Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Appealing my topic ban: This is extremely lengthy and convoluted. This looks more like an indictment against other editors than appeal of one's own sanctions. One must address one's own prior editing, show examples of constructive editing i other areas, and explain how they will edit constructively in the area applicable to the restrictions.
Line 70: Line 70:


== Unban review ==
== Unban review ==
{{atop|Per a strong consensus, the topic ban is reinstated: {{u|TH1980}} is indefinitely topic banned from the subject of Japan, broadly-construed. The general intent of the consensus appears to be to reinstate the previously-existing TBAN. Some editors suggested expanding it, but these proposals went largely undiscussed. This ban may be appealed in six months. Regards, [[User:Swarm|<span style="color:black">'''~Swarm~'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Swarm|<span style="color:DarkViolet">{sting}</span>]]</sup> 05:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)}}

*[[WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive320#Topic Ban Appeal]]
*[[WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive320#Topic Ban Appeal]]
*[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88]]
*[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88]]
Line 115: Line 115:
Thanks all for the review - I believe that there is a fairly clear consensus on the next steps, but I'd be grateful if an uninvolved administrator would please review the above and close this? [[User:Girth Summit|<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#294;">Girth</span><span style="font-family:Impact;color:#42c;">Summit</span>]][[User talk:Girth Summit|<sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)</sub>]] 08:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks all for the review - I believe that there is a fairly clear consensus on the next steps, but I'd be grateful if an uninvolved administrator would please review the above and close this? [[User:Girth Summit|<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#294;">Girth</span><span style="font-family:Impact;color:#42c;">Summit</span>]][[User talk:Girth Summit|<sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)</sub>]] 08:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
:We still have not heard from three of the people you reached out to. Can we please wait to close until after they have reviewed this?[[User:TH1980|TH1980]] ([[User talk:TH1980|talk]]) 16:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
:We still have not heard from three of the people you reached out to. Can we please wait to close until after they have reviewed this?[[User:TH1980|TH1980]] ([[User talk:TH1980|talk]]) 16:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== [[User:UEFAlinks]] ==
== [[User:UEFAlinks]] ==

Revision as of 05:36, 27 July 2020

    Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

    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.(archivessearch)

    Template:Active editnotice

    Open tasks

    XFD backlog
    V Dec Jan Feb Mar Total
    CfD 0 0 0 10 10
    TfD 0 0 0 10 10
    MfD 0 0 1 1 2
    FfD 0 0 0 2 2
    RfD 0 0 0 51 51
    AfD 0 0 0 1 1

    Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

    Report
    Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (24 out of 7460 total) (Purge)
    Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
    List of Zionists 2024-03-28 06:10 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Unit 8200 2024-03-28 06:04 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Jusuf Mehonjić 2024-03-28 02:12 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/EE; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan
    Rumana, Israel 2024-03-27 23:09 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:A/I/PIA K6ka
    EBC Financial Group 2024-03-27 22:05 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan
    Celebrity Big Brother (British series 23) 2024-03-27 20:33 2024-06-06 23:33 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry Ponyo
    Draft:Kèyos Beauty 2024-03-26 22:23 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ad Orientem
    3M22 Zircon 2024-03-26 21:25 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case
    Al Jazeera Arabic 2024-03-26 20:32 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Talysh assimilation 2024-03-26 20:23 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBAA; will log at CTOPS Daniel Case
    Template:AFL Col 2024-03-26 18:00 indefinite edit High-risk template or module: 2500 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    List of X-Men members 2024-03-26 15:18 2024-04-26 15:18 edit Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate
    Brahmin 2024-03-26 14:29 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: WP:CASTE (edit warring and possibly sock/meat puppetry) RegentsPark
    Portal:Palestine 2024-03-26 14:19 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement Courcelles
    Draft:No Time To Spy:A Loud House Movie 2024-03-26 03:15 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: per RFPP Daniel Case
    United Nations Security Council Resolution 2728 2024-03-26 03:05 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Siyal (caste) 2024-03-25 18:50 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case
    Yoseph Haddad 2024-03-25 18:39 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose 2024-03-25 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2503 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Template:Trim % 2024-03-25 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2503 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Template:HNLMS 2024-03-25 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2505 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Template:Occupation by nationality and century category header/continental 2024-03-25 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2991 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Template:Country2continental 2024-03-24 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2500 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Template:BioRef 2024-03-24 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2506 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II

    RfC closure needed

    Hi, I requested a formal close for an RfC over a month ago on June 15th and it is still not closed. ProcrastinatingReader left a proposed close on June 23rd but never closed it. I made a post here previously, but it was never answered. Could someone please close it? It's located at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#RfC on infobox inclusion criteria for candidates. — Tartan357  (Talk) 17:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to clarify, that wasn't a proposed close but just a note (to whomever wishes to close) to highlight that the discussion wasn't properly advertised, or for a sufficient duration (having been delisted from the only place it was advertised after one week), for the broad change(s) originally requested. Aside from that, there's enough issues with that RfC (sockpuppetry etc) that I felt it would be worth noting any closer should take extra care to read that discussion, and the previous RfCs, before closing. Adding to these issues is the minimal participation, compared to the much wider participation in the discussion closed by SpinningSpark just weeks before, which was also open for discussion for 2 months (compared to 1 week of this one). Combined, I don't think it's appropriate to assume consensus to overrule the SpinningSpark close (from the two-part RfC, not the no consensus one) based on that discussion. As a sidenote, I also find it strange that the most popular outcome from the previous RfC, which SpinningSpark also outlined in his close statement and suggested testing in a future RfC, wasn't provided as an option in this RfC. Multiple respondents asked for that option again in this RfC as an option. I think this RfC was structurally flawed.
    Deferring to WP:ACD: if the previous discussion was relatively recent or the newer discussion has much lower participation, it may not be appropriate to overrule the first one. If it were me closing it, I'd close it as no consensus personally, for all the aforementioned reasons. I think the messiness of that discussion has probably prevented sooner closure, and perhaps my response at WP:AN/RFC has also caused confusion (if people think I'm closing it and haven't closed for that reason, in which case I'll clarify there). Pinging SpinningSpark as the closer of the previous two RfCs for his thoughts on this, and perhaps he might want to close this one as well. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @ProcrastinatingReader: Do you think we'll need yet another RfC to settle this? I looked at the previous RfCs and tried to limit the options based on that, but the sockpuppeteer and another editor were irritated by that. I'm not sure how to proceed to get this cleared up. — Tartan357  (Talk) 18:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @ProcrastinatingReader: I'm happy to work with the other editors who responded to this RfC to formulate a better, longer-running RfC if you think that would be appropriate. If you think that is a good idea, it might be best just to close this one as being without consensus so we can move on. — Tartan357  (Talk) 18:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Tartan357, I'm not one for bureaucracy, but I personally can't see how a consensus can be inferred from this discussion, so another one might be needed. I also considered responses and the main points from the previous recent discussion and I believe they're still applicable currently, though those editors didn't participate in this discussion to reiterate them. Likely they didn't know this discussion was happening. Let's just wait and see what others think. SpinningSpark's thoughts, as the closer of the previous few discussions, would be particularly helpful. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ProcrastinatingReader, the bureaucracy is becoming stifling here. While I am sure you mean well, continued attempts to get a magical consensus out of this mess are not helpful. This is one where there have been something like four RfCs on the same issue. There was also some sock puppetry which has made a mess of everything. The original RfC was closed noting that there was consensus for part B [inclusion of candidates who had won delegates] with the addition of candidates that receive 5% of the vote. We are asking for a close that respects that as the status quo, without prejudice to someone starting an RfC to reconsider it (and hopefully tidy up this mess). In my view the discussions and events that have taken place since the first RfC has created some doubt whether the consensus might have changed (due to the second RfC and other discussions), the effect being that some editors might want to exclude some candidates who have won only a handful of delegates. It was a messy/difficult close to begin with, and the events since haven't made the consensus clearer. I do not see us establishing a clear consensus without a RfC that clearly addresses the "handful of delegates" issue (if someone wants to initiate one). Can we really not agree to the existing status quo as a baseline, with others able to start a new RfC to challenge that? That is the only way I see through this, but if you see another I think editors would like to hear it. Unless another solution is on the table though, dragging this on in the hope that the previous somewhat contradictory and tainted RfCs (here, here, here & here) and other discussions (including here, here, among other places) since are going to suddenly offer a clear consensus is not helping us build a better encyclopedia.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Darryl Kerrigan, a no consensus close would keep the status quo, which would be the result of the two-part RfC. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you mean. I gather that you oppose my opinion that this should be closed with no consensus, but you also state that the status quo should be continued, which is slightly contradictory? I think you might've misunderstood my comments. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I am a bit frustrated. This thing has become a mess and attempting to try to make sense of everything that has occurred and correct for sock-puppetry is not helping us here. I do not like the idea of completely blowing up the consensus that was initially reached. There seems to be consensus that Biden, Sanders, Warren, Bloomberg, Pete Buttigieg should be in (because they are over 5%, won significant number of delegates, or they won a state/contest). The lack of consensus seems to be about Gabbard (and possibly Klobuchar) which seems to revolve around whether winning 2 and 7 delegates respectively warrants inclusion. We have wasted so much time on this already, I would not like to see us simply declare that there was no consensus for anything and ignore general consensus concerning the other candidates there. But whatever we do here, it just needs to happen. A decision just needs to be made, because we have been discussing this over and over again since February. Debating this close, and holding it up does not seem to have been productive to me. Those involved agreed to close it on that basis I described above, lets just get on with it. If a no consensus close is where we are going to end up, so be it. But please can we close this? Delay and procedural wrangling here are not our friends.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I bear some blame in this, too, and for that I apologize. ProcrastinatingReader, the reason why I didn't include the "has >5% of the vote or has won delegates" option is because I thought there was no consensus on the matter at the time. My assessment looking through the past RfCs was that the complexity of the choices being offered was preventing a consensus from being reached. Because the most recent RfC before mine had had a large number of participants, and was closed by SpinningSpark as reaching no consensus, and because SpinningSpark did not say anything about a status quo consensus existing, I assumed that the most recent RfC had taken us back to square one. So, perhaps I don't properly understand under what circumstances RfCs supersede each other. In my mind, choosing a single metric was the clearest way forward, and having both the percentage and delegate metrics seemed unnecessary as it would be no different for who is in this infobox than having the delegate criterion alone. My only goal here is to have a clear consensus that we can point to, and to avoid ambiguous terms like "significant." So, I would be just as happy with the option Darryl Kerrigan is talking about as I would with the delegate-only option. Like Darryl, I really just want to move this forward in a timely manner, so I welcome any advice on how we can identify a clear consensus, whether that's finding a way to make it clear that the two-part RfC represents a present consensus or starting a new RfC. — Tartan357  (Talk) 06:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Particularly, the following comment by SpinningSpark on the complexity of the options in the no consensus RfC guided my thinking when I created my RfC:
    "RfCs work best when a simple yes or no question is asked, preferably after a discussion has teased out a proposal that might have broad consensus. Having "other" as an option is guaranteed to make the discussion a mess; it's an invitation to get as many different answers as there were participants." — Tartan357  (Talk) 06:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @SpinningSpark: Could you please weigh in here? — Tartan357  (Talk) 21:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The origin of the “somewhat contradictory and tainted RfCs” noted by Darryl Kerrigan and which eventually gave rise to this last RfC is explained below. Humanengr (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    [Revised below in view of response by S Marshall — thx] NB to all including SpinningSpark: A close look at the 1st RfC solidifies SpinningSpark's conclusion that In my judgement (although this is too messy to be completely certain) there is consensus for part B with the addition of candidates that receive 5% of the vote.:

    18 votes (out of 22) were for all candidates who won a delegate (with or without considering the popular vote criterion). (There were also 3 comments.)

    It is critical also to note that Smith0124 — who was later (on June 12) revealed and banned as a sockpuppet — voted for "delegate or >5%" on February 26. Then on March 4, the day after Gabbard won her first delegate and while the first RfC was ongoing, the sock interjected this RfC. SpinningSpark closed that RfC on May 22 prior to the uncovering of Smith0124 as a sock. On June 7, the sock created a second RfC which S Marshall closed as This isn't a good faith RfC: it's disruptive sockpuppetry. I am unilaterally delisting and closing it.Humanengr (talk) 07:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's not helpful to count RfC !votes or produce statistical analyses of how many editors said what. The process of closing an RfC involves weighting those !votes, and the range of acceptable weights is very broad -- there are circumstances in which a closer can give a !vote zero weight, or 0.0001, or 10,000. Best just to wait for someone to close it, and I do know there are long delays at the moment.—S Marshall T/C 10:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thx, S Marshall — I should have merely noted SpinningSpark’s close stated 7 voted 'yes' on part B (for the only criterion for inclusion being 'a delegate') and 11 others suggested the criterion should be 5% of popular vote or a delegate.
      • It is critical, however, to note that 1) Smith0124 — who was later revealed and banned as a sockpuppet — was one of those 11 votes for "delegate or >5%", and 2) all the above votes had been cast before March 3 when it was reported that Gabbard won her first delegate. It was on March 4, when it was overwhelmingly evident that Gabbard would be included in the infobox, that Smith0124 interjected RfC #2. (SpinningSpark closed that RfC on May 22 prior to the uncovering of Smith0124 as a sock.) On June 7, the sock created RfC #3 which S Marshall closed on June 15 as This isn't a good faith RfC: it's disruptive sockpuppetry. I am unilaterally delisting and closing it. after the sock was banned on June 12.
      • Again, it was only after Gabbard won her delegates and it was evident she would be included in the infobox that the sock decided to drum up objection to Gabbard's inclusion. That is not a good look for an encyclopedia. Humanengr (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Unban review

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


    In May of this year, I closed this discussion and lifted User:TH1980's TBan from editing Japan-related articles. I have since become aware of some issues, both with the original unban request, and with the user's editing since the ban was lifted, which lead me to wonder whether my act was an error, and I would welcome a review of the whole situation.

    • First, the request for an unban was not, it appears, entirely accurate. TH1980 said in their appeal I always try to stay out of trouble, and, as my block log shows, I have never received any sanction other than this topic ban, which was related to only a single article. That is not true: the findings of fact in this arbcom case included that TH1980 has in the past both edit warred and hounded another editor, and it ended up with an indefinite IBan with Hijiri88 - that is a sanction. The assertion that the concerns were about a single article is also not correct - the discussion that led to their topic ban actually concerned edit warring on two articles, Korean influence on Japanese culture and History of Japan.
    • One of the concerns which led to their TBan, and which were discussed at considerable length in a couple of ANI threads in the past (see links above), was TH1980 making GAN nominations for the two articles mentioned above without getting talk page consensus to do so - both articles have long histories of edit warring and cover contentious material, and there were concerns that one 'side' had used GA status as a barrier to other people working on content. Since the ban was lifted, TH1980's first edit to Korean influence on Japanese culture was to nominate it for GA, without an edit summary or any talk page discussion. I also note that they requested that the first person who offered to do the review withdraw; not an unreasonable suggestion perhaps, since it would have been that person's first GA review, but it indicated that they were aware that the nomination may have been contentious which makes me wonder why they didn't start a thread on the talk page prior to making the nomination (given the history).
    • More recently, at History of Japan, they have returned to edit warring, sometimes with less than polite edit summaries, including doing so on the talk page over a GA nomination.

    So, in short, I lifted this TBan on the basis of consensus of a fairly poorly attended discussion on AN, which was based around a request that contained more than one inaccurate statement. Since the ban was lifted, the editor has returned to the same articles, and has edited in a manner that is reminiscent of the editing that led to their ban. I am asking for a review as to whether (a) my original decision to lift the ban was a mistake, and (b) whether it should be reinstated, either on the grounds of the erroneous request, or based on the pattern of editing since it was lifted. Pinging the editors who commented in the unban discussion: TParis, Jauerback, Atlantic306, The4lines, JzG GirthSummit (blether) 09:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • This looks to me like a case of WP:ROPE: good faith was extended, immediately abused, and the ban can be restored. Guy (help!) 10:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it was the right thing to do at the time. We cannot predict how users will use/misuse a boon. I think User:TH1980 has shown that they need to be away from the articles in question till they can address their WP:OWN issues and show they have learned to collaborate with others. I propose reinstating the TBAN, reviewable in 6 months, removal of TBAN contingent on constructive interim edits and convincingly addressing what sounds like WP:OWN behavior, and an uncollaborative outlook, based on resumed problem behavior. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see anything wrong with the unban close. I would agree with Deep about the proper remedy now but I would also add a requirement that they link to this thread in any unban request. This will make sure that the facts are accessible for the community when considering a future unban request. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support restoring - If you're going to abuse the good faith etc then you can just be re-topicbanned ... just this time around ROPE and Good faith will be much less. Never a good idea to abuse things like this as it never ends well for the recipient. –Davey2010Talk 12:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re-ban - it could be that TH1980 simply forgot about their other sanctions (logging non-block sanctions is a bit haphazard) and was otherwise being honest, but based on the commitments they made in their appeal which were immediately contradicted by their post-appeal actions, it seems more likely that they intended to deceive the community with their appeal. Either way they immediately resumed the specific disruptive behaviour which led to the sanction, indicating again that they cannot edit collaboratively in the topic area. Write them a new ban which mirrors the appealed one, and include a reference to this discussion in the ban's wording so that this incident is not forgotten. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Propose topic ban from good article nominations - they committed in their appeal to discussing good article nominations before listing nominated articles, and twice (at least) since their appeal they have nominated an article with no discussion at all, and subsequently have attempted to own those nominations (by asking reviewers to withdraw or edit warring over the nomination template). This sanction should allow them to propose a nomination on an article's talk page, but they will be required to convince someone else to actually post the nomination (demonstrating consensus). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support reinstating indefinite TBAN of Japan-related articles, broadly construed, for bad faith in the appeal and for immediately returning to the same problematic behaviours. Edits made to Japan-related articles should be mass reverted, as TH1980's original ban involved such widespread misuse of sources and POV-pushing as to make cleanup an unreasonable chore requiring editors with specialized knowledge.
    Also support Ivanvector's proposal of a TBAN on nominating GANs, as TH1980 has a years-long long documented history of using them for contentious ends, and editwarring over them, right up to the present month.
    TH1980 is an extremely persistent problematic editor that the community should watch with great vigilance. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Girth Summit: perhaps you should add to the links in your opening remarks TH1980's previous rejected appeal, which was unanimously opposed? Those taking part in this discussion should have access to as much background as is reasonable. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. I linked every edit I made to the exact page number of each academic source on those two articles, so that the endless controversy over sources and who said what where, which invested those pages, like a plague, would disappear. All the links seem to have disappeared, and once more we now only have to trust the reigning editor's word that this is what the content states. That in itself means this can have no GA aspirations, given the long history of confusion and misrepresentation of sources. What happened? Nishidani (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I apologize for not mentioning my one IBAN. I thought of it more as a two-way editing restriction than a block, but I suppose I was wrong. I will withdraw the good article nomination if the admins want me to. However, I was never told that I needed consensus to make a nomination. Curly Turkey reverted the nomination without specifically stating what his problem with the article was. He just said I needed consensus, which is an odd thing to say when no one else ever objected to the nomination. I did revert Curly Turkey's edits to the article, but only because they were bad edits. One of them deleted the refend tag for no reason with an incorrect edit summary[1] and the other one added a ton of citation links that led to nowhere.[2] I only reverted once, so I wasn't exactly edit warring, and I don't think anyone would call those good edits. Still, I absolutely won't revert again.TH1980 (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Girth Summit, JzG, Deepfriedokra, Davey2010, Ivanvector - I didn't realize that just one revert would cause so much controversy. If I asked for other sanctions, can I avoid getting my topic ban reinstated? I would definitely agree to a one-revert rule restriction plus a restriction on good article nominations without consensus. I really want to be able to make constructive contributions in this field. It should be noted that after my topic ban was lifted, I successfully brought the article Korean influence on Japanese culture to good article status. I also substantially improved the History of Japan article. I believe that my contributions should be taken into account here. What do you think about a one-revert rule restriction plus a restriction on good article nominations instead? TH1980 (talk) 14:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't speak for any of the other editors, but I would still support the reinstatement of the TBan on Japanese subjects, and the introduction of a TBan on GA nominations, as suggested by Ivanvector. Neglecting to mention your IBan in your unban request; going back to those exact same articles that the drama in the past revolved around and basically just picking up where you left off; promising to seek consensus in your unban request, then failing to do that within just a few weeks - it's just too much for me, I don't think a 1RR restriction would be sufficient to give me confidence that there wouldn't be further disruption. GirthSummit (blether) 14:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Girth SummitI don't really like to mention my IBAN in talk page space at all. An undisclosed part of the reason why I asked the original good article reviewer on Korean influence on Japanese culture to withdraw was because he mentioned events/people directly connected to my IBAN. I didn't want to violate it by referring to it. I was wrong to not see it as being like a block, but it was a two-way restriction, so you can understand where I made the error. Anyway, I would never complete any good article nomination until all complaints/corrections are dealt with, but no one ever mentioned a specific problem with the article in need of correction. I always fix all errors that are pointed out to me. I just reverted the deletion of the nomination one time, because I wanted to know what was actually wrong with the article. I will not revert this nomination or any other nomination again, but I also don't think it's fair to interpret a single revert of the incorrect deletion of a crucial formatting tag[3] as edit warring. Do you really think I shouldn't have reverted that? I can certainly pledge to not revert more than once though.TH1980 (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    TH1980, in two successive edits, you reverted the removal of that tag with a snarky edit summary, and then removed over 5,000 characters of text that another editor had recently reinstated, explaining in their edit summary that the material had been arrived at through talk page discussion. I would find that troubling from any editor at any article; that you did it shortly after your TBan was lifted, at the very article that your editing led to the TBan years ago, is a big red flag. GirthSummit (blether) 15:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In the name of good faith, I have removed the GA nomination from History of Japan, and I apologize for my remarks about CurlyTurkey's edits.TH1980 (talk) 23:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional Comment Why ban me from everything related to Japan just because of the issues I have had with other users at pages such as History of Japan? Why not just ban me from the pages I have had issues with other users? I must protest the excessive nature of this ban proposal, as well as how I've been painted as the bad guy by other users.TH1980 (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Why exactly should the topic ban be restored? As far as I can tell, TH1980 only reverted each edit a single time, and with very good reason. Like TH1980 said, reverting a horrible edit a single time is NOT edit warring. And if Curly Turkey objected to the good article nom, why didn't he say WHY? He made no attempt at talk page discussion at all, though a nomination should never be reverted without giving a reason. Homemade Pencils (talk) 15:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment this is a revert of this, and you call Curly Turkey's restoration of the material a 'horrible edit'.
    In one fell swoop, TH1980 expunged 32 references to over a dozen sources, wiping them out with the edit summary justification:’some of this could be incorporated, but certainly not now with all the broken citations and other errors that were inserted here.’ (Note the magisterial WP:OWN/WP:IAR tone).
    People who edit like that, devastating slow collegial work by massive elisions vaguely motivated. have should not be on wikipedia. They certainly shouldn’t be anywhere near Japan/Korea articles. Nishidani (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "if Curly Turkey objected to the good article nom, why didn't he say WHY?"—Curly Turkey left an edit summary as to "WHY", and the links and commentary GirthSummit gave above give background to why TH1980's noms have been problematic and require consensus. Note that there is a proposed TBAN on TH1980's submitting GANs at all. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per JzG, this is a textbook example of ROPE. The implementing admin actioned the AN consensus correctly ("no quorum" not being an option). t's no-one's fault (except the editor in question) if it is taken advantage of. Seems a simple case of Rope was given > Rope was abused > Rope was withdrawn. Restoring the ban seems unavoidable. ——Serial 16:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've looked at both articles, though I have an ingrained desire never to edit this area after the utter time-wastage of my experience there in 2015. That area is marked by the disturbance of incompetence. All that TH1980 appears to have done on his return, has been to reorganize the page to present a uniform citational form, while ridding it of links, so that the text that remains can't easily meet the straightforward criteria of WP:V. He never contributed much of significance to either text. It's unbelievable that one can get a GA passed on just a superficial appearance of neat presentation (Potemkin village) effect. I won't go into the details of all of the defects in both, suffice it to go back, if one likes revisiting nightmares, to the archives for the period 2015 or thereabouts. As soon as one touches the mess, reverts are automatic, unknown editors march in to tagteam, and it becomes impossible to work, because they just revert, smear and don't argue their case on the talk page. This area is deeply problematic, so the safest bet is to ask those associated with its travesties to stay away (I include myself there). That's the negative solution. We do need someone with a fair familiarity with the field to begin to bring those articles up to snuff, without the disturbance of idle editwarriors.Nishidani (talk) 12:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In closing, it would be wise to glance at the way a strange support group appeared out of nowhere, with little experience of wikipedia other than desultory shifting of commas to articles, the moment TH1980's editing was challenged.Nishidani (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unbans are cheap, rebans are cheap too. Seems we gave the editor rope...--v/r - TP 15:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Editor went back the article and acted the same way that got them banned from it in the first place? Does this even need consensus? I would assume an admin would just page block them at this point to reinforce it. Valeince (talk) 18:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Should also be banned from not just Japan related articles but also Korea related articles per Nishidani's comment 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 10:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support restoring indefinite topic ban for Japan-related topics, broadly construed. Net negative per Nishidani above. Johnuniq (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Close?

    Thanks all for the review - I believe that there is a fairly clear consensus on the next steps, but I'd be grateful if an uninvolved administrator would please review the above and close this? GirthSummit (blether) 08:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    We still have not heard from three of the people you reached out to. Can we please wait to close until after they have reviewed this?TH1980 (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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



    Is this actually a UEFA employee? I wasn't sure what to make of it, I don't see any incident, just thought I should let you admins know, know. Govvy (talk) 11:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Govvy, that's a dubious username. I'll have a word. GirthSummit (blether) 11:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    There is admin backlog...

    At Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old. DeltaQuadBot has not performed any revdels on files since June, which allowed the category size to grow to 2,000. What has happened to the robot? Aasim 17:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Awesome Aasim: Did you ask the bot operator? --Izno (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just about to. One sec... Aasim 18:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Izno Ok done. Now we wait. I did this a while ago, just forgot to reply. Aasim 05:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Awesome Aasim: It's back now. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Failed login attempts

    I just blocked 86.22.66.50 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for vandalism. Within a minute or two I had a notification saying 'multiple failed login attempts'. Whether or not the incidents are linked or not I do not know (though I suspect they are). Luckily I have a secure password and 2FA. Is there anything further I should to? GiantSnowman 19:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Nope. That's the whole point of (a) secure passwords and (b) 2FA. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 19:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, grand, thanks. GiantSnowman 15:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As mentioned, you do not need to do anything. However, if wanted, there is a new preference: "Send password reset emails only when both email address and username are provided." That means an IP who does not know your email address cannot troll you in this way. The only downside is that if you have a million emails, you might forget which of them to enter if ever needed. Johnuniq (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Dispute on an RFC

    I have started an RFC on the issue of the default composition of group 3 on WP's periodic table templates at Talk:Periodic table#RFC: Should the default form of the periodic table be changed to put Lu and Lr in group 3, rather than La and Ac?

    Sandbh has raised objections at Talk:Periodic table#Unacceptable behaviour objecting to the way I initiated this RFC. He writes at the end:


    Therefore, I bring it here myself. Double sharp (talk) 04:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    As the other party to this dispute, I await the next step. I pity the poor Admin who will have to waste time on this one. I've posted a last request for sanity and internal resolution, here. Double sharp seems hell-bent on ignoring all requirements for reasonable behaviour. Sandbh (talk) 08:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have responded to Sandbh's request by withdrawing the RFC, so I think this will not be necessary now. Double sharp (talk) 09:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrator misconduct

    I've been threatened with a block here (and on ANI) because I challenged a close in which the closing administrator didn't even read the comments I made, did not apply sanctions against an editor for blatant violations of WP:NPA, nor apply sanctions or investigate violations of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:RGW by multiple editors and one administrator, and shut down active discussion regarding an issue. I honestly don't know what to say other than if this is how editors are treated for attempting to point out rule violations, no wonder some people are considered "untouchable" - they're protected by threats of administrator action for attempting to ask for rules to be enforced. 52.119.101.2 (talk) 06:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • The IP is gaslighting both in this statement and in the original thread. The close in question is here.I read their arguments, but I chose not to mention them because they were so over the top that I don't think anyone would have seriously thought they had a chance to be sanctioned. You might disagree with some of the things editors from either side said in that thread, but none of the editors the IP mentioned did anything approaching sanctionable conduct, and any proposal to implement them would have been met with a snow close.
      If people want to review my comment where they claimed I threatened to block them for questioning my close it is here. I in fact did not threaten to block them for challenging my close: since they'd raised an issue with it, I don't think that would be appropriate. I will admit that I did point out the range to block if the reviewing administrator felt it worth blocking. I considered blocking the IP as a part of the close since their behaviour in it was, ironically, classic WP:RGW/WP:TE type behaviour (see: [4], [5], [6], [7]), but decided against it since they claimed to be dynamic. I should have looked closer at both the IP and range (Special:Contributions/52.119.101.2/20), its apparently relatively static and the range doesn't have that much collateral/it appears to be one main editor in project space (see WP space contribs and all contribs for the relevant range).
      Anyway, as I previously said I have no opposition to any uninvolved administrator undoing my close. I also think that the person behind this IP is just stiring the pot and causing drama at boards, so it makes sense to prevent that, especially since there wouldn't be much collateral, but realize that since they're challenging my close it'd be inappropriate to do so after the fact. I trust the community to deal with this appropriately, either by reopening the issue or by closing it again. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I’ll ask you directly, you think it’s not sanctionable to suggest someone has a “reading disability”, nor sanctionable to call editors white supremacists and racists? 52.119.101.2 (talk) 06:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe Ian, Swarm, and Drmies pointed out that certain things were racist and white supremacist talking points. That's perfectly normal to point out at an ANI thread. Your mischaracterizing their statements as personal attacks rather than legitimate commentary on actual content being posted is part of the reason that your conduct in the thread (and now this one) was sub-par.
    I do think BMK's comment on the reading disorder wasn't the best, but it also wasn't the subject of the thread, and there was no active proposal to address it by anyone other than yourself. The overall discussion on Jorm's removals had lasted two days, and wasn't going to close with anything being done, so there wasn't a reason to keep the thread open so you could keep arguing with people. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I can accept and understand how my interpretation of the use of white supremacist and racist is different from yours. However, I take issue that “because I’m the only one who complained about it, the personal attack of ‘reading disorder’ can slide”. I also still haven’t gotten a response on the intense battleground behavior in that thread in general. There is no reason that it’s necessary to call something a “white supremacist talking point” because no WP policy says anything about that being relevant to content. The responses by Ian and Swarm served only to bully others and stifle the discussion, because nobody wants to be affiliated with racism or white supremacy in any way, and that was permitted to go on for, as you say, two days without anyone calling them out on their battleground behavior. Swarm also later on admits that they will never apologize for attempting to use Wikipedia to RGW they think is happening in the world. I understand I didn’t call it out with the best manners, but ignoring the complaints I made altogether seemed very... odd. Administrators who openly admit they are editing on a topic to advance their personal viewpoint shouldn’t be allowed to edit in that topic area anymore. That happened in this thread and it was ignored. 52.119.101.2 (talk) 07:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Your complaints were not ignored all together. There was just no support for your position anywhere near consensus to take action. Wikipedia operates on the basis of consensus. When it is obvious that consensus is not going to emerge for a position, and a thread has switched into arguing between people rather than solving problems, the thread is closed. In terms of my mentioning a block, like you said, the way you expressed it was far from "the best manners", and if a logged in editor had acted in the same way, they also likely would have been either temporarily or indefinitely blocked depending on if they were brand new or if it was just a one-off. I didn't because I thought you were on a dynamic range based on how I interpreted your comments. If you deescalate how you are dealing with others, you're much more likely to be listened to, and there wouldn't be any need for a block. If you keep escalating the rhetoric, then you're much less likely to be heard, and much more likely to be blocked-- logged in or not. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Review of Rfp closure by Tobefree

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



    Hey all. Regarding ToBeFree's recent closure of my request on Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback, as he recommended, I will request input from other admins here.
    I requested rollback on the grounds that I was heavily combatting vandalism and cleaning up after LTA attacks against multiple wikis. During the time that I requested, there was a large backlog, and most requests did not receive a reply until around ten days later, including mine. At which point, Tobefree closes it as unsuccessful citing some various things as follows:

    • On 17 July, a concern about an alleged "urge to revert repeatedly" has been voiced by Acroterion on your talk page. It was raised. In error due to the target being an LTA. It was then replaed with the statement that I should report to administrators (which I do frequently).
    • On 3 July, in a friendly and otherwise commendable way, you wrote "that is not your fault, it is the fault of the tool you are using" in response to an apology on your talk page. Not even sure what the problem is supposed to be here. A user apologized to me, I reassured him it was not his fault, that is all, right?
    • On 24 June, there has been a complaint about your usage of the "minor edit" checkbox. This, granted, is actually a valid point. However, as far as reverting vandalism and such goes, marking it as minor is considered acceptable (rollback requires it as well), nor would I agree it would be enough to decline on its own.
    • On 16 March, you have been blocked for what appears to effectively have been a sockpuppetry suspicion that turned out to be incorrect. I was blocked for removing the sandbox header, then unblocked once I explained that I was removing the new user landing screen. Nowhere did the blocking admin even mention sockpuppetry.


    From the above, it would seem that ToBeFree quickly skimmed through my contributions to close the request without thoroughly reading. Per both this and by ToBeFree's own offer, I would like to request re-review from the RfP -- if any other admin has different opinions or comments, that would be welcome. I have made enough undos between then and now that the original request isn't even on my contributions page anymore. Naleksuh (talk) 07:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, the idea of seeking input at AN came from me. The full reasoning can be found at Special:PermanentLink/968742860. Both the replies on that page and the request above have been edited after publication, in at least one case after replying. The initial reaction to a conduct concern raised by another user, and the incorrect summary of what I wrote contributed to my negative impression afterwards. Too much, too early, too fast. And when there's a problem, it must be someone else's fault. The tool, not the user. The declining administrator, not the lack of experience. I see a lot of drama incoming if it starts like this before the permission is even used the first time. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And when there's a problem, it must be someone else's fault. The tool, not the user. - I told Incagnito that an error from a tool he was using was not his fault. I did not blame my own edits on a tool, which is what it seems you are trying to imply.
    not the lack of experience. I have currently performed 1506 rollbacks on Wikimedia projects.
    Since you are still not reading what was written, I would appreciate review from someone else (which was supposed to be the original purpose to begin with). Naleksuh (talk) 07:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The following wall of text is for accountability; I'd also value a third opinion, but I'm practically required to explain mine in detail as well.
    Regarding "what appears to effectively have been a sockpuppetry suspicion", that was indeed probably a misinterpretation. I had seen the comment Special:Diff/945792771 in the unblock discussion and over-interpreted Drmies' concerns. The actual concern seems to have been gaming the autoconfirmation system, which can be an acceptable use of WP:IAR. I did this on arwiki when blocked by an edit filter, so I can understand the motivation behind it. However, regardless of the block details, my point is: Having been blocked for these first edits did contribute to the "too much, too early, too fast" image, while not being concerning on its own.
    Semi-automated tools can indeed have bugs, like phab:T207701, which can lead to edits that the account owner never intended to make. However, big orange warning messages at WP:TW and WP:HG generally advise against blaming the tool for edits made using them. The warnings have probably been added as the result of bad experiences, not theoretical concerns. Reading "that is not your fault, it is the fault of the tool you are using" on a rollback requester's talk page is alarming and may well have been one of the reasons for the request remaining unanswered.
    Having been asked to use the "minor edits" checkbox less often isn't by itself concerning when someone requests rollback, as, as you have correctly noted, rollbacks are legitimately marked as minor edits anyway. However, it contributed to the image of someone requesting rollback too early, less than a month after having received a complaint about the usage of a basic Wikipedia function.
    Having received a warning to "Please resist the urge to revert repeatedly" by Acroterion, on 17 July, while waiting for a rollback request to be answered, is concerning. Describing it as "in error" is concerning as well. The discussion at Special:Permalink/968744453 ended with "Report it to administrators, don't just keep reverting." This valid advice is meant to prevent disruption by unnecessary edit wars, since you actually seem to have chosen to revert 6 times instead of making a single report at WP:RFPP, WP:AIV, WP:ANEW or WP:ANI about the issue. [8]
    This was not purely a warning "in error"; it was about concerning, recent reverting behavior. Referring to it as "in error" today adds to the negative image.
    Regarding Special:Diff/968507887, I never said that my review was arbitrary; I mentioned this as a possibility. My reasoning was not "mainly to clear the backlog", my reasoning was "This request has been effectively declined because of a bad gut feeling." Messages like "it would seem that ToBeFree quickly skimmed through my contributions to close the request without thoroughly reading" and "Since you are still not reading what was written, I would appreciate review from someone else" directly contribute to that bad gut feeling: When there's a problem, it must be someone else's fault.
    ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have currently performed 1506 rollbacks on Wikimedia projects. - I'm not sure how this statistic has any relevance to experience here on enwiki. Different Wiki's, different communities, different consensus, etcetera, etcetera. Past using undo, you haven't had much experience with rollback-like reverting here. (involved, so don't want to comment too much here) Ed6767 talk! 11:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, carrying on from this, your rollbacks on simplewiki that if carried over to enwiki would be problematic. I'm not completely familiar with the policy there, but your overall consistent and, otherwise, well-rounded experience of reverting of vandalism, is tainted by very few edits or no edits in which you leave UWs, request page protection, report to VIP (simplewiki's version of AIV) and many more issues that can be boiled down to a lack of experience. In fact, you have been asked here to leave user warnings, however, I couldn't see an increase in you warning users following this.
    My advice: you should probably just use Twinkle or any other rollback-like tool for now, just to gain actual experience on enwiki and so you actually can warn people without the tedious task of going through the table of UWs, or using the same uw-vandalism1 template over and over again. After you have this experience and have engaged with the enwiki community more, you should request again at WP:RFP/R - maybe even enrolling in our WP:CVUA may be beneficial? Ed6767 talk! 11:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC) Small reword Ed6767 talk! 12:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) @Naleksuh: if maybe blunt: you've been here a few months, and already you have an indefinite block on your record, you have a talk page which is littered with advice and warnings from experienced editors and administrators—which you don't seem to take without an argument!—and now you're arguing at not being given a permission at a noticeboard? Realistically, any chance you had of being granted any advanced permission or tool in the near future is quickly vanishing into thin air for as long as this stays open. I don't see what it is going to achieve, apart from garner you a reputation for uncollegiate behavior. And that's the last thing you want, frankly, in a project based on the fundamental premise of consensual community. ——Serial 11:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Serial Number 54129, to be fair regarding this thread, the closing admin, ToBeFree (talk · contribs), did suggest that a discussion could be opened here at AN Ed6767 talk! 12:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I know; did you think I commented here without having aquainted myself with the background? My point is not the opening of the thread, but the continued and continual arguing. It is that that may harm their reputation, not the mere fact of filing here. Thanks, ——Serial 12:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the closure - too much, too early, too fast. The reversion I mentioned involved a WMF-banned LTA with which I am extremely familiar. The appropriate response to such an occurrence is not to sit and hammer the revert button, but to contact administrators who have the tools to deal with the problem. My observation was intended as mild advice in the face of good intentions. Arguing about the request fir permissions isn't a good look. Acroterion (talk) 12:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Serial Number 54129: I had thought to initially stop after the first post , but decided that was a bit too WP:GRENADE for my liking, and continued defending. As mentioned by Ed, requesting input at WP:AN was Tobefree's suggestion to begin with. While I should certainly be allowed to defend my own post, I think it is about time to wrap this up now.
    While I disagree that two posts is "littered" - the overall point from most seems to be the quote "too much, too early, too fast". While my response to the idea to re-request in some months - as nobody had voiced any problems with my reverts - which is what barrs most people from getting the tool - there is little opposition from re-requesting in a few months. I should also say that I am not trying to start drama - while the noticeboards (especially its /Incidents subpage, but at least we aren't there) are known for holding lots of drama, I was simply trying to get opinions from other administrators whilst voicing disagreement with ToBeFree's closure, as some of his assessments at my contributions were false. However, this does not change the same aforementioned purpose ("too much, too early, too fast"). I had initially planned to request expiry time, however the goal is to make it easier on myself to revert vandalism, not to attack other editors. Unless anyone has any furthur comments, I would recommend closing at this point, as the initial idea to open it has since served its purpose. Naleksuh (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Cross-wiki sockpuppets

    Hello,

    I'm a sysop on frwiki and I found that Donald1972 was blocked indefinitely on enwiki because of multiple accounts. He's also busy on frwiki with the same accounts. I'm not really familiar with meta pages on enwiki, could you please help me find the RCU which identified the socks? Best regards, - - Bédévore [knock knock] 08:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Bédévore: There doesn't appear to be a public request for CU (here called "WP:SPI"); you can find the rest of the confirmed or suspected related accounts here: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Donald1972. –xenotalk 11:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Xeno: all right. Thanks for your answer. Best regards, - - Bédévore [knock knock] 13:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bédévore, if these accounts are causing trouble on frwiki, then you might want to consider requesting global locks on all of them. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi GeneralNotability I'm working on it actually, that's why I gather reports. :) The SPI results would have helped. Hopefully the cross-wiki abuse is obvious enough. FYI on fr fr:Wikipédia:Bulletin des administrateurs/2020/Semaine 30#Dialog im Kamptal, Matthias Laurenz Gräff et l'armée des faux-nez, we're heading towards ban. Best regards, -- Bédévore [knock knock] 13:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sweetpool50 needs a good talking about their behaviour, manners and motivations

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


    You really need to give this individual a good talking too. They assume no WP:GF. All they do is revert edits back to how they were, even if what was there before was not really any good anyway. They are are the sort of editor who consistently drive new users away. Furthermore their actions are being enabled by this admin User:Berean Hunter who clearly has bias in favor of this editor. Like a good ol' boy sheriff in the old Deep South, the admin steps and does a block after this usual interaction pattern.

    1. editor makes a reasonable edit (none which is vandalism or malicious)
    2. Sweetpool50 reverts it with a pithy comment "doesn't make sense", "too long", "not needed", "not required" etc
    3. editor (and they are mostly IPs) reverts
    4. words are exchanged
    5. Sweetpool50 goes running to Berean Hunter who then blocks the editor because they have been uncivil.

    Now take the Deep South analogy, local cop takes the side of the White person who starts a confrontation. This user Sweetpool50 is constantly making antagonistic deletions all the time, but they are never called out for it. But when someone does take affront they get their buddy admin to block the user who is making the fuss, instead of said admin taking issue with the action that provoked the situation. Thus you've got a bully going around lording it over others with no fear of redress because they know they have an admin has got their back. In fact the pair of them should both be sanctioned. They are using WP:CIVIL in the same way black people have the term "uppity" used against them.

    Vandalism should be tackled but based on the deletions that Sweetpool50 makes, they are not doing them to stop wilful mischief. They are just removing WP:GF edits because they don't like them. BAck in April, the got a warning about their behaviour in April but unless they are sanctioned and told to pack it in, inaction is just empowering them and giving them the environment where their high-handedness and, let's be fair, awful attitude can manifest without censure. The last time I had a run in with this person I had to quit for months. Is that the sort of person you want here? What value is there in their contributions? Are their edits as positive and useful as mine? I generally work like a WP:GNOME because I care more about content and information that I do about getting one over on someone else! But more importantly I know I am part of the 1 percent. In that respect, as a One Percenter, I raise my concerns about this one because as an IP (ie to know the prejudice a black person faces in the Deep South), I sadly know there are countless of others editors who fit the profile of this Sweetpool50. They continually ride the backs of IPs reverting people left right and centre regardless of the quality of the edits. If you want to stop the long-term decline of Wikipedia, you need to start putting your house in order and start putting good faith back on the agenda. So start with those who don't show any! 81.141.32.129 (talk) 12:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Not a single diff, but comparing an editor in good standing to a racist in an "innocent" analogy? I sense boomerangs incoming. Grandpallama (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Block reason: y'all's taillight is busted." GeneralNotability (talk) 13:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Without diffs, it's hard to see what you are talking about. Diffs please. -- The Anome (talk) 13:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, this IP is from the UK, not the "Deep South", as both the geolocate tool and their telling spellings of "behaviour" and "centre" indicate, and they are obviously the same editor as the IP who left this message on Sweetpool50's talkpage. Can an admin sweep up their IPs in a rangeblock? Grandpallama (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Grandpallama, ah Cheshire, the good ol' deep south! Why is this racially motivated now? Seems like a rather weak argument backed with no diffs, and the whole "well I was born X so I know better!" with all due respects just seems awfully pathetic to me in this situation. I don't think a range block is appropriate and will carry far too much collateral damage. This IP range is a large dynamic block used by many BT customers in Chester from what I can tell. WP:BOOMERANG. Ed6767 talk! 13:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably LTA User:Iniced who edits from that part of the world and has a similar approach to making friends. ——Serial 13:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Is there a login log?

    Again I've had attempts to login to my account. Someone mentioned a login log - is there such a thing? I was going to ask at irc but MIRC keeps disconnecting. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Doug Weller, no login log currently on en.wiki. That is something that will hopefully be rolled out to larger projects in the future, but right now we only log password resets. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, thanks. I was dubious since I couldn't fine one after searching. Doug Weller talk 15:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doug Weller: I'm sure you're aware of this, but you have the ability to enable two-factor authentication in Special:Preferences for additional security, should you so desire. :) --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mdaniels5757: thanks but I did that long ago. I feel secure, just wondering if I could figure out who it was - so many possibilities! Doug Weller talk 09:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Doug Weller TonyBallioni The WMF staff might have access to a login log but I do not think its available to the public or even to the Administrators or Oversighters/CheckUsers 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 10:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    They do, but the only time I’ve ever seen them use it was in the Ciphers case when they pulled the data from the server logs rather than run a check on ar.wiki, since Ciphers was a CU there. There’s very good reasons that data is highly restricted and almost never used, even by WMF staff. We’re also moving towards logging logins on local wikis, but it’s something that will be deployed on smaller projects first to make sure it doesn’t overwhelm the database. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Block Review

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



    Hi, can a check user please review the block appeal at User talk:ShappeAli lodged on 4 July, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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


    It is my sad duty to report the passing of User:Hasteur, earlier this month. [9] [10]

    Hasteur ran User:HasteurBot and User:DRN clerk bot, and possibly others I don't know about. Those projects should be transitioned to new stewardship.

    --CComMack (tc) 23:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    That's terrible to hear :( His bots are still running now unmaintained, so I'm willing to look through the code and if I can manage it, I'm willing to take over operations and management of them. I will add WP:RIP now. Thanks for letting us all know Ed6767 talk! 23:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    His bots are still running now unmaintained Not true. HasteurBot hadn't edited in over a month anyway, and DRN clerk bot was globally locked by Sakretsu (an action I consider to be actively harmful; there was no reason the bot shouldn't be allowed to run, despite being unmaintained, until a replacement bot operator could be found). * Pppery * it has begun... 03:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I requested that; don’t blame Sakretsu. Stewards regularly lock the accounts of established users that are deceased once it’s known to prevent impersonation or someone else using them. Bots as well since a bot is just an extension of the human. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:DWG shouldn't established users' accounts (generally) not be locked unless there's evidence they're compromised? I don't know where it's hosted, but Toolforge or not I don't think the bot being compromised is any more likely now than usual. The source for some of these tasks hasn't been edited in years[11][12], so I'm not sure there's a reasonable suspicion that the bot was going to break. Should've been allowed to run until there's a replacement imo ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    They’re not blocked locally as a sign of respect, but they’ve been locked globally by stewards upon confirmation for the last few years. I can go ahead and update that. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion regarding new operations of his bots are on WP:BOTN Ed6767 talk! 13:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to suggest that these condolences (as well as those to come) be moved to Hasteur's talk page. That way his friends and family will have a chance to see how much he meant to the community. MarnetteD|Talk 04:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi MarnetteD; Hasteur's talkpage is now cleared except for a "Rest in peace" thread. You, I, or anyone can copy over the messages here (they should also probably be retained here as well so the community can know about his passing) and add them to that thread, bulleting them to match the format there. Let me know if you would like me to do (or begin) that. Softlavender (talk) 06:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've moved condolence statements to his talk page and attempted to leave any other possibly-relevant to AN discussion here. --Izno (talk) 13:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 15:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hasteur had one live draft in userspace, which I have promoted to mainspace at Louisiana Fairy Tale, though it remains a stub. Those steeped in Americana will find the song described instantly familiar. BD2412 T 16:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User Gutu Bekele creating disruptive edits

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



    I am writing to request assistance with an editor who has been creating disruptive edits on the Hachalu Hundessa page. Based on the edits made by this individual, it appears he/she is of Amhara background, wishing to slander Oromo people in Ethiopia. They have consistently painted Oromo people as gangsters and killers, and victimizers of Amhara individuals. I believe that this is not only uncalled for, but specifically within the context of this article, it is unnecessary to mention the names of ethnicities. Additionally, the editor hasn't used reliable references to support their edits, which suggests they are of a personally motivated nature. werewolf (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Revirvlkodlaku, diffs, please :) Ed6767 talk! 01:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ed6767, Sorry, I'm not sure what you're asking. Could you please clarify? werewolf (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Revirvlkodlaku, a "diff" (short for difference page) shows an edit which a user has made and the changes, such as what was added or removed. It's useful in AN threads as it can allow admins, who are usually quite busy to immediately see the edits. You can click "diff" next to any edit on a history page to go to the diff page, then paste the URL here. Ed6767 talk! 01:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ed6767, right, I knew what diff meant, just wasn't sure what you wanted. Ok, here are the edits made by Gutu Bekele:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Gutu_Bekele werewolf (talk) 01:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not convinced that this is vandalism but it's a large number of edits in a short time with almost no communication. As User:Revirvlkodlaku (aka Werewolf) indicates above the edits could be motivated by nationalist feelings. The subject of the article, Hachalu Hundessa, was a singer and activist who was killed on 29 June and whose death has led to disturbances in Ethiopia. Our article on Hundessa was created on 30 June by User:Gobonobo who is a long-time editor. I will leave a note for them to see if they have a reaction to these edits. EdJohnston (talk) 04:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This account is rather disruptive. They repeatedly reinsert the ethnicity of Hundessa's wife, change numbers in the article, and characterize Oromo people as gangsters. None of their changes are sourced. gobonobo + c 04:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't examined the substance of the edits, but since he is an SPA who does not collaborate or communicate, a simple topic-ban might be in order. Softlavender (talk) 06:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Softlavender I agree with you on that. What's an SPA, by the way? werewolf (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Revirvlkodlaku: single-purpose account. gobonobo + c 14:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! werewolf (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked User:Gutu Bekele indef for edit warring and POV-pushing. He has continued to revert at Hachalu Hundessa without responding here, and constantly restores the phrase 'Oromo gangster group'. He seems to be engaged in anti-Oromo editing due to some personal POV. (Hachalu Hundessa was from the Oromo ethnic group). Any admin may unblock if they become convinced that the user will follow Wikipedia policy in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Good stuff, thank you! werewolf (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Sockpuppet

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


    Can someone block User:Ozan33Ankara the sockpuppet of User:AlaskaLava? He was confirmed by a CheckUser, but not blocked (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AlaskaLava) -TheseusHeLl (talk) 02:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    TheseusHeLl, as stated later in the SPI, Salvio giuliano blocked Ozan33Ankara five hours after you posted here, due to his continued disruption. I will close this thread now. Softlavender (talk) 09:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya

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



    Can someone hist-merge Svetlana Tikhanovskaya into Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya? Govvy (talk) 10:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    If no response, try Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
     Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Obscenity in talk page

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



    Please hide this edit [13] which contains insults, Obscenity and threats and bolck the saboteur IP.Also edit summary includes obscenity Thanks.علی مکریانی (talk) 00:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

     Done GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Anti-communist rants

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



    This IP 62.226.91.180 (talk · contribs) seems to just be going from page to page having little rants about communists[14]. Not contributing anything to the project. 62.226.83.97 (talk · contribs) appears to be the same IP. Bacondrum (talk) 07:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • I left a message and link on their talk page. Let's see where it goes from here. Dennis Brown - 10:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • About 8 hours after Dennis's post the IP left this talk post on Talk:Demographics of Saudi Arabia that seems to be more tame but similarly weird and ranty. I'm getting really strong WP:NOTHERE vibes. Maybe a partial block from talk namespace would be effective? Wug·a·po·des 20:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Range blocked. This has been going on for a very long time, and there's nobody else editing from this IP range. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Question: how to technically reopen an AfD discussion?

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


    I have closed the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of hospitals in Angola as "merge into Healthcare in Angola". After a discussion with a participant, I agree that I closed the discussion too early and that it would be appropriate to reopen it in order to generate more comments and to tentatively reach a consensus. Could you point to a resource or explain here how to properly perform the reopening? Thanks Olivier (talk) 08:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Olivier, I came across this thread via the AfD and your talkpage. Given your request, I have gone ahead and reopened the AfD.[15] -- Jack Frost (talk) 09:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Jack Frost. Olivier (talk) 09:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Need help with Covid-19 and MEDRS application

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


    First and foremost, I'm not aggressive about this situation :) . Please understand that I'm absolutely zen about this.

    Since about the beginning of april, there are serology tests going on all around the world. Those are the antibody tests that were criticized at the beginning. I will assume you heard about it. Those tests were highly anticipated and are key to estimate the mortality of Covid-19. The amount of infected cases were at about 10x higher then the confirmed case. I believe it should be common knowledge at this point and that I'm not surprising many people with this revelation. However, here on Wikipedia, those studies were all put on ice because they were primary source and not peer reviewed. Many admins, rightfully so, enforced WP:MEDRS asking to wait for a good authority sources before adding the results in the article. Well, authorities took some time, and the CDC only now confirmed the serology tests. Some intrepid wikilawyers could still argue that the method is only validated for the studies in north-america, but really they all use similar methods all over the world. The CDC looks good enough for me.

    We now have months of serology tests done all over the world that need to be accounted in all the articles. More then 23.2% of New-Yorkers, already had an immune response to Covid-19 by may 6. And unless some clever editors wriggled their way around WP:MEDRS somehow, it's not mentioned in any articles. I believe it's only fair to ask here, to anyone who enforced WP:MEDRS to help with all those edits needed. We are lagging behind science by a few months. Iluvalar (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Iluvalar: Thanks for the post, are there any specific sanctions you think need to be adjusted? Admins cannot require the insertion of material, so there's not much the can be done on our end unless there are COVID general sanctions that need to change in light of the recent developments. Beyond that, your best option is to be bold and add the material and/or discussed it with other editors on teh talk page. Wug·a·po·des 20:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid I need to insist, I need help. There is 2,685 articles in the covid-19 project and MEDRS enforcement make it look like a statu-quo. I'm out of Karma here, need help. The vote to enforce MEDRS happened here, it was in a sens editorial and I had my hand in those gears even back then in May. I've already been bold beyond stupidity, you can't ask me to be more bold. It will get me banned. All I can do is show the source and let the admins knows it's been massively underrepresented in all our articles, due to an administrative decision (took here) to forbid preprints. I'm not asking for sanctions, I know the rules, but I'm pointing at it so we can hopefully fix things. Iluvalar (talk) 22:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What the CDC says about important matters related to the crisis is of historic import. What opposition have you encountered? How do you plan to affect an update across multiple articles? The terms of WP:GS/COVID19 are subject to community decisions, so it can be modified, if there is a need. I'm just not sure I understand what you want done, concretely. El_C 00:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know. I don't want to review WP:GS/COVID19's terms now. It does it job and protect from tons of fringe theories. It's counter productive to rewrite it now, But it did fail in this case. There is no reason to believe that the 3 months worth of editors who's edit were denied will suddenly rush in to fix our own mistakes. The articles will be lagging behind for the foreseeable future unless some sort of initial impulse come from this group. There is no way you can seriously look at me and ask me for the fix. Unless I acquire some sort of authority from this request, but it's unlikely to happen.I want an helmet, some nice white gloves and a cape.which read :"this one is with us" --Jimbo. final offer! XD Iluvalar (talk) 05:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't seen any opposition to using that CDC source, and the prohibition on using primary preprints as sources in no way prohibits the use of secondary sources from the CDC. This has been explained at length to Iluvalar, so I really don't understand what the problem is here or why there's anything for admins to do. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and no, our Covid-19 sourcing requirements absolutely did not "fail in this case", and the omission of material sourced from preprints was not a mistake. They prohibited Wikipedia editors from using the preprints and required that we wait for a reliable secondary source to evaluate them. That is precisely what has happened, and was exactly the right thing to do. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Finally, Iluvalar, if you don't stop your battleground opposition to our Covid-19 sourcing requirements, you are going to be topic banned under discretionary sanctions. Please take this as a final warning. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, no, this disruption has to stop, and a discretionary sanctions topic ban is clearly needed. It will take me a few minutes to find the documentation. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Topic ban imposed, user notified here, logged here. I suggest this section can be closed now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Hello, I work primarily on articles relating to Pakistani television, and it seems that many contributions to the topic area made by Pakistanpedia, a banned sockmaster, have been speedy deleted over the years under WP:G5. Many of these seem to have been constructive, and I'd like to reinstate them (e.g. re-uploading missing title-cards for television series); for that reason, would it be possible for someone to send me a list of these (not the contents, just the titles of the deleted pages and files)? Thanks, M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 03:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    There does not appear to be any files from Pakistanpedia, but I have not looked at any puppets. Pages commenced were : Bewaqoofian

    Dilli Walay Dularay Babu Bharosa (TV series) Mera Angan Saheliyaan Zindaan Tumhare Hain Moray Saiyaan Mujhe Apna Bana Lo - Drama Hum Tv Choti si ghana fermi Aise jale jiya Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, Graeme Bartlett. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 16:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly object to restoring any of the Pakistanpedia articles. This sockfarm continues to create new socks incessantly (this is not hyperbole these are just the accounts that have been both confirmed and tagged, there are many many others) in order to continue their promotional agenda. Articles that have been deleted can be created by any editor who is willing to ensure the content is reliably sourced and notable and who have no financial gain in creating the articles.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you trying to imply I have a COI? Please note that I only asked for the titles (so that I can see which articles need to be recreated and then create them myself), not the contents (which I would need in order to actually restore them). M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 17:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @M Imtiaz: No implications intended at all, and I'm sorry if you got that impression. I was actually referring to editors such as yourself when I wrote "any editor who is willing to ensure the content is reliably sourced and notable and who have no financial gain in creating the articles". I just wanted to ensure the intent was to create the articles as opposed to them being restored.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks as if the socks have tried to create many pages too, and there are a lot of socks. Some more pages from one sock : Mubarak Ