't know how the wiki rules work exactly and I don't want to accuse anyone for no reason. So can some administrator have a look at this and tell me if I'm "just seeing things" and/or if this is part of normal editing? Can I pm someone the name of the user? ImTheIP (talk) 06:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) ImTheIP, this is known as WikiHounding - you can email me the name of the user and I can take a look if you wish and I'll update this thread accordingly - Special:EmailUser/Ed6767 Ed talk! 09:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Context:The accused party is Aroma Stylish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - both ImTheIP (talk · contribs) and Aroma Stylish (talk · contribs) predominantly edit in the Israel Palestine space, which is controversial and is covered by WP:ARBPIA, violations of which Aroma Stylish has been blocked for in the past [24]. Aroma Stylish has been subject to one AN/3 thread here.

Editor interactions: Interaction timeline

• Prior to 10th July, these users never interacted. The first major edit correlation I can see occured on 17th July on 2015–2016 wave of violence in Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There were then further interactions on Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. They had a direct and civil discussion at Talk:Palestinian_prisoners_of_Israel#Removal_by_ImTheIP. Entering August, their interactions become suspiciously close together, with oftentimes there being less than 15 mins between edits when prior to this there were hours between them. However, at this time there is not enough evidence for me to say Wikihounding took place, but the closeness of their revisions certainly raises concern. I invite both parties to discuss. Ed talk! 13:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not "following him". As I explained him before, I have over 5,000 articles in my watchlist, most of them related to Jewish and Israeli topics. He is a heavy ARBPIA editor and it's not surprising that ocasionally his edits are challenged by myself and others. However, I usually don't have a problem with his editing, which tends to focus on making texts more concise and tidy. I have an issue when he deletes information without warning in the talk page or edit summary.--Aroma Stylish (talk) 15:21, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Diffs, please. Grandpallama (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• I'd recommend a no fault, two way IBAN as a first step, probably as a discretionary sanction under ARBPIA. We should AGF on both sides---ImTheIP finds the behavior inappropriate and Aroma Stylish doesn't intend their edits to be distressing---but regardless of that, whatever is going on needs to stop before it continues to escalate. The solution it seems is for them to take a break from each other, and a time-limited IBAN seems like it would accomplish that effectively. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Ed6767 for investigating. My intent was not to cause grief to a fellow newbie wiki user. As there is no evidence of bad behavior I withdraw my compalint.ImTheIP (talk) 22:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

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

• Follow-up: Aroma Stylish blocked as a sock of יניב הורון. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

TheDonald.win

• TheDonald.win (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I just increased protection for this from sprot to full protection for the duration of the ongoing AfD due to revert warring by WP:SPAs apparently driven by the forum itself. I'm mentioning it here for two reasons: first, the meatfest at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TheDonald.win, and second, I removed some unsourced material yesterday - I have no edits prior to reviewing it yesterday following a noticeboard thread but if anyone thinks that my protection should be undone or changed per WP:INVOLVED, please feel free. Maybe ECP or PC would be better? I don't know. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) JzG, ECP would be better here IMO. A quick MAT scan shows a majority of disruptive editors on this article are not extended confirmed. An indef semi may be warranted (alike to r/The_Donald) given the nature of the article. Ed talk! 13:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

For reference, here are some threads I've found re this article: [25] [26]. It looks like the article was actually created by article community members, however, I cannot comment on who per WP:OUTING. Ed talk! 13:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Ed6767, makes sense, done. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I closed the AfD, since it was about 12 hours past the normal run time. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Very good close. I had looked at it, although I wasn't looking to close it myself, and came to the exact same conclusion you did. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Please block for longer

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

---

This is disturbing, please remove talkpage access and block for way longer. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:85.103.40.125&oldid=972725253 --BlueCrabRedCrab 14:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

BlueCrabRedCrab, WP:999. Read the page notice. Ed talk! 14:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I've rev-del'd the offending edits, and contacted the Emergency email, as per WP:999. If something like this comes up again, as it says in the warning box above when you post, reach out to an admin privately, or email the Oversight team. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Block extended. All edits revdeleted. El_C 17:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

El_C already knows this, but when someone is using an IP address for only a few hours (at most), making a block really really long is not going to make any difference to anything. Hence, I have blocked:

• 85.103.0.0/18 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and
• 85.108.128.0/18 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

for 2 weeks. I don't have time right now to follow this up properly, but I would recommend a trawl through these contribs, and perhaps check for others. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I feel it's best to err on the side of severity when it comes to attacks of such a serious nature. (Also, I blocked an IP range yesterday for 3 years, so to call 3 months "really really long," well, that's a relative premise.) El_C 01:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you all, esp. you, zzuuzz--I saw earlier today there was an edit on that article and was struck by the title, but was busy doing something else; now I wish I had followed up immediately. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Article about Kamala Harris in "The Atlantic"

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

---

Just a head's up that there will probably be even more interest in her page, since this article came out today. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 20:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Her father's Jamaican & her mother's Indian, so how is she an African-American. Something for greater minds to ponder. GoodDay (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

GoodDay, one of those greater minds would be Sen. Harris's mother, then. I am sorry if all this is too complex. From what I understand there's those who claim she's not African-American because she's not descended of enslaved people. By analogy, that would suggest you're only White American if your ancestors were on the Mayflower? It's a ridiculous claim. Someone who has African ancestry and is born and raised in America, such a person can legitimately be called...yes, African American, which is apparently what she calls herself, and which certainly is what reliable sources call her. So, GoodDay, you can either accept that, or you can be like one of these people screaming on Facebook that VIRUSES ARE SO SMALL THEY CAN'T BE CAUGHT BY A FACEMASK, as if they are experts. BTW Donald Harris has US citizenship, it seems, which makes me wonder how your "Her father's Jamaican" is to be taken. See? Drmies (talk) 01:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, THAT'S going to leave a mark. --Calton | Talk 01:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

But, did they pronounce her name correctly? I guess I'm not a greater mind as I don't even understand this human constructed concept of "race". We are all mutts. But, if we are going to divvy up people by "breed", yeah, she's African-American. And pure breeds tend to have more mental/physical ailments. This is going to be one ugly election. O3000 (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

O3000, I'd really appreciate it if you didn't do the "breed" thing in a context where chattel slavery was a thing. I'm sure you actually do understand the concept of "race", and yes it really matters. Drmies (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Drmies, apologies. Whole thing really pisses me off. It's 2020 and racism is becoming more of a problem instead of less. But, I did have a sense this morning that I went too far. O3000 (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, if reading that article taught me anything, it's that we all need to proofread our comments better. The number of [sic]s is just embarrassing. Lev!vich 01:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Although the notification about the Atlantic article is OK, this noticeboard is not a place to debate article content (use the article talk page) or to debate current events (try social media). Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

My name wasn't mentioned in the article, so how exciting can it be? ... Drmies (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

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

2020 Bangalore riots

Riots / violence that took place recently in the city of Bangalore. This article is getting the same level of attention and vandalism as 2020 Delhi riots, considering how OpIndia (RSP entry) has written about it today. Tons of off-wiki canvassing already happening, regarding both pages. SerChevalerie (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Woody has bumped the article to ECP, that should help. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Need a close

We need an uninvolved and fairly patient admin to read through Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#E-960 and close it. There are some options: let it go with a self-imposed ban on "Religion" topics, let it go altogether!, or impose a community-supported topic ban in an area to be determined (there are some options). Thank you, Drmies (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Wugapodes, thank you so much. Drmies (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

my account has not been automatically

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

---

Sorry, even though 4 days have passed since my account was created and I had more than 10 edits, but my account has not been automatically verified yet. Please do it for me.--Biliards Player (talk) 05:31, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Biliards Player, four full days (96 hours) have not passed yet. They will very soon. When you posted the above, less than 95 hours had passed since your account was created. Softlavender (talk) 06:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

(EC) @Billards Player:} Created on 11 August 2020 at 06:33) current time is 06:21 as per my signature and you posted at 05:31 as per your signature. So no it has not been 4 days. When we say four days when mean 4 days, not 3 days 22 hours. Nil Einne (talk) 06:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne:} So why did I have 4 full days in my account?--Biliards Player (talk) 06:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Biliards Player: you don't. You would only have 4 days at 06:33 and the current time is 06:25. Nil Einne (talk) 06:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Biliards Player: You have not yet had four full days in your account. That will happen in about 10 minutes. Softlavender (talk) 06:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Thank you very much for your help.--Biliards Player (talk) 06:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

For the future (more for SL/NE), there are some places where time passage is rounded (e.g. on mobile for time since last edit). I expect that is the case hereand it really was displaying as 4 days for this user. --Izno (talk) 06:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Block review request

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

---

Govvy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm requesting a review of 331dot's block of Govvy. The block is based on the rev-delled edit summary that accompanied this diff. While I confess that I have not seen the edit summary, it was at least partially described here. I would appreciate it if some uninvolved admins would review the editsum and then, in light of the following context, give their input as to whether a two-week block was appropriate for an editor who had not been blocked for more than 24 hours since 2007.

Here is the context: SchroCat arbitrarily removed an infobox from Nick Wilton without citing any policy to justify the removal [27] and he subsequently edit-warred to enforce his removal without ever taking the dispute to the article's talk page [28], [29]. Another editor, Back ache, raised the matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, where a lively discussion has ensued. In the course of that discussion, there was some unpleasantness between Govvy, SchroCat, and Cassianto, including a moment where Govvy regrettably called SchroCat a 'weird one'. Eventually, Govvy opened an ANI thread that was closed after going nowhere [30]. After the thread was closed, Govvy commented beneath the discussion to express his dismay [31], leading to a brief edit war with SchroCat [32]. While editors are not supposed to post to closed discussions, it happens freqeuntly and there is no consistent enforcement of the rules in this regard. In this instance, admin 331dot showed up at Govvy's talk page to warn him against posting to a closed discussion [33]. A little bit later, SchroCat also showed up to lecture Govvy and accuse him of being petulant [34]. This was completely unnecessary as 331dot had already warned Govvy about posting to a closed discussion, and one could reasonably construe SchroCat's post as a form of baiting. Govvy was then blocked for the edit summary that he used while removing SchroCat's post.

The block is particularly dubious given that a blatant instance of incivility by one of the involved parties has been completely ignored. I would appreciate it greatly if an uninvolved admin would review this diff in which SchroCat refered to me as a waste of space. If it is not immediately clear from the context that SchroCat was referring to me, please scroll up within the diff to the thread mentioned above and you'll see the exchange between myself and SchroCat. You can see from the chronology that following the closure of Govvy's thread, SchroCat moved down to a separate thread that had nothing to do with me and personally attacked me while making an unrelated comment. While I cannot read the edit summary that led to Govvy's block, I would be very interested to know whether it rose to the level of calling a fellow editor a 'waste of space'. In light of this diff and SchroCat's baiting behavior at Govvy's talk page, I am requesting that they be warned that such behavior will not be tolerated in the future. I would have been willing to overlook the attack against me, but not after SchroCat bullied Govvy into getting himself blocked.

To summarize, SchroCat is Editor A, Govvy is Editor B, and I am Editor C. Editor A baits Editor B and attacks Editor C. When Editor B lashes out in response, 331dot blocks Editor B for two weeks and doesn't say a word to Editor A. Something about that just doesn't sit right with me. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

SchroCat reverted my notification with the following edit summary: Bugger off. I am utterly disinterested in people who spend so much time in trying to get other people blocked. Anyone who reads my post can see that I am asking for a block review and a warning; I'm not asking for anyone to be blocked. But given what we know about the edit summary for which Govvy was blocked, I would be interested to know if it really was any worse than this. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Good block, though perhaps the duration could have been shorter. Would be open to shortening it in response to a productive appeal. As to the rest of your post, please see WP:NOTTHEM. ST47 (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

NOTTHEM applies to an appeal by the blocked editor. I'm not the blocked editor, nor is this really an appeal. I'm simply trying to present the full context, which shows that there was fault on both sides. I'd like to understand why one editor was blocked two weeks for an uncivil edit summary on their own talk page while the other editor attacked me on a public noticeboard in a thread that had nothing to do with me and didn't even get a warning. NOTTHEM doesn't explain that level of inconsistency. It's a fair question and I want a fair answer. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I appear to have gotten myself into a deeper mess than I intended to. The sequence of events from my point of view is that I noticed the addition of a post to a closed discussion, which I reverted. I then politely asked Govvy to not post to a closed discussion. They then inquired as to what I meant, and I told them. Govvy then told me that they had every right to do that. I then explained that what they did was disruptive and encouraged them to drop the stick. They responded that (among other things) they were "pissed off" and felt that ANI got something wrong. I didn't know what that meant and didn't know that there was a larger dispute at work here, I was only responding to the disruption of adding to a closed discussion. I then saw SchroCat's post to Govvy which again, I was not aware of the essence of the larger dispute but in hindsight I can see how such a post might not have been wise. Govvy then responded with an f-bomb laden personal attack which I found to be wholly inappropriate for any civil discourse and decided to block. 2 weeks was a judgement call but I felt given the belligerent nature of Govvy's posts that the length was warranted.

I've offered on their user talk page to remove the block if they would merely acknowledge that they acted inappropriately, but given this response they don't seem to want to do that. That only leads me to conclude that I was correct with the length of the block. If I was supposed to conduct an hours long FBI-level investigation of the entire matter before acting in response to an uncivil personal attack, then I will take my lumps. This is why I haven't addressed the conduct of others, because it did not seem pertinent. Again, if that was wrong, I'll accept that. 331dot (talk) 19:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Nothing bad about this block, whatsoever. I wish more admins would use this level of common sense. Cassianto^Talk 19:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
• This review request by Lepricavark is out of order and should not be taken up. Only the blocked editor, which Lepricavark is not, may appeal their block. Sandstein 19:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  As I noted above, this is not an appeal. This is a request for uninvolved admins to review the full context and take appropriate action (which or may not include an unblock). Mackensen is exactly right that this was a case of the referee catching the retaliation and not dealing with the instigator. The solution is not for you to shrug your shoulders and refuse to do anything because the wrong person pointed it out. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  Lepricavark, use as many ambiguous words as you like, it's an appeal in all but name. Cassianto^Talk 21:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  I'll stick with my own interpretation of my own motives, thanks. Maybe I should remind you to AGF. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  Lepricavark, no need. I don't assume good faith with people like you. You have only one motive, and that's to disrupt. Cassianto^Talk 22:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  Right. I've donated hours of my life to doing menial, gnoming work that nobody else wants to do because all I care about is creating disruption. No, my track record isn't really relevant. All that matters is that I've done something you don't like, so I couldn't possibly be here in good faith. You need to get it through your skull that it's possible for somebody to disagree with you in good faith. Maybe I can't write articles as well as you can, but that doesn't give you the right to spit in my face every time I say something you don't like. You are a bully. SchroCat is a bully. It's a sad indictment on this community that the two of you have been permitted to get away with your bullying for so long simply because you have enough friends to back you up. Clearly, Govvy doesn't have the right friends, so I guess he'll have to sit out an excessive block unless he says what the blocking admin says he has to say. But if someone were to actually block you, Cassianto, the block would be lifted within a matter of hours. And so you'll just keep on bullying people indefinitely and most of them will just put up with it because they know it's not worth the trouble to take it to ANI and watch you get away with it again. That is, until one day you insult the wrong person and they decide it's worth the time and effort to open an ArbCom case. Then you're probably screwed. But until then, carry on bullying people, I guess. Doesn't look like anyone here cares enough to do anything about it. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Absolutely a warranted block for the comments made. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
• The block was a little harsh. This wasn't one-sided. ~ HAL333 20:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  HAL333, is there a reason why you're stalking SchroCat and I? Not content with having already been warned about this, on these very pages, you continue with this creepy behaviour here and now at this thread. Is it merely a coincidence that you find yourself at this two pages - poles apart from each other's area of interest? I would strongly suggest you stop. Now. Cassianto^Talk 21:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  Excuse me? This was posted to a public noticeboard. How HAL333 found out about it is none of your business. Again, follow the advice you tried to shove down my throat yesterday and AGF. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  Lepricavark, keep your nose out. It has nothing to do with you. Cassianto^Talk 22:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  Cassianto It has nothing to do with you either. Did I mention you or Schrocat in my comment? In case you haven't realized the world doesn't revolve around you. Please assume good faith. ~ HAL333 22:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  HAL333, you don't have to mention us. You post at the same venues, and that is enough. Cassianto^Talk 22:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  @Cassianto, Lepricavark, and HAL333: cool it. There is no need to be uncivil. Cassianto, please don't make personal attacks towards other editors, including calling them "disruptive" and not assuming good faith. You also made a comment below attacking an IP editor, who's points are just as valid for discussion here as ours are (see WP:BITING). You all know better. Thanks. Ed talk! 22:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  Cassianto, so far, you've issued a blatant personal attack against me and accused another editor of stalking because they dared to post on a highly-visible message board. It's clear that you've successfully derailed my thread and it will probably be closed down soon. Might want to stop before you go too far and some admin decides to treat NPA as more than a mere suggestion. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  Cassianto I'm sorry I didn't realize this was your "venue". I only commented about Govvy, and even deprecated my statement with the edit summary "My two cents". But since you are so desperate to make this about you, I have added my view of your conduct below. ~ HAL333 22:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• This is a good illustration of the principle that the referee always catches the retaliation, not the original incident. So it goes. I probably can't be considered uninvolved, given that in the past decade I've expressed strong views on the infobox question, but Cassianto is already on infobox probation and his comments to Redrose64 and others at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography would, in my view, warrant a further enforcement block under that case or an outright topic ban given the general unhelpful and unpleasant nature of his contributions in that area. Mackensen (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
• Block was warranted, but a bit long. I also agree with Sandstein that we shouldn’t be reviewing this without an appeal from Govvy. If he were to make an appeal, I’d possibly suggest shortening the length of the block or unblocking depending on the content. The reason having an appeal is needed in most cases is because this wasn’t a flagrant abuse of discretion and there actually was an underlying issue. It makes no sense to lift a block without an appeal if there’s actually something to the block. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  TonyBallioni, I was hoping that this thread would establish that the block, even if justified, was too long. Govvy hasn't been blocked for personal attacks since 2007; there was no need to jump straight to two weeks. Sure, it's Govvy's fault that he got blocked, but it's not Govvy's fault that the block was too long. You should be able to resolve the part that isn't Govvy's fault regardless of what Govvy does or doesn't do. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  There’s a good reason we typically don’t like third-party threads. They typically create more heat than light and usually end with people on different sides of the underlying dispute fighting with one another. I agree that I’d probably shorten the block, but I don’t really see a good reason to do that when Govvy hasn’t asked in an appeal. There’s nothing really egregious here, so I think we can wait on that and handle it through the normal unblock process, which in my opinion is usually less intense and more productive than AN. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  It's not entirely a third-party thread. I was involved in a pair of related discussions and was targeted by the same user that baited Govvy. This wouldn't have been necessary at all if more of an effort had been made to enforce NPA in a consistent, even-handed manner. Speaking of which, I'm still waiting for an admin to acknowledge the existence of SchroCat's PA against me. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  This is about where I fall.

  I think that the edit summary in question was absolutely a personal attack.

  Would I have blocked for that length? I probably would not have.

  Do I believe that the block was abusive, or outside of discretion? Not at all.

  Do I believe that the block was preventative, and not punitive? I do. In my opinion, this is evidenced by 331dot's comment: I would be happy to remove the block if they concede that their actions were inappropriate (I don't seek an apology, just an acknowledgement) and agree to better control themselves in the future. They are also free to make an unblock request for someone else to review this. 331dot (talk) 15:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  As of the time of this comment, no unblock request has been initiated. SQL^{Query me!} 00:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

How is Govvy suppose to post here if he blocked?? Also from what I understand isn’t all Cassianto posts a conflict of interest if he was one of the original people involved in the conflict? There are more issues than the block, however the instigation should be warned away also. 2A01:4C8:60:F0CE:75C6:FC17:FB89:BCFB (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

If you want people to take your comments seriously, why don't you log yourself in, rather than hide behind an anonymously IP address? Cassianto^Talk 22:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

IP, your comments should and will be taken seriously and are just as valid as a logged-in editor's comments Ed talk! 22:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Ed6767: They will be taken seriously only if the editor is a true IP, and not an editor with an account who has logged out to comment, I believe that is the meaning of Cassianto's comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I am just a Tottenham fan, I’ve rarely done an edit on Wikipedia, I just read a lot, I know Govvy because his name always pops up on those articles. That is all. 2A01:4C8:60:F0CE:75C6:FC17:FB89:BCFB (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Looks like the length is excessive. Not going to comment on the block itself but I see no reason for a two week duration when their is practically no history of issues. I would probably recommend 24-36 hours for a first offense in over a decade. PackMecEng (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
• I'll have to agree with Mackensen. Cassianto's violation of his probation merits a enforcement block or at least a reprimand. ~ HAL333 22:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  HAL333, I think this might be what you're looking for, specifically the part that says "The user under probation may also participate in wider policy discussions regarding infoboxes with no restriction.". Check the facts before you type. It makes you look more informed. Happy editing! Cassianto^Talk 06:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Unblock - Here's what I saw happen: Govvy is bullied, complains about it, the thread is shut down, his post is deleted, and he's told to drop the stick about his bullying complaint. He's bullied some more, lashes out, and ends up blocked for two weeks. Ridickulous. Lev!vich 22:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  I saw this as a possibility too, and given the behaviour of another editor in this thread is causing me to become more inclined to this viewpoint. Govvy has got the message. In this case, I don't think there's much further disruption on his part that couldn't be resolved with a conditional unblock or a shorter block. Or, maybe Govvy should just enjoy a 2-week summer break? The weather is nice. Ed talk! 22:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  I can't see the revdel'd edit summary so assuming it warranted a block (and everyone who can see it seems to agree that it did), I would say unblock as "time served". Two weeks is too much for what seems to be an isolated offense, particularly given the provocation. Lev!vich 23:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  It basically just said F off. We've seen that type of language go unsanctioned thousands of times. I'm not sure why it was particularly so much worse in this case as to warrant a 2 week block. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  I would only like to say that the edit summary consisted of more than F off, it also called the other user a F****** A******, in all caps. 331dot (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  How is that "fuck off" and "fucking asshole" = 2 weeks, but "dick" = nothing, and complaining about "dick" = warning to drop the stick? I find this to be intolerably unfair. Lev!vich 23:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  I've given my explanation of my decision above. I considered the immediate problem in front of me. 331dot (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, that is what I find intolerably unfair. The immediate problem in front of you was bullying. Lev!vich 00:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

  Sorry, but this is a ridiculous summary. The initial unpleasant behavior in all this was Govvy's, and when it generated an unpleasant response Govvy went to ANI to whine about it. That didn't work because duh. Govvy dealt with that by whining and being unpleasant to some more people. Possibly there are multiple people who could reasonably be warned or blocked as a result of this story, but it's not a story about Govvy being unfairly bullied. --JBL (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

  Don't forget about 'waste of space'. Seems just as bad as what Govvy said, but I still can't get anyone to even acknowledge that it was said. Of course, Govvy's attack was directly provoked whereas SchroCat's remark about me was made on a thread that had nothing to do with either one of us. I keep pointing this out, but it's as if nobody can see it. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  Does an F*** Off usually warrant a block or ANI discussion? It doesn't qualify as a PA, right? I've been subjected to those kind of attacks before and just want to know for future reference. (I'm a relative newcomer; I've been here for less than 3 years.) Thanks! ~ HAL333 23:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  Not usually. I got a similar response from SchroCat when I notified him of this thread. I think it was the other half of Govvy's edit summary that went too far. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  I think he had every right to be pissed, but it's still out of line, yet as an isolated incident, it still didn't exactly warrant a 14-day block IMO given the comment was said mostly in the heat of the moment in my view. However, it's hard to interpret exactly what was said given the wide range of potentially offensive words that begin with F and the same with words that begin with A. Ed talk! 23:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• The edit summary in question is Reverted 1 edit by SchroCat (talk): FUCK OFF AND LEAVE ME ALONE YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE, (TW) I think the revdel was fine (though I usually don’t revdel cursing) and again, a block of some length was warranted, but there’s no reason not to have it public either while we have a thread on it. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
• Unblock the lad & let's walk away from a cancel culture environment. As for the aforementioned edit summary? throw it at me, as I've had worst thrown at me, in my near 15 years on Wikipedia. Let's get back to the topic of infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

GoodDay As I stated, I have offered to unblock if the user would acknowledge that their behavior was inappropriate(I don't seek an apology, just an acknowledgement) but the user doesn't seem interested in that. 331dot (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The ball is in his court then. BTW, who's the IP in this discussion? GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

GoodDay, it's not "cancel culture", it's core Wikipedia policy. Whether or not the block was excessive is another matter. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

That there's no edit-warring is what's important. Editors cussing at each other in discussion or through edit-summaries? we can survive that. The policy WP:CIVIL, has several interpretations. GoodDay (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Unblock I concur with Levivich's summary. It's plain to see that this situation has not been handled evenly. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. I have no opinion about the validity or the duration of the block, but I want to comment on the point raised by Sandstein. There's nothing procedurally improper about this block review thread, and there is no procedural requirement for a review/appeal by the blocked user. An unblock request is a separate procedure and that one indeed can only be requested by the blocked user. We have a formal and well defined process for that. Here at WP:AN the community can review any admin action by any admin, including a block, an unblock, protection, deletion, whatever. That's what WP:AN is for and such community block reviews are done here all the time, often at the request of the blocking admin in fact. Nsk92 (talk) 00:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Unblock I think Govvy gets the point. I trust that they'll be a little more restrained next time. ~ HAL333 00:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

  Based on what do you think that? --JBL (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Looking at the interactions between these editors, what's obvious to me is that they don't play nicely together and it's best for everyone if they're separated. The 14-day block of Govvy might have been a bit strong in context; but if we unilaterally rescind the block without doing anything else, then nothing gets better. Maybe ibans are the right tool here.—S Marshall T/C 01:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

  That is overly simplistic. We don't deal with bullying by punishing the bully and the victim alike. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I am wondering if Govvy simply left in disgust over what he felt was 'sanctioned bullying' by SchroCat and others. 331dot readily admitted that he was blocking for the immediate issue without having investigated the underlying one. It does appear that Govvy was simply pushed too far. I completely understand that level of frustration, and think that Cassianto's non-AGF commentary here (referring to a pretty generic edit as 'creepy' pretty much poisons the well against the person calling out his behavior).

I literally have no dog in this fight; I haven't interacted with any of the participants and am looking at this as a 'what-makes-wiki-en-work best' situation. On the surface, this looks like a 'more light than heat' discussion, but it really isn't. It focuses on our treatment of one another and the inherent fairness with which we base our editing on; AGF, consensus, etc.
Cassianto straight-up should have not said anything here, as all the user had to contribute was rancor and name-calling, and that accomplishes nothing. Govvy has likely left the building feeling he was treated shoddily. He lost his temper and was justifiably blocked for it. Why he was blocked as long as he was by 331dot is anyone's guess, but the apprehension noted at shortening it without the user - who's had a far cleaner block record than most of us here have - smacks of a fair amount of at the least not wanting to rock the boat or, at worst, simple cowardice at not owning up to a systemic failure of the blocking protocol.
Shorten the block and let the user know its been shortened. The guy was over-punished. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• 331dot has said that Govvy only need say the edit summary was inappropriate to be unblocked. 331dot did not stipulate that Govvy must agree with the block or say that it was fair. As that's the kind of language Govvy went to ANI to protest in the first place, seeing that edit summary as unacceptable should be straightforward (which, again, doesn't mean the block was necessarily fair). Govvy, maybe you can say "only blocking me was an unfair way to address the situation, but I admit what I said in the edit summary was inappropriate," then 331dot can unblock as offered, and we can all move onto other things while lamenting our collective failure to be consistent with regard to civility enforcement (something which isn't intended as a criticism of this block in particular [indeed, I'd also add lamentations for the headache any admin has to go through for making such a block, good or bad], but a more general statement). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian, then why was I pinged? Cassianto^Talk 06:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Cassianto Does pinging mean your input is required? My outsider's view was that you didn't add something constructive to the discussion, and it was better off without it. This isn't a slam as to your other contributions or a sideways glance at your block log; it was an evaluation of your comments here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• I am bowing out of this time sink. I am not participating in something where I am being openly called "a bully" for responding to a ping by offering my view, and calling out an editor (who has already previously been warned for wiki stalking and admitted it). I apologise if I've said anything others have found to be "bullish", but if you don't want my opinion then don't ask for it by notifying me of such discussions and then complain when I respond to a comment that had me mentioned in it. This will be coming off my watch list and any further ping by the agitators will be considered WP:HARASSMENT. I hope you all solve the issue. Oh, and FWIW, although I'm thankful to 331dot for issuing a sound block (despite all this "cancel culture" nonsense people have been mentioning) I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt and say reduce block. If Govvy can then show that they understand that incivility is not a one-way street and that they should treat others how they expect to be treated themselves, then I'm not opposed to an eventual unblock. Cassianto^Talk 06:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Do not unblock AFAIK, we do not do third party unblock requests. Govvy has not requested unblock as yet. Govvy has been informed of the conditions for an unblock before the current block expires. While I might not have blocked for as long, I trust TonyBallioni's judgment and do not find the block excessive or abusive. I look forward to Govvy's return, but not quite yet. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Since some here have said the block was too long, I have reduced it to a week. My offer to unblock immediately should Govvy do as requested still stands. 331dot (talk) 07:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

And I think that was a good move on your part. If and when Govvy is done licking their wounded ego, I hope they take you up on your offer and take the advice you offered to heart. If that same type of incivility pops up again, there won't be anyone defending them. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Now that Govvy has had time to sleep on this, hopefully they'll make a sincere unblock request. Without that, I don't think there's a lot to be done here, although the length of the block does seem a bit harsh. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

  Not really. The block is marked by 331 for immediate revocation as and when Govvy accepts that their personal attacks that led to the block were unacceptable. If they continue to refuse to do that after having 24 hours to calm down, it represents a rather worrying judgement issue and I would say the week's block is appropriate for that.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I had a discussion with Govvy about PAs back in March - I'm on mobile, diffs aren't easy, but it's in the Archive 6 of my talk, search for his name. I really tried to get him to accept that PAs, even 'mild' ones, aren't on, and asked him for a clear statement that he understood that and wouldn't do it again, but he didn't provide one. Maybe if I'd pursued it at the time we wouldn't be here. I'd be happy to see an immediate unblock if he were to simply acknowledge that his behaviour wasn't acceptable (he doesn't need to say that everyone else's behaviour was optimal, because it wasn't), and agree to refrain from making PAs. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• It's a shame that the way to win a content dispute is to provoke the other person into swearing.—S Marshall T/C 10:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

My action should not be interpreted as any step in any content dispute. We are all responsible for our own actions; one cannot be baited if one does not take the bait. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Civil Threats

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

---

I have been trying to explain to Stayfree76 that George Floyd was murdered on the George Floyd talk page since the officers in it were charged with murder. The user tried to claim that a murder doesn’t occur until the person is convicted which clearly isn’t true as I showed an example from a terror attack. The user went on to accuse me of libel, used bold lettering to say “Fix yourself immediately” and said I could face a civil penalty. This is excessive as I never actually edited the page and seems threatening. This user has been blocked before for being uncivil but making legal threats is a whole different scenario. I always try to explain myself and to threaten someone for using a talk page just isn’t right. Thank you. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 23:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Lima Bean Farmer Per the Biographies of Living Persons policy, we cannot label someone a murderer until they are convicted in a court of law of murder. 331dot (talk) 23:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

diff

Lima Bean Farmer, we have a strict policy against legal threats (see WP:NLT). I'll take a look. Ed talk! 23:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Yep, I'd support an indef block here - still many issues with this editors civility following other blocks. Ed talk! 23:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

331dot, I did not label him a murderer. I said that George Floyd was murdered. Also, that’s not the point of me coming here. The point is that another editor threatened me with civil penalties over edits in a talk page. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree that a NLT block may be warranted. Lima Bean Farmer, the killing has been determined to be a homicide, not a murder. It's not a murder until someone is convicted of murder for committing the act. Labeling it a murder now before someone is convicted only suggests that those who have been charged are guilty. 331dot (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

331dot, We get this in the UK all the time. The coroner returns a verdict of unlawful killing. If the sole suspect is then not convicted, there is a conflict between the sources. But Stayfree 76 has been a relentlessly disruptive voice at that article, so I would support a narrow TBAN. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

So, could someone please block this editor? Thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

There's several issues here: NLT, civility, disruption. Starting with the easy one (NLT): the edit is unhelpful and might be perceived as a legal threat. It is not an overt threat to sue and doesn't warrant an immediate NLT block. The appropriate response is clarification per the "Perceived legal threats" section of WP:NLT, which I've done. None of this takes away from this editor's problems with civility and disruption, which need more review to determine if any progress has been made since the last block. Doesn't look like it at this point. Stayfree76, if you're reading this perhaps you have a view. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Stayfree76 - You need to clarify this statement - say that this is not a legal threat, and we can move on. It really does borderline a legal threat, which is actionable by an indefinite block until you retract it. Let's not go down this pathway; just clarify this statement and say that it's not a legal threat, and remove the statement. I don't want to move forward with blocking you over this. Please? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Woah Oshwah, what are you blocking me for? It is a legal threat. I’m not retracting that. I’d like to see myself get blocked for reporting someone threatening civil penalties against me. One thing for sure, I’m not backing down. This was a legal threat. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Lima Bean Farmer! LOL! Sorry about that! I accidentally pinged you instead of Stayfree76. I caught it as soon as I hit "publish changes", and I yelled at my monitor as it saved - "NOOOO!" :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Just saw that now! Sorry Oshwah, didn’t mean to sound harsh. Just thought I was facing a block all of a sudden for no reason! No worries! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 01:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Lima Bean Farmer - You have nothing to apologize for. It was my fault for pinging you instead of Stayfree76, not yours. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

No worries Oshwah, nobody’s perfect, not even Wikipedians! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 02:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Lima Bean Farmer, see here. Oshwah inadvertently pinged you by mistake. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I've left a message on their talkpage too (Stayfree's, not Lima Bean Farmer's!) -- Euryalus (talk) 01:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Euryalus - :-P ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

hey all, i just want to say... of course that was not a threat. i linked to an article about what happens when media does defamation/libel, which is no joking matter, but something the user i commented to kept doing. that being said... im not the person that could sue anybody for saying anything about someone else, but the living persons definately can. its a very touchy subject, and why i thought it very important to ensure the user know without a shadow of a doubt you cannot run around calling innocent people a murderer, especially on wikipedia. (guilt until proven innocent, right?). in conclusion, maybe someone can give me a pointer at a better way to handle that situation as the person was in direct violation of wikipedia policies. in my opinion me doing it politely, which i did multiple times, is better than some formal arbitration. Stayfree76 (talk) 04:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually Stayfree76, discussion on a talk page about the wording of an article is not against Wikipedia policy. That is what they are there for. Talk pages are a lot more relaxed and open to a discussion than editing on a page (edit warring). Perhaps this article may help. Also you should never make a legal threat. Whether or not you were planning on doing it, that is a “big no”. If ever a discussion gets out of hand, there are many sources such as the tea house and this page to get help. Arbitration would be the final step which would be for a larger issue. I haven’t even read that article you put but you should never threaten anything other than a block, and even that should be up to an administrator (or someone who can perform a block). You may also want to read this article and others like it so that you can become better at debating. It appears that many of the debates you got involved in turned into arguments. This is seen as uncivil and improper. Everyone has the right to their opinion. Thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 04:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

i find it valuable to look at the full conversation. i explained to the person twice that it was not acceptable to call it a murder, and only the third time mentioned it can be defamatory calling someone a murderer before they are convicted of the crime and i feel i handled this very politely considering. i think we are attacking the wrong user here... i mean i kept saying its not a murder and they kept saying it was... at that point a link to defamation seemed in order as they obviously werent taking my word for it. i know english isnt the first language of everyone on wikipedia, but i am alittle unsure how it could be construed as a threat for simply mentioning something that is actionable. last thing we want is the living persons to sue wikipedia, which in the US, can easily happen, especially when this situation is on the forefront of the planet. also pinging as this seems to be important. Oshwah, Euryalus Stayfree76 (talk) 04:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

oh yea, one final edit. yes, i was blocked for awhile, but actually if you look at all the edits i suggested which ended in me being blocked, 80% of them or more have been put into affect and tbh think i was severely misunderstood as i have cognitive disabilities and other military related disabilities and sometimes have trouble with how i write down a thought/idea. also, lima bean here has been blocked upwards of 4 times for policy violations, where i have not had a single edit reverted. please note that fix yourself is a common phrase used in the US Marine Corps as a friendly nudge to an individual engaging in incorrect behavior and is no more than a warning to ensure the person is aware of that fact. ^_^ Stayfree76 (talk) 05:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Stayfree76, you’re not getting the point. You should never suggest that another editor may be sued. First, vandalism happens all the time on Wikipedia. Second, calling someone a murderer on a talk page is not defamation. That’s what a talk page is for. No editor should be discouraged from editing a talk page on constructive topics such as wording. Third, all my blocks were not related to civility or interactions with other editors. You have consistently argued with other editors and multiple other editors have warned you about this. Please read the civility article I linked above and read similar articles. This is not the military. There is no commander. If a problem gets out of hand, ask a third party editor, use the tea house, or even this page to report it and find out how it should be dealt with. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 05:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Talk pages are not exempt from BLP, no place on Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, you do not have a [god-given] right to express opinions here. You may not go around accusing individuals of murder until/unless they are convicted of such. Also see 331dot's comment at the top of this thread, and read the linked policy. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, that is true. However, I was discussing the wording. I was not sure if it should be considered murder. In fact, it was deemed a homicide and 4 people were charged with his murder. I get that it shouldn’t be on there but the talk page is the perfect place to discuss this type of issue. A warning against a law suit or civil penalties should never be given out on Wikipedia, so I get what you’re saying but that statement itself is wrong. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 05:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• The legal threat was crossing the line imo. ~ HAL333 16:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

HAL333, please understand that it is impossible for a person to sue someone for defamation when the person suing isn't the one defamed. That fact alone should tell you that it was not a threat as i have no legal authority, at all, ever to engage in a civil lawsuit against a person in which i am not targeted by. the only person who could sue who be the person they defamed and likely it wouldnt be some random editor getting hit, but the wikimedia org itself. like come on, people in America sue for much less, lets not be the ones that are responsible for wikipedia no longer being freely edited. Stayfree76 (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Not getting the point

Stayfree76 is not getting the point that they should not be making legal threats such as they did on the George Floyd talk page. While this user made it clear they had no intention of a legal threat towards me, they have not explained that this was inappropriate or that they won’t do it again. They also don’t seem to get, based on their last edit on their talk page, that the usage of a talk page to discuss wording, such as the one for George Floyd, is acceptable, and no threat should be made. On top of all of that, their comments are still uncivil. Their most recent one in their talk page called me a “hard headed person” and said “its not about you” in bold they are not civil and now have resorted to personal attacks. The user has been repeatedly warned about this and I even gave them articles on civility. I have been civil with them this entire time. Please look into this, thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 22:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC) Oshwah, 331dot, JzG, or another editor, please take a look at this. Thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 00:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• I think Stayfree76 is here to WP:RGW. He has caused more disruption with his 136 edits than most editors with a hundred times that number. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what his precise motivation is, and I haven't reviewed all of the contention, but perhaps a temporary (three to six month?) TBAN on George Floyd and Derek Chauvin (and points of law) would allow him to demonstrate he can edit constructively in other areas, if indeed he is here to build an encyclopedia. It would also be nice if he would type like an adult with adult punctuation and capitalization. Softlavender (talk) 08:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
• Lime Bean Farmer, while I think their post was wrong, so was yours. Using the talk page to discuss the appropriate wording in the article is fine. Using the talk page to discuss your personal belief that the killing was a murder is not. The fact that your personal belief is shared by the prosecutor and many others is not enough to change things. It's well accepted that the article is not going to call the killing a murder until there is a conviction for murder, therefore, please stop calling the killing a murder until that or at least unless you are genuinely asking for a change to the article rather than simply stating your personal belief. As you have already been told, WP:BLP applies everywhere on wikipedia including talk pages. At the time when this was still extremely raw in the days after the video, it's probable we let some of that stuff slide. But now, it's reasonable for us to start enforcing BLP more stringently so inappropriate comments on the talk page may be removed and the offender (i.e. you) blocked. To be clear, this does not excuse Stayfree76's comment but I think others have already made it sufficiently clear that their behaviour wasn't acceptable. Nil Einne (talk) 09:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Nil Einne, there is a fine distinction: the medical examiners are generally reported to have ruled that the death was a homicide. That does not prejudge culpability, which is a matter for the courts to decide in respect of Chauvin and the rest. Stayfree76's position is that it can't be described as a homicide until after the trials, but that isn't stopping multiple RS from doing so and should not stop us either. The inconsistency between one legal finding that a death is a homicide and another in respect of responsibility for that homicide is really not our problem to fix: there are plenty of cases where death has been ruled as homicide at inquest but the only likely culprit has been acquitted. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: to be clear this has nothing to do with the word homicide, which did not occur in my comment. Since the death has been ruled a homicide by the coroner, if people want to call it such on the article talk page, that's fine. As our article says homicide "requires only a volitional act by another person that results in death, and thus a homicide may result from accidental, reckless, or negligent acts even if there is no intent to cause harm" so doesn't even suggest the killing was unlawful. Although since juries seem free to talk about their verdict in the US, we know that in some cases the jury seems to have been unable to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that it was a homicide, rather than concluding it was but it was lawful. And the situation in England and Wales (or the whole UK?) may be different. But how to deal with a contradiction between a coroner and court case is IMO an argument for another time and place.

Murder is what I referred to as it's normally taken to mean a specific crime at least in many common law jurisdictions in the anglosphere. (I understand it can get a little complicated in places like Greece where such distinctions are not so clear.) It's generally accepted that if the only people who can realistically be accused of the crime have known identities, are alive and available for prosecution but have not been convicted, we should not describe such a homicide as a murder. Despite that, if an editor wants to argue for some change to an article, for example that an article should call a killing a murder, that is generally an acceptable use of the talk page provided they are using reliable secondary sources and willing to WP:DROPTHESTICK if it's clear their arguments are rejected by the community.

But until that happens, if the article does not describe the killing as a murder (except for any direct quotations etc), editor's should not call it a murder either anywhere on the English Wikipedia including in talk pages, again except quotations etc where necessary. They of course free to call it what they want outside Wikipedia or to personally believe it's a murder. (By free I mean it's none of our concern. I make no comment on any external site ToS nor hypothetical legal risks.)

In the case of Lima Bean Farmer, they started off with "many people believe that race was a motive to the murder of George Floyd. Stating that the officers are white simply supports a common belief that his murder was racially motivated". While technically you could make the argument they were simply stating the common belief that this a racially motivated murder, IMO this was unnecessary. It would be easy to have simply said something like "how George Floyd was treated" which is also more inclusive. (You can believe there was a racial motivation without believing there was a murder whether that means you think there wasn't a murder or feel it's best to let a jury decide.)

Still maybe that comment by itself could be left be. But when challenged, they didn't say they were simply describing this as a common belief. Instead they followed this up with (inserted with edit) "Actually Stayfree76, it was a murder. I’m not saying that based on my beliefs, the officers were charged with murdering him. So yes, it is a murder. <snipped> But I wanted to clarify that this incident is considered murder." (end insert) and "This is a murder since all four officers were charged with murder". Now we start to have a problem. They are no longer simply describing what others believe, but are starting to argue that a charge with murder means the killing is a murder. This is flawed, but more importantly in an issue like this which directly affects those four individuals named in our articles, they should not be making such claims unless they are trying to argue for some change to our article/s. Again, they are free to make such arguments outside Wikipedia, but Wikipedia isn't the place for contentious claims about living people which aren't related to article content. Call the killing a killing or homicide, but don't call it a murder except for necessary direct quotations or when a conviction (including any guilty plea) is secured. (What happens if all four accused die before a court case is another argument for a different time and place.)

Nil Einne (talk) 11:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC) insert time: 12:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

And in case it's unclear, I understand this is an emotive issue. But as I said, while it may have been okay to turn a blind eye in the early days, IMO it's come to a time where we should start enforcing BLP norms, especially since this is a case where the subject matter may be extremely notable, but the individuals are only high profile because of that one event. (By comparison, I think it's reasonable we tend to let more technical BLP vios slide with highly notable individuals e.g. Biden or Trump.) If any editor can't resist the urge to call the killing a murder, maybe it would be best for them to just edit somewhere else. Another clarification, I don't think a block of Lima Bean Farmer is already justified. I was simply making the point that if they refuse to abide by BLP and keep calling the killing a murder, they are likely to be blocked. I felt it necessary to make it clear that BLP is also important including on talk pages and they cannot simply brush it aside. Nil Einne (talk) 12:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with what I understand [U|Nil Einne}} to be saying. Though LBF did not sufficiently understand the extremely broad (and in my opinion appropriately broad) way we interpret "legal threats", a block does not seem called for here, unless the conduct shows further problems. DGG ( talk ) 10:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
• I assume we're talking about the paragraph deleted in this edit? On the spectrum of wikibehavior, I think we're further away from the platonic ideal I'd like to see, but this is a long way from the kind of threats where blocking should be considered. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
• Agree with Roysmith and DGG. The OP raised a good faith concern, but the comment was not a legal threat and to the extent it was perceived as one, it's been clarified as not being so. There's still a problem with civility, especially in some edits before the block last month. The edits since the block are not all perfect either, but they're a marked improvement, and presently more in line for a continued warning than a block. The issue of how to describe George Floyd's death is a content dispute and need not be resolved on this noticeboard.

Id like to suggest a warning to Stayfree to watch the tone in their posts, and to try seeking compromise rather than entrenching themselves. Not convinced on a topic ban - there's not enough disruption to warrant it. Other views welcome as always. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

im not sure this should be discussed here, but thought it worth mentioning. to what extent do we allow a user to call explicitly state it was a murder, when it was not. i attempted to inform the person it was not ok, but then they started doubling down. instead wasting the time of everyone, i felt it would be nicer to inform the person of the offense and show a recent, public incident of what can happen if people or orgs continue to behave in that manner, instead of making a big deal about it elsewhere. i have brought up a few points on my own talk page directed at one of the admins, but i will also some here as this is obviously very important to alot of people and i think there is some misunderstandings on all fronts going on. Stayfree76 (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

1. the policy states "A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat. Wikipedia's policy on defamation is to delete libelous material as soon as it is identified." this is more in line with what i was doing as i was discussing with the user that their actions could be taken a defamation in us civil courts and linked an article showing potential problems faced when engaging in said actions. should i just never mention defamation anymore in talk pages?

2. the policy also states "For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous"" my statement regarding defamation was singular and was not mentioned repeatedly. that being said, i mentioned that we cannot call it a murder twice before the defamation comment. does this count as repeated?

thanks, Stayfree76 (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

As for point 1, there's a huge difference between "is this material potentially libelous?" and "don't libel the subject." The former is asking whether certain content is appropriate, the latter is accusing an editor of legal culpability. I would encourage you to avoid any mention of defamation or libel when discussing content.

Point 2 is meant more for repeat behavior, but some posts about defatmation/libel are egregious enough to get someone blocked immediately. It's better to just avoid those terms entirely, and stick to arguing based on Wikipedia policy such as WP:BLP. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds, that makes sense for the most post, but the BLP policy doesnt really have clear guidance in this matter other than i should have just immediately deleted him comments.

Note that, although the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the biographies of living persons noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption. Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or by blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved. In less clear cases they should request the attention of an uninvolved administrator at Wikipedia:Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Role of administrators.

this is more so why i was bringing it up. i dont think anyone can deny calling someone a murderer is not libelous, and after multiple attempts to fix the problem politely, i made it more clear. So should the [potentially?] libelous content be removed from the talk page? As a more personal [sincere] question; after hindsight on this exact situation, what is your personal opinion on how i should have handled it? im personally bigger into discussion with the individual in question directly than make a big deal of it if at all possible. Stayfree76 (talk) 20:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

So, without getting too far down a legal rabbit hole here, I just want to note that, in this instance, referring to Chauvin as a "murderer" is almost certainly not libelous in any common law jurisdiction. Please note, I don't think this makes it appropriate for a BLP, but courts are arbiters of legal culpability, not moral. People who watch the video can very reasonably reach the conclusion that they have witnessed a murder irrespective of ultimate legal responsibility. That being said, I think it would have made sense to seek an administrator's help here. Generally, except in extreme circumstances, I would recommend steering clear of legal language and citing WP:BLP instead, which is both broader and subject to less technicalities. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Stayfree76, I now understand why that should not be considered murder. However, in a content discussion on a talk page, I am allowed to argue my position to why I believed it was murder. The appropriate thing would be to point me to the policy stating that this is not considered murder on Wikipedia. Once again, I am allowed to argue why I believe this is murder. Automatically going to “you could be sued for this” is most definitely over the top. Especially since this was not on the page itself. I never even actually claimed that those who were charged with murder were “murderers”. Simply stating that he was murdered on a talk page in a content dispute is not enough to claim libel. A simple redirect to a policy is all that is needed. My recommendation for you, Stayfree76, is that you come to this page or the tea house in the future and ask someone else to give a warning if you believe one should be issued. After a few times, you will be able to see from the admins how to properly handle these situations. We’ve already addressed civility but once again, saying fix yourself is never the right way to put it. One way I have seen other admins and done myself is say “please stop doing (insert policy violation here). If you continue to violate (insert broken policy here), you will be reported at the admins noticeboard. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dumuzid:, murder is not under common law in the United States. it falls under Criminal Law. an excerpt from that wiki is: The validity of common law crimes varies at the state level. Although most states have abolished common law crimes, some have enacted "reception" statutes recognizing common law crimes when no similar statutory crime exists.. Common Law is "The body of law derived from judicial decisions, rather than from statutes or constitutions". The law itself varies by state which makes it difficult for outside parties to understand the complexity of the US legal system. for example, in my state of AZ, i can walk into a bank with a loaded AR 15 sling over my shoulder, but one state over in California, i cant even own it. Stayfree76 (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

StayFree, this is what I mean by "legal rabbit holes." With all due respect, you have seized on a term I used and completely missed the gravamen of my comment. By "common law jurisdictions" I mean countries which share a legal tradition and broadly similar principles. The actual codification of murder is quite beside the point. I am well aware of the Federal nature of U.S. law. Again, because this is an opinion on obviously disclosed facts, and one which is reasonable to hold, it is not defamatory. On Wikipedia, it is almost always better to couch complaints in terms of BLP rather than any sort of controlling law. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dumuzid:, i highly suggest you read a dictionary regarding this topic. also per Defamation, Defamation law in the United States is much less plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in European and the Commonwealth countries. A comprehensive discussion of what is and is not libel or slander under United States law is difficult, as the definition differs between different states and is further affected by federal law.[134] Some states codify what constitutes slander and libel together, merging the concepts into a single defamation law.[135] Civil defamation: Although laws vary by state, in the United States a defamation action typically requires that a plaintiff claiming defamation prove that the defendant:[136] made a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff; shared the statement with a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement); if the defamatory matter is of public concern, acted in a manner which amounted at least to negligence on the part of the defendant; and caused damages to the plaintiff. i feel like im beating a dead horse, but at the same time i think that many non US citizens just do not get how things work in the US and that ignorance causes many misunderstanding about the country as a whole and as a proud american i feel an obligation to ensure accuracy in representation regarding my home.Stayfree76 (talk)

StayFree76, you make some odd assumptions. For the record, I am a U.S. citizen. You seem determined to not take my basic point. On Wikipedia, stick to BLP rather than defamation. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

i was not accusing anyone of not being a us citizen. it was a general statement that i see a widespread misunderstanding of US legalities and it is very detrimental the the overall project. all it takes in one person to attempt to litigate against wikimedia (for example) to cause significant changes to the way the site operates. especially given its a high profile case, think about how the people involved might feel when trying to continue their life one way or the other. (this could include [for example] attempting to get financial compensation for a destroyed image and inability to get a job). like i am just trying to protect wikipedia here. i am just some turd that will be dead before 2100, but wikipedia will hopefully be alive forever. Stayfree76 (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

StayFree76, it's best if we let WMF's legal department handle that sort of thinking. My point is merely this: had you come here saying "this is a BLP violation, and it should stop," then I think you would have met with broad agreement. By saying "this is libel," you have decidedly muddied the waters and are skirting with contravening an important Wikipedia policy. Just food for thought. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

tbh man, im with you, that is why i asked if i should have just removed it. next time i will remove the content and post the BLP removal template on their talk page instead of doing the process outside of a known way this is handled (using BLP without citing BLP). at the same time i am still partially concerned about people continuing, even here in this thread, and in talk pages where i started a discussion that you can not use the word murder. one of the editors touts 140,000 wiki edits and is actively on a campaign to get me topic banned. Stayfree76 (talk)

*Neither of these editors has enough experience to be arguing at that article. LBF and SF76, you both need to go find something else to edit for a good long while. Either of you could so easily end up blocked here. Kwitcherbitchin and go do something useful. —valereee (talk) 23:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, it's been a long lockdown and no end in sight —valereee (talk) 23:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

im not "bitchin" about anything. i got put here trying to do the right thing. arent we actively having a civil discussion as we speak about one of the wikis in question that i am unable to handle? Stayfree76 (talk) 23:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

—valereee, I don’t need enough experience to argue. I was having a debate over content. That’s what we’re here for. There’s no way that I could be easily blocked for seeing if the term murder is appropriate. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 23:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Oshwah, do you think that stayfree76 should have deleted the parts of the talk page where I argued that it should be considered a murder? Is this really violating BLP enough to delete my comments? Thank you. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 00:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Lima Bean Farmer - See this section of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. If the person has not been convicted of murder, we're not supposed to use that word to describe the person or the events until a conviction has been secured. The neutral way to go about this is to simply describe the set of events that occurred without referring to those events as anything contentious (i.e. a "murder", "attack", or anything of that sort). Then, simply describe what the offending person (who will be the defendant in the trial) has been charged with, and leave it at that. Do your comments on the article's talk page amount to a BLP violation? BLP applies to all pages, including talk pages. Expressing your opinion and saying that you believe the events were murder wasn't a good idea. Now is it a violation where redaction was necessary? That's debatable... I wouldn't have redacted those words from your comments, since if anything, it makes it harder for others to scrutinize the comments and respond accordingly... Again, this is debatable and I'm sure others will disagree. I'll remain neutral on that point. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Lima Bean Farmer, calling it murder is basically calling Chauvin, a living person, a murderer. That would be libel, as he hasn't been convicted of murder. Yes, it is reasonable to delete libel in the case of living persons. It's not by any means an unreasonable move. —valereee (talk) 00:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee, Oshwah, Lima Bean Farmer, and Stayfree76: as a suggestion, is this ongoing discussion about the application of BLP to particular content edits better suited to the article talkpage than here? There's several competing issues in this thread - if possible I'd like to separate the BLP/content one from NLT and civility so we can move the others towards a close. Disagreements welcome. :) -- Euryalus (talk) 00:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

ill just note for record that i am bowing out (removing myself from the issue). if there is something that is needed from me i will be happy to oblige. :) Stayfree76 (talk) 01:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Euryalus, it's ridiculous that it's here, tbh. More evidence of not enough experience. —valereee (talk) 01:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Euryalus - I believe that this discussion regarding content should continue on the article's talk page, yes. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Talk:George Floyd is watchlisted by 150+ editors. There is no need for any new editor to start a thread at ANI over anything anyone says on that talk page; if it was that serious, some other editor with more experience would bring it to ANI, or, more likely, one of the many admins who watch the page would take action directly. Similarly, there is no need for any new editor to remove text from any other editor's posts on that page; if it was that serious, some other editor with more experience would remove it. New editors should focus on content, not on the conduct of other editors. Or, at least that's what people have told me :-) Lev!vich 01:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Dreamy Jazz appointed full clerk

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce that Dreamy Jazz (talk · contribs) has been appointed a full clerk, effective immediately, concluding Dreamy Jazz's successful traineeship.

The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by e-mail to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Dreamy Jazz appointed full clerk

KHive

• KHive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Content relating to first use of hashtag by Eric Chavous sourced to Vox has been removed without any meaningful reason multiple times. I last restored it with this edit. That was my second restoration, another one would have been an edit war so I'm posting here. A campaign on Twitter seems to be responsible for it; some other person claims to have started this hashtag but only source seems to be their own blog. That person canvassed on Twitter and several responded with edits on the page. So, this article should be checked and perhaps locked. 117.251.196.240 (talk) 06:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article earlier today for three days.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

2020 Beirut explosions

Hi. Please can someone look at closing this move discussion that's been open for a while now? For transparency, I did vote in it myself. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I can close it Nosebagbear (talk) 20:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Lugnuts, thanks for making the request, and Nosebagbear, thanks for doing a solid close. If I could be permitted to tag onto this post a bit, the fact that a big banner notice was cluttering that page for 11 days during a very high-traffic period over what is really a pretty small question (a single letter) of interest only to editors (not readers) is an issue. It's another example of why we ought to revamp {{Title notice}}, ideally turning it into something more like the {{Move topicon}} that Netoholic proposed and Wugapodes coded. (I believe a little technical help is needed to ensure proper mobile display, etc.; after that it'll be ready to put forward for adoption.) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks both. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Backlog at Category:Requests for unblock

Category:Requests for unblock is now chronically backlogged at a very high level. Some fresh eyes would be appreciated - for a quarter of the cases I'm the blocking admin. MER-C 09:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

MER-C, I do understand that there are probably many admins who work regularly on addressing these issues and they may fully understand how the page is organized, but let me share my impressions as a first time visitor to that page.

I see a notice that there is a backlog which is fine. I see some introductory sentences which seem fine. that I see a collapse section of information for administrators which I will obviously want to read but let me check out the rest of the page first.

I see a section for UTRS appeals. With a nicely organized table. I haven't totally figured out what the status column means. My guess is that "open" means that hasn't yet been touched, "admin" means the last response in the thread is from an admin but how does that differ from "awaiting reply". In my opinion, the entries are obvious such as timestamps they don't need an explanation key but if they aren't obvious should be an explanation key. (I thought maybe this would be explained in the collapsed administrator section but no)

There is a section labeled "summary". This threw me. Given the prior section covering UTRS, I thought it would be followed by a section for non UTRS blocks. I still think that might be the case but the section title is misleading. I spot check some entries in the UTRS section and don't see them in the summary section so I think I'm right but curious wording.

Presumably, the summary section is a summary table related to the entries in the category "requests for unblock" which do not inlcude UTRS requests.

There is a portion of the table that's unshaded and a portion of the table that's shaded. Presumably the distinction is important, but it's not identified. They appear to be sorted in reverse chronological order based upon request time. Are all of these open? I clicked on the first one and it looks like it's actively being worked on.

Is there some priority for which ones need attention?

Again, I recognize that regulars probably know this but if you're looking for new eyes, these new eyes aren't clear what's going on. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I myself don't know why the table has multiple shadings. @AmandaNP: who is responsible for both of those tables. MER-C 17:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

MER-C, Well, this is embarrassing. I thought I'd try to respond to one of the UTRS entries, but I clicked on a button to see what it would do (assuming incorrectly that if I did something wrong I could undo it). I still don't know what the button did but the appeal is now marked "This appeal is closed and no further action can be taken."

That wasn't my intention. It is Appeal number: #33061 how do I undo my action?

My intended response: Let them know they were caught in a range block, which wasn't directed at them personally. I see they wish to edit a page with which they probably have a conflict of interest so I wanted to share with them the conflict of interest page, then urge them to register an account and offer to help them. I didn't see a way to start a discussion with the editor. Is there a UTRS manual?S Philbrick(Talk) 17:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

It might be better to stick to on-wiki stuff at first. It will likely be less confusing. The "summary" table (which has been renamed to be more clear) is supposed to be helpful, but you can just ignore it if you find it confusing. The appeals are color-coded, I think, based on the unblock template used ({{unblock}} for standard unblock requests, {{unblock-un}} for username change requests, etc). What I did before getting involved in the unblock process was shadow a few cases. I looked at the unblock request, decided on a course of action or response, and waited to see what the responding admin did. Once I was satisfied that my instincts were not wildly off from current practice, I started responding to them. Certain types of blocks tend to languish for a long time. Sock puppetry blocks and undisclosed paid editing require some detective work, or at least some time spent reviewing evidence to make sure that it's solid. Few admins are willing to deal with a dramamonger, so drama-heavy blocks often languish in the queue, too. Another problem that I've seen is that someone will be smart enough to say all the right things, but the person is obviously incompatible with Wikipedia. There is a psychological barrier to outright telling this to someone. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, Thanks, I'm fine with starting with the on-wiki items, and will consider UTRS later. I liked your shadow suggestion - I've done something similar in other contexts (copyright, OTRS) and I'll try it here. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Genetically modified organisms

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 2 ("1RR imposed") of Genetically modified organisms is amended to read as follows:

Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day on any page relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed and subject to the usual exemptions.

The purpose of the amendment was to match the scope of the existing 1RR remedy and the discretionary sanctions remedy.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Genetically modified organisms

policy on women and children killed by a spouse/parent

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

---

Hi This has been raised with regard to Murder of Hannah Clarke who was murdered by her estranged husband. Should Wikipedia have her referred to in the article as "Hannah Baxter", the name used in the Murdoch tabloids? There seems to be a growing idea in society that wives and children murdered by their husband and father should *not* be referred to by his surname because he murdered them. PAustin4thApril1980 (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Call for close re mention of COVID-19 pandemic in the lead at Donald Trump

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Talk:Donald Trump#COVID-19 in the lead? (take 69) was listed at ANRFC a little over two weeks ago, following months of contentious and pretty messy debate at Talk:Donald Trump. Myself and several others at ANRFC have highlighted the strong need for an experienced closer to come in and put a cap on the spiraling discussion, but no one has stepped up yet, so I'm escalating to the main noticeboard here. Is anyone willing to take this on?

(As always with posts of this sort, everyone here is reminded to please keep your comments to meta-discussion about the process of the close only. Comments arguing for or against possible outcomes of the close should be collapsed.) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb: That's not an WP:RfC, nor apparently was it ever one, so it lacks any sort of officialness or need for any sort of official close (and it shouldn't be listed at ANRFC, nor should it be DNAUed). There is however an RfC on the subject on that talkpage, which was opened August 5, so that has a few more weeks to run: Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: A statement on Trump and Covid-19 in the lead. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Softlavender, the call for a close is a call to close the entire group of discussions, which includes both the RfCs and the non-RfCs. They're all on the same topic, just framed differently, so it wouldn't make any sense to try to close them separately. Calls for a formal close existed even before the launch of the currently open RfC, which is just another in a long series of attempts to try to frame things in a way that actually produces an outcome. No one has !voted on the RfC in the past week, which for Donald Trump's page is about as strong an indicator of exhaustion as you could ever find. I think most participants on all sides agree that it's long past due for a close, and that it would not be beneficial to let it run for a few more weeks. The closer will be able to draw from about 10 different massive discussions going back months, so there's zero question that there has been ample opportunity for participation. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

That's not how things work on Wikipedia. Unless something is an RfC, it's just a discussion thread on a talkpage and has no site-wide input or official weight. That's why there have been so many threads on that page without resolution. Now that there is an actual RfC (which is the only way to really resolve things that have been discussed endlessly without RfC and without resolution), the matter must wait until the RfC has run for at least a month. Anything that really needs to be officially resolved with an administrator's binding close must be done via RfC (otherwise, someone will just open yet another thread, or open an RfC). Softlavender (talk) 08:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Softlavender, I'm pretty^{update: I just checked and confirmed} sure at least one of the previous discussions was an RfC, and it's not as though the current one is better formulated or has wider participation than the previous ones. It's a continuation of the sprawling mess, not much more or less definitive than the sprawling mess that came before it. If you think further discussion is somehow needed, fine, although I think you'd be very strained to make that argument. But if your view is just that we need to stick to the letter of the bureaucracy because those are The Rules™, then I'd suggest re-reading WP:IAR, which I hope is still alive enough that we're capable of cutting off RfCs that have very clearly gone long past the point of usefulness. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't sound to me like you understand what an WP:RFC is and don't even want to check and see if there have been any (if there have been, the word RFC will be in the thread title). If there was a previous RfC, with an official close, then that is a binding decision and the decision will be implemented as official. The discussion you are talking about is merely a non-official article-talk discussion between people who have that page on their watch list, to see if they can come to a consensus. Since consensus seems unclear (namely, you're asking for someone to close it), that indicates that there is not yet a clear enough consensus to be implemented. If you want an official administrative close on something, propose it in an WP:RFC, with a clear opening statement that people can !vote support or oppose on. Otherwise, all you've got is a meandering mess that someone is going to contest the details of the minute it is acted upon. WP:RFC is for issues such as this that have had extensive discussions without success. They get site-wide input, last one month, and get official closes. That's why we have them. Softlavender (talk) 09:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Softlavender, if you're going to link WP:RFC, then note the duration section, which states pretty clearly There is no required minimum or maximum duration. I agree with the spirit of your point that RfCs are often a useful tool for formalizing messy discussions, but your comments do not give me the impression that you are assessing the situation here on its own terms rather than blindly adhering to your understanding of the rules. We've both made our point; let's wait for some others here to weigh in now. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Softlander is correct. This should have been done as a proper RFC. As is, it can only establish a local consensus, not a global consensus, and is likely to be contested as soon as it closes. Issues this large aren't typically solved with local discussions only, and require a real RFC with input outside of that talk page. A piecemeal approach isn't a solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  Dennis Brown, as is? There have been multiple tagged RfCs, none as perfectly formulated as might be hoped, but the discussion has long since run its course. We're here now since it's ready for a close. I can't do it myself since I !voted in one of the earlier discussions, but please, take the hint. We would not be coming here if there were not a reasonably clear consensus that has emerged and just needs an authoritative stamp from someone uninvolved. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 11:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  Then by all means, keeping having discussion after discussion and dragging it to AN. That is obviously a better solution, right? It is much easier for an admin to enforce the outcome of a real RFC. Disagree all you want, but it rather speaks for itself, that for contentious issues that rise to this level, a real RFC that is properly crafted is what you want. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

No she is not right. Discussions do not need to follow a formal RfC process. Unstructured discussions very much benefit from being closed by uninvolved editors. I'm not sure what "global consensus" has to do with a specific content proposal for the lead a specific article. - MrX 🖋 00:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Softlavender is absolutely incorrect that the matter must wait until the RfC has run for at least a month. If RfCs usually run for 30 days, it's because (1) many editors misinterpret the time of automatic de-listing as a recommended duration, and (2) most of those who don't would rather let it run for the full 30 than press the point. There is certainly nothing in written guidance supporting a 30-day rule-of-thumb, and RfCs may close in a few days or a few months depending on the circumstances. Furthermore, per WP:RFCEND, RfCs require a close no more than any discussion does. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
• I requested the presently active Talk:Donald_Trump#RfC:_A_statement_on_Trump_and_Covid-19_in_the_lead 12 days ago. Perhaps redundant with the previous extensive discussions, but I thought it worthwhile to have a specific, formal RfC on the consensus text, given the way the process seems to have been manipulated for delay. There has not been really any opposition to the proposal, other than the universal recommendation to drop my ill-advised "weasel" words, in what I thought would be a compromise to soften the language. The RfC consensus so far has been overwhelming, other than those comments that deviate from the process (mistakenly seeing the RfC as a reopening of the issue, not following directions, etc.). So overwhelming that it seemed to me we could close the RfC by mutual agreement, as is possible according to the rules (though there have been no takers for that avenue). Something is broken/being exploited by Wikipedia processes if it takes 5 months to devise a simple sentence for the lead. I've thought about bringing the issue here already, so I support this attention. There is WP:NOW: "...when an article lacks vital content, that content should be added as quickly as possible." The text in question concerns Donald Trump and his response to pandemic...speaking of vital content. Across all the political articles, I believe this problem is likely universal just now - it is a political strategy to jam up the process. Some broader, objective strategy to prevent discussions such as this from going on endlessly (or until after the election...) is likely in order. Bdushaw (talk) 11:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

We had a perfectly good approximation of the consensus that was repeatedly removed and disparaged in obstinate obstructive edits by a small number of editors. The consensus was accurately reflected thanks to the work of @MrX, Neutrality, and Starship.paint: and others. It just needs to go back in the article with a warning to others to use the talk page to promote and gather consensus for any improved version. WP is not a beaurocracy. One of the obstructive editors has already been TBANned. If anyone takes on the task of compiling the evidence, we have other TBAN candidates as well. There has been consensus for something in the lead for several months. Insistent quibbling about the perfect language, with excessive numbers of proposals, alternatives, and bludgeons mostly ignoring cited RS references, serves only to enable a claim of "no consensus". That is the stuff of bans. If any Admin chooses to review the entire history of this discussion, we'd see several warnings at the very least. SPECIFICO talk 18:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

No reason to close no-RFC discussion Unless the discussion has turned disruptive there is no reason to close, presumably with a summary, a non-RfC discussion. This can actually be problematic if the closing gives the appearance of an actual RfC that got wider community input vs a discussion among the article locals only. If the discussion is done let it auto archive. Springee (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Of course there's a reason. Numerous editors have spent considerable time availing themselves of the dispute resolution process and you think they should be left hanging? This is exactly the type of bureaucratic thinking that contributes to battleground editing. It's truly unhelpful. - MrX 🖋 17:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you suggesting the discussion should be closed only (gray box, no further comments) or that an uninvolved editor should try to summarize the discussion as would be done with a RfC closing? If the former, why? If the latter then what authority does that discussion have beyond current, local consensus? What would stop someone from starting a RfC to discuss the same issue the day after this closing? As the discussion (presumably) didn't request wider input, as Dennis Brown mentioned, it would only represent a consensus of the current, local editors. A RfC, drawing in uninvolved editors would almost certainly superseded the local discussion and wouldn't be forum shopping. Again, what is to be gained by closing a local discussion that isn't a RfC? Springee (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Close challenge

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

---

At User talk:MrX#Ayurveda RfC close there has been considerable push-back against the conclusions of a NAC. There is also a fight going on on the article talk page about the meaning of the close. I would like to request that MrX voluntarily withdraw the NAC and that a panel of uninvolved administrators an uninvolved administrator or a panel of uninvolved administrators evaluate the RfC. If MrX is not willing to do that, I would like to request a closure review.

See Talk:Ayurveda#RFC: pseudoscience in the opening sentence and Talk:Ayurveda#A lead paragraph without the whitewashing. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment As the participant of the RfC, I saw no problem with the original closure, though I had voted for the outright removal of the content in question. While there a number of "support" arguments, there were enough editors who still didnt supported the inclusion of the term pseudoscience or pseudoscientific on the "opening sentence" (the RfC question) but the first paragraph. That said, the "no consensus" close was accurate. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 11:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
• (also participated) I think a review or do-over might be appropriate. The "no consensus" close seems correct to me, but then the closer went and invalidated that with a postscript [35]. Everyone's allowed second thoughts, but in a hotly contested RfC closure they don't help. Currently we are back to heavy polemics (involving things like "no consensus for inclusion doesn't mean it can't be included" by the OP...). Better to have this confidently assessed once and for all. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
• As I expressed on my talk page, I believe my close of the RfC was proper in all respects. After carefully considering the "pushback" from the involved parties, and after re-reviewing the comments made in the RfC, I am not inclined to withdraw my close. Per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, a close review can occur, and it should include "a concrete description of how you believe the close was an inappropriate or unreasonable distillation of the discussion." I am happy to answer questions about how I arrived at my assessment of consensus. Please ping me if I am needed. - MrX 🖋 14:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse - Range of views were offered but it was ultimately unclear that which view gained the clear WP:CON among dozens of participants. Since a number of issues were raised about every particular set of argument, I consider this to be a valid close. Kraose (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn and re-close by admin - WP:BADNAC #2 applies here. FWIW, I see many oppose !votes that should be discounted. For example, all of those arguing "no sources support 'pseudoscience'" should be tossed in light of the many sources presented (mostly by Guy Macon) supporting usage of that term. All the oppose !votes citing WP:LABEL that don't discuss the very specific part of LABEL discussing "pseudoscience" should be tossed as not policy based. Those oppose !votes citing fringe works (one of them cites the back cover of a fringe work, lol) should also be tossed as not reality based. There is at least one blocked sock whose !vote should be tossed. The closing statement did not address any of this. Once you discount all the no-policy-basis or falsely-claiming-no-sources-exist oppose !votes, I see consensus for inclusion in the first sentence. Barring that, I certainly see consensus for inclusion in the lead. Either way, this consensus is complex and should be assessed by an editor who has been vetted by the community for their ability to assess consensus: an admin more thoroughly. PS: I originally accidentally posted this to X's talk page, where he pointed out that BADNAC isn't policy and hasn't been vetted by the community (true) and that my !vote here didn't address discounting of support votes (also true). There are some support !votes that should be discounted, but in my view not nearly as many. However, that's ultimately up to the closer. This close didn't address weighing of support or oppose !votes; an admin may still close this as no consensus, but at least it'll be closed as no consensus by someone vetted by the community to address consensus. Lev!vich 15:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  As I mentioned on my talk page, I dispute that BADNAC applies to this case, but more importantly, it's not policy. From the top of WP:NAC: "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." Also, your analysis of the RfC omits any concern about supporters !votes which should be discounted, including the several examples of circular reasoning, and at least six !votes without any reasoning whatsoever. - MrX 🖋 15:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  Here is where BADNAC#2 was added. There was no discussion on the talkpage, but there was consensus that WP:NAC is not a guideline.[36] - MrX 🖋 16:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  BADNAC is part of WP:NAC, "an explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Closing discussions page". It documents commonly observed conventions and should not be dismissed simply because the closer thinks they know better. The convention documented is "The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator." The RfC was called by an AE admin to settle a dispute and was controversial. In those circumstances, it required more skill in closing than was demonstrated by a non-admin, and I've outlined the reasons below. --RexxS (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  I've already shown that it's not a policy or a guideline, and that BADNAC#2 was added by one (admin) editor without any discussion or consensus. I dispute that it's a "commonly observed convention" or that it applies to this situation. - MrX 🖋 17:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  Rexx, it sounds as if you are deprecating MrX's skill because he is not an Admin? I think his skill, experience, and judgment exceeds that of most Admins. Your comment seems gratuitous and baiting. SPECIFICO talk 01:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  Every piece of text on Wikipedia is added by one editor. Spartaz needed no prior consensus to make an edit, and edits that are not challenged represent consensus. That consensus has stood for four years. If you don't believe BADNAC#2 is a correct documentation of our accepted practices, try removing it and see how far that gets you. No matter how much you dispute it, it is a commonly observed convention, and it does apply here. --RexxS (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  The text (not the consensus) stood for years because it's not part of policy so no one bothered to remove it. It simply does not have community wide consensus. All the bloviating in the world doesn't change that. If you want it to be a policy or a guideline, you can start an RfC and advertise it on WP:CENT. - MrX 🖋 00:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  On further reflection, I've struck the "by admin" part of my !vote. I agree with Ivan's point below that there are non-admins who could have closed this and who still could, or a panel that might have some admins and some non-admins. I don't have a strong feeling about who should close this or how many closers, but I do think the current close should be overturned. Lev!vich 17:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn and re-close by admin Three issues make me belive that this should be overturned. First per BADNAC 2, a no consensus that then needed to be updated is almost definitionally close, so is not eligble for NAC. Also, anything under discrestionary sanctions should be assumed to be controversial and not eligble. Second, MrX did not show any evaluation of strenght of arguments or even any evidence that they had any understanding of the arguments given. Third, MrX immediatly started baiting participants when his judgment was called into question and wikilayering when it was pointed out deficincies in his analysis.AlmostFrancis (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
• The close was inappropriate and should be overturned. MrX is not an admin, but is an experienced closer, yet he failed to discern an important theme that became apparent in the discussion and survey, and also failed to sufficiently weight the strengths of the supporting !votes and the weaknesses of the opposing !votes.
  The RfC came about because of a dispute about where the word "pseudoscientific" should be placed in the lead. It was triggered by an edit war on 1 July 2020 and resulted in article protection and a complaint raised at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive268 #Roxy the dog under the discretionary sanctions relating to pseudoscience. El C, who regularly contributes at AE, consequently started the RfC in question "to resolve this dispute". MrX failed to grasp the significance of the RfC in settling a dispute and merely focused on the bald question "should there be mention of the word pseudoscience (or pseudoscientific) in the opening sentence?". I contend that MrX should have taken note of the considerable support, rooted in policy, for the proposition that pseudoscience should be mentioned in the opening paragraph of Ayurveda.
  It has been abundantly clear from long-standing consensus and prior debate RfC July 2015, Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 13 #Pseudoscience that Ayurveda is a pseudoscience. The article is in the Category:Pseudoscience and its talk page bears the pseudoscience DS warning. MrX, however, chose to ignore that context stating "I never made a judgment about whether Ayurveda is a pseudoscience". Closers are required to take context into account.
  As Ayurveda is undoubtedly a pseudoscience, the policies that apply are WP:PSCI, MOS:LEAD, MOS:BEGIN, WP:NPOV, WP:GEVAL, and WP:FRINGE – and the support arguments strongly leant on them. Several of the opposers only attacked the mention of pseudoscience at all. These cannot be compliant with Wikipedia policy and should have been discounted. Several of the !votes of the opposers relied on WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, effectively denying that sources used in the article for a considerable time were reliable. No evidence such as RSN reports was brought forward to support those denials. Many of the opposers used arguments based on faulty understanding of policies like WP:LABEL (which requires pseudoscientific topics to be described as such), and their arguments were clearly rebutted – see Yoonadue's oppose for an obvious example. MrX failed to recognise sufficiently the strength of the support arguments and the weakness of the oppose arguments.
  In raw numbers there were 63 !votes: 21 supporting inclusion in the first sentence, 15 supporting inclusion in the first paragraph, 16 opposing (presumably inclusion in the first sentence), 10 opposing inclusion anywhere in the lead, and 1 neutral (anywhere in the lead but attributed). I'll be happy to list names on request. None of those supporting inclusion in the first sentence opposed inclusion in the first paragraph. That shows 36 in favour of inclusion in the first paragraph, with strong policy reasons for that. Whereas, 10 of the oppose !votes were arguing against policy, WP:PSCI/MOS:BEGIN and long-standing consensus, and should have been discounted. MrX failed to discern the strength of opinion in favour of inclusion in the first paragraph.
  Most importantly, the close produced no resolution to the underlying dispute, despite that being the purpose of the RfC. Any closer should have been looking carefully for consensus that would bring the dispute to a close: the finding of consensus for inclusion in the first paragraph would have performed that job, and missing that was a deficit in the close. It would be patently ludicrous to have re-run the RfC just to ask the question "should there be mention of the word pseudoscience (or pseudoscientific) in the opening paragraph?" when we already have an affirmative answer to that in the current RfC. --RexxS (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
• Keep the close as is Mr. X did fine on it. The original question was:

Should there be mention of the word pseudoscience (or pseudoscientific) in the opening sentence

On the page there are votes to:

Include - no preference where
Support in the lead sentence (which is what the question is asking )

Oppose

Oppose for the lead

Mr. X did a great job in evaluating the consensus for the question. No, it wasn't an easy close, and no matter who did it, someone wasn't going to be happy, but that's no reason to overturn. Consensus is accurately reflected for the question being asked. W.K.W.W.K...^{Toss a coin to the witcher, ye valley of plenty} 16:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Please observe MOS:INDENTGAP: your formatting broke the thread for screen reader users.

  Fixed it. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  MrX did not a do a great job, because a closer of an RfC should be looking for consensus beyond the simple question asked. It's a Request for Comments, not a Request for Votes, and it is expected that a closer evaluates the whole of the debate and looks for whatever consensus could be found. In this case, an RfC on a controversial subject, created to settle a dispute, the failure to discern the strength of support for inclusion somewhere in the first paragraph was a fatal flaw. On challenge, he admitted that he saw "a weak consensus to include pseudoscience in the lead", and yet the arguments and numbers do not show that at all (other than the strong support for inclusion in the opening paragraph, which is naturally part of the lead). Almost nobody argued for inclusion just in the lead, and drawing that conclusion demonstrates the weakness of the original close. --RexxS (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn and re-close by admin I think this was a procedurally bad close. To claim a consensus we must show that and/or the balance of the quality of arguments clearly favors one side or, if the arguments are of equal weight, that we have a majority sufficient to make a claim of consensus clear via a head count. By the numbers this looks like a near 50/50 split with over 60 editors participating. The closing comments make no mention of the merits of arguments presented by either side so consensus can't be evaluated based on weight of the arguments. Additionally, the closing editor reversed their original close without explanation. All of this leaves open the appearance of a super vote. For these reasons, the controversial nature of the subject matter, and the fact that the 60+ participants should be given the respect of a clearly worded closing argument, I support overturning and requesting an admin-close. Note: I have no prior involvement in this topic. Springee (talk) 16:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  Closing statements do not have to explain every detail of the assessment, as long as the closer is willing to explain their reasoning when asked. I have done that. - MrX 🖋 00:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  If then, as you claim, your close was proper in all respects, do you have a theory as to why the comments on this page are running 2:1 against you? If your closing comments are as good as you claim they are, why not voluntarily step aside, watch as an experienced admin makes closing comments that are pretty much identical to yours, then tell us all "I told you so"?

There once was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway. Upon hearing on the radio (over the honking horns) that there was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway, he peered through his windshield, noticed all of the headlights heading toward him, and exclaimed "My God! There are DOZENS of them!!" --Guy Macon (talk) 05:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Yeah, [37]  :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7f:be17:2d00:b9d0:9630:fc7:7662 (talk • contribs) 06:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: I don't need a theory—it's pretty obvious that a brigade of editors involved in the RfC who didn't like the outcome came here to have it overturned. That's not how this process is supposed to work. If it's allowed to work this way, it will be to the detriment to the integrity of the consensus process. - MrX 🖋 12:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you think of anything -- anything at all -- that might explain so many people disagreeing with you other than "I am right and they are all wrong"? The promotion to brigadier was nice, though. Much better than by present position of henchman. --Guy Macon (talk)

I answered your question in my previous comment. I've already said that I don't have an opinion about Ayurveda. It doesn't register on my radar of things I care about. I never used it; I've never read about it (other than the lead of the Wikipedia article and the talk page); I've never discussed it with anyone; and I don't care about it anymore than I do homeopathy or crystal healing. You seem to think that it's fine to overturn a close by a majority vote of editors involved in the RfC. I don't. - MrX 🖋 13:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn largely per Levivich's evidence that MrX did not adequately evaluate the discussion, particularly in light of many obviously incorrect arguments which were not discounted, and per RexxS' detailed analysis here that the RfC was not about whether or not to describe Ayurveda as pseudoscience but about how to do so. Also, when a closer starts arguing about what pages are and are not best practice or established community expectations, they should take a break from closing things: it's up to the participants to bring those arguments; once you start bringing your own you're supervoting. Given the controversial nature of this topic I support the suggestion to nominate a panel to close, though I normally dislike closing panels. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  Also: I couldn't care less if closers are admins or not: it's the quality of the close that matters, not the closer's choice of headwear. There are just so many excellent non-admins perfectly capable of analyzing and closing this sort of discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how you arrived at the idea that I "supervoted" Ivanvector. Are you suggesting that I had a preferred outcome and tilted the scales in that direction? There is no misunderstanding on my part about what the purpose of the RfC was. I made no claim or implication that it was to determine if Ayurveda is pseudoscience. - MrX 🖋 17:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  That's the problem in a nutshell, MrX. The fact that Ayurveda is a pseudoscience is a settled issue here and in mainstream scientific opinion. By failing to start from that context, you were unable to weigh the strengths of the policies quoted. If Ayurveda is a pseudoscience, then WP:PSCI absolutely paramount; if not it's irrelevant. By ignoring the current context, your close fell foul of the pitfall underpinning WP:GEVAL. --RexxS (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  No, that is not how the process works. We do no require closers to have intimate knowledge of a subject in order to close an RfC. I also never said that I "ignored the current context". This will make about the fourth time that you have invented things that I supposedly said that I didn't actually say. You should stop that. - MrX 🖋 00:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  Without expressing an opinion on whether you did or did not ignore the context, ignoring the context is about something that you didn't do but should have. You saying nothing in the closing comments about, in the words of RexxS, "The fact that Ayurveda is a pseudoscience is a settled issue here and in mainstream scientific opinion" is an easily verifiable fact. Ayurveda being a pseudoscience is an established fact. The reason why I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with RexxS about his "ignored the current context" claim is that I have yet to see a compelling argument that you were supposed to do so. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  There is no requirement to write a detailed summary of every argument in the RfC as you seem to think. If, as you claim, Ayurveda is a "settled issue" and "an easily verifiable fact", why would that need to be summarized in the lead anyway? More importantly, someone closing an RfC should not seek out information that is not referenced in the RfC to form their own conclusion. The task of the RfC closer is to summarize the discussion, not right great wrongs or introduce new information. For all the zeal of the editors supporting adding 'pseudoscience' to the lead, a significant number of their argument were weak. Would it help if I listed the names of editors who simply voted, with a separate list of editors who made circular comments like "Support mentioning pseudoscientific or pseudoscience in the first sentence, considering that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia." or "Support I think that this question should also be asked for the Traditional Chinese Medicine article."?

We could also examine the false claim that there were WP:SPAs who opposed the RfC question. My request to point out the SPAs went unanswered.[38] Or perhaps lwe can look at the claim of canvassing[39] based on two offsite posts that predate the RfC. A closer also has to examine claims like "It is a fact that this article has been included as part of the scope of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience for several years without challenge. That settles the question of whether ArbCom regards the subject as pseudoscience." Note that my suggestion to seek clarification (really, verification) on this from WP:ARCA went unanswered. Finally, it's highly noteworthy that most of the people insisting that the RfC close be overturned are WP:INVOLVED. So much so in your case, that you boldly added pseudoscience to the lead after a determination that there was non consensus to do so![40] You have been here a while, so I'm pretty sure you're familiar with WP:NOCON bullet 2. - MrX 🖋 12:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Just a note on closing panels: they generally only exist to rubber stamp a long analysis that ends with “no consensus”. I haven’t read this discussion and don’t plan on contributing substantively to the review, but I’ve come to the conclusion that closing panels are virtually never appropriate. If people want that; just overturn to no consensus here and be done with it. That will achieve the same outcome in the end and save time. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  The last panel close I'm aware of was Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices and Wugapodes and Ymblanter went to considerable lengths to extract all of the salient discussion points from the debate, and then render a verdict on all of the consensuses that they could divine. It was not a rubber stamp, nor did it end with "no consensus", so that does contradict your assertions. "Overturn to no consensus" is a flip comment on a topic that has consumed many hours of many Wikipedians' time. As its purpose was to settle a dispute that went to AE, that outcome would actually be a complete waste of time, because the underlying disagreements would remain, and another RfC would be needed to arrive at the conclusion that is apparent from the present debate. --RexxS (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (4th nomination) was a panel close that found consensus, following an overturned individual "no consensus" close. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 303#RfC: Fox News was another recent panel close that ended with a finding of consensus. Lev!vich 19:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  All of the examples given above support my claims that it’s simple a long way at arriving at no consensus. Carve outs for specific points within the discussion that the closers say achieve consensus are typically super votes or minor parts and miss the main question, still leading to an overall outcome of the question not being settled. In each of the cases cited, I think the community would have been much better served with one closer, and that the panel closes likely made the outcomes worse not better. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (4th nomination) explicitly found a consensus to keep. Where is the no consensus there? Also I would ask that you provide specifics about what elements of that close were a supervote. I have no great love of panel closes and can, if someone needs them, provide diffs of evidence of this. However, panel closes have a place. A limited narrow place. Not in this RfC, for instance. However, I think the two panel closes Levivich used are examples of where they do have a place and where they are not, necessarily, supervotes that reflect no consensus closes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  The schools RfC from a few years ago was the panel close I consider a super vote that I was specifically thinking of in this instance; it was a while ago and consensus at AfD has arguably shifted since then, but at the time I didn’t think it reflected the discussion. I said “typically” to avoid calling out any specific close and not to target any of the ones cited above, even though I do think they likely would have probably been resolved better with one person rather than multiple. Everyone who participated in those did that at community request and in good faith and they’re certainly valid closes. My opinion is that they’d likely have been better if one person closed them.

  In the case of the R&I AfD if it had just been overturned to keep we would have saved sufficient community time. By overturning for a panel close after a no consensus AfD, that was functionally they only available option to the closers, even if starting fresh. The community was perfectly capable of handling that at the review rather then reopening and requesting a panel. In the process, we lost more time and there were probably a lot more people angsty waiting on the close. We could have skipped that step by ending it at the close review. It was a perfectly good close: it still would have been better if we didn’t have a panel and it had ended before. If a discussion had a close review, that’s already multiple people reading the discussion. There’s no need to add the third step. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  I agree with you that panel closes are not appropriate for all RfCs. However, the facts of R+I, where individual closings proved divisive and not supported, but the panel close received no real pushback suggest that in extraordinary circumstances panel closes have a place. I think by acknowledging what that place we have a schema against which to judge the need for panel closes. We then then we can say, no the Ayurveda RfC did not and does not need a panel close. A blanket statement that they are always super votes, carve outs of minor parts, or miss the main question makes it harder to explain to people suggesting in good faith that one is necessary here why that maybe isn't the case. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  Yeah, I don’t think R&I got it wrong, but I think the community likely would also have been fine ending it at the review stage, and it probably would have been less taxing on community stamina to not have a panel. I’ve done a few myself, and those experiences have probably formed the way I view them knowing my own faults. When a panel close exists, there’s a desire to have an outcome, and those minor carve outs that reflect bits of the discussion also tend not to have been proposed directly. There’s a risk that anyone latches on to them in the process, but I think I’m at least more likely to latch onto them when there’s an expectation for resolution, which panels tend to have. I suppose my critique is that in most cases, if a panel is required the correct outcome usually would be no consensus on the question asked, which often is part of the result, but panels have a tendency to go beyond that in ways that are normally somewhat minor, but also matter on contentious topics. As a whole, I think we’re better served just not using them, even if they can lead to the right result. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Opinions disagreeing with the closing summary
When a large number of veteran editors disagree with the closing summary, it may be time to ask someone with more experience to write a new closing summary. This can be done with or without upholding the "no consensus" close. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Click here to expand

"I do not believe that you gave sufficient weight to the strength of the support arguments, and that you failed to sufficiently account for the weaknesses of the oppose arguments. I accept that a "no consensus for inclusion in the first sentence" close is within the bounds of a reasonable assessment of the debate. However, I believe that you failed to recognise a consensus for inclusion in the first paragraph, which was strongly supported by policy." RexxS 17:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[41] "I must say at the least I was surprised by the NAC here. I was sort of expecting a panel close from experienced admins followed by a mandatory review. I do agree this was, at the least, an ill-considered close." Alexbrn 18:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[42] "I believe the closing statement did not even attempt to provide a reasonable summation of the discussion. I see this as an editor who was indecisive and wanted to please both sides. At least a review is needed." - hako9 18:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[43] "Your close leaves the dispute unsettled, despite the strength of support for inclusion in the opening paragraph, as policy dictates. I do not believe your close sufficiently assessed the case for inclusion in the opening paragraph, and I believe that view will be upheld by uninvolved editors. I'll therefore challenge your close at WP:AN." --RexxS 20:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[44] "I appreciate MrX's willingness to help with the backlog at ANRFC, but I have to agree with RexxS. In fact, I'd say there was a clear consensus for inclusion in the lead sentence. There was a majority for it, and the minority arguing against it made poor arguments." Crossroads 21:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[45] "Overturn and re-close by admin ... FWIW, I see many oppose !votes that should be discounted. For example, all of those arguing "no sources support 'pseudoscience'" should be tossed in light of the many sources presented (mostly by Guy Macon) supporting usage of that term. All the oppose !votes citing WP:LABEL that don't discuss the very specific part of LABEL discussing "pseudoscience" should be tossed as not policy based. Those oppose !votes citing fringe works (one of them cites the back cover of a fringe work, lol) should also be tossed as not reality based. There is at least one blocked sock whose !vote should be tossed. The closing statement did not address any of this. Once you discount all the no-policy-basis or falsely-claiming-no-sources-exist oppose !votes, I see consensus for inclusion in the first sentence." Levivich 15:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[46] "I'm the process of challenging the close as I believe a consensus for inclusion in the first paragraph was established, but missed by the closer. It might be worth hanging on a day or two while it's discussed at User talk:MrX #Ayurveda RfC close (and potentially at WP:AN)." --RexxS 17:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[47]

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments that interpret the result of the RfC as allowing the word "pseudoscience" in the opening sentence
When different editors in the dispute all read the exact same closing summary and come to different conclusions as to what is allowed and what is forbidden, it may be time to ask someone with more experience to write a new closing summary. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Click here to expand

"Isn't it a huge disservice to our readers that we have to water down the language because it might offend some people's beliefs? ... The rfc is no consensus. Can't we edit? Or is this a kind of a stalemate." hako9 15:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[48] "It is indeed an extreme disappointment, but this is a fairly common occurrence on this website. See, for example, the endless, mind-numbing struggle at Indigenous Aryans to merely include the characterization of WP:FRINGE, despite this being obvious to anyone who has even heard the term 'comparative method' whispered in a neighboring room before. The unfortunate situation is that there exists a huge bloc of people with deeply-held religious and political beliefs which prevent level-headed thinking. Not much else can be said about it." BirdValiant 15:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[49] "If you look at the discussion, the consensus was that it doesn't necessarily have to be in the first sentence, but there was no consensus that it can't be in the first sentence." Guy Macon 20:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[50] Have you read the comment at 20:26, 16 August 2020 (search for that text to find it)? Please address what it says." -- Johnuniq 10:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[51] "In adding the content anyway an editor is ignoring the RfC ...That makes no sense." hako9 19:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[52]

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments that interpret the result of the RfC as forbidding the word "pseudoscience" in the opening sentence
Again, different editors in the dispute all reading the exact same closing summary and come to different conclusions as to what is allowed and what is forbidden. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Click here to expand

"No consensus means there was no agreement to put pseudoscience in the first sentence. In adding the content anyway an editor is ignoring the RfC." Littleolive oil 19:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[53] @Guy Macon; Instead of misrepresenting the conclusion from the RfC, I think it must be better if you drop WP:STICK in this regard now. I have reverted your edit that goes against the result of the RfC. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil 09:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[54] @Guy Macon; I had to revert your edit because it really goes against the conclusion of the RfC. Earlier there was no consensus for adding "pseudoscience" in the lead either, thus a new consensus will have to be established to add "pseudoscience". शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil 09:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[55]

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• • Apologies for mess which I can't seem to fix on iPad. Fixed.

• • You're right I probably shouldn't have removed the text above. I tried to make a statement but on my phone couldn't post for some reason. (I'm on an old computer now.) I was able though to remove the cmt- probably shouldn't have. Guy please remove a comment which does not support the statement you are making nor was it meant to. I have never said pseudoscience was forbidden anywhere. You are using my statement to make a point which is not an accurate portrayal of what I said. And yeah pretty testy. Harassment does that. For anyone watching and knows what I'm talking about. Cut it out! Littleolive oil (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn and re-close by administrator (involved). I have very little to add to Levivich's and RexxS' analyses which I endorse. I do however see a clear consensus for it being in the first sentence, not just the first paragraph. That is the original RfC question, and once we disregard numerous invalid comments based on misunderstanding of WP:LABEL or ignoring WP:PSCI, the numbers clearly favor that. The minority's arguments were not stronger such that there is reason to close in accord with them. Support comments that are brief should not be disregarded but should be understood to signal agreement with the arguments made by other support !voters. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I’m on my phone-computer is being repaired-so apologize if I mess up formatting in any way.

The RfC was asking a very simple question that is, whether the word pseudoscience should be in the first sentence of the article. That’s all that was being asked. Any support or oppose votes that did not answer that question specifically should probably be discounted. The RfC was not asking about sources, about the opening paragraph, or about whether pseudoscience is a word we should use at all. Rexx’s points are well taken in that regard.

I don’t accept the argument which suggests that the RfC decision means pseudoscience can be included in the lead sentence because the close was no consensus for it to be in the lead sentence...ack... which drifts towards the disingenuous and may even be, from an earthy Canadian saying, dragging a bush. The question was and was meant to be simple, in my mind, a clear yes or no should the word pseudoscience be placed in the first sentence of the lead.

My advice is to thank the closer for his considerable work and because there is so much disagreement ask for a re close. We don’t have to blame anyone.

Finally in the past dealing with articles where pseudoscience is being discussed I have experienced off-Wikipedia harassment. This is happening again and it will not scare me away. In fact I didn’t want to get involved in this but I was determined to after and with ongoing harassment. Please feel free to fix any formatting messes.Littleolive oil (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• That close is bullshit. I know that fans of quackery will be delighted, but int he end ayurveda is pseudoscience, and the policy-based arguments support the inclusion of that fact (suitably framed) in the lead. Exactly as we do for many other forms of pseudomedicine. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Right. We have a long standing imperative to include pseudoscience. The RfC was not about whether to include in the lead but about whether to include the word in the first sentence of the lead.Littleolive oil (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

And the answer to that question is "there is a consensus to include pseudoscience in the first paragraph, but it does not have to be in the first sentence". --Guy Macon (talk) 23:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon that is certainly how I read it. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

But it would obviously be best placed in the first sentence, front and centre, so that the most important point on the subject is made right away. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 10:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn and re-close by administrator Primarily because the close and the post-close statement could lead to more ambiguity, if not overturned, thus defeating the purpose of the rfc in the first place. The closer should have (ideally, in my opinion) striked their initial close of no consensus. Already on the talk page of the article, one editor had effectively challenged the rfc close (and was rightly reverted back). We will never be able to stop them without a clear close. As for me, MrX's Upon re-examination, there appears to be a weak consensus for sustaining the pseudoscience descriptor in the lead is sufficient for lead describing it as a pseudoscience. A weak consensus (not at all weak if we go by the analysis made above), is still a consensus. A re-close by an admin should put the matter to rest. - hako9 (talk) 07:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
• overturn and re-close by someone who is qualified to assess the actual discussion, and as per Levivich. Praxidicae (talk) 11:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn and re-close by admin Although I supported including "pseudoscientific" (or similar) in the first sentence, I believe that this part of MrX's first statement is a fair summary: "No consensus to mention the word pseudoscience (or pseudoscientific) in the opening sentence." (I don't know enough about proving "canvassing" to comment on that part.) I strongly disagree with this statement by MrX: Upon re-examination, there appears to be a weak consensus for sustaining the pseudoscience descriptor in the lead." I agree with everything RexxS wrote in his/their cogent argument above, explaining why this close decision should be overturned and re-closed by a neutral administrator.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 17:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Technical issue on Eddie891's RfA?

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

---

• Relevant page: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Eddie891 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

When I went to WP:Requests for adminship, the linked text "Voice your opinion on this candidate" linked to a "Co-nomination" section instead of a section one would be expected to voice opinions. Can someone have a look and fix it? Thanks, Eumat114 (Message) 11:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. The template for RFAs links the "voice your opinion" to the 4th section of the RFA. The two co-noms made separate sections/headers, so the discussion section got bumped back to the 6th section. I've updated the link to link directly to the discussion section. only (talk) 11:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Abusive edit summary

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

---

Hello - please could you advise whether this edit summary is considered acceptable? [56] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.124.32 (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

It's friggin alright with me. It's not offensive or uncivil. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Friggin A! Favonian (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

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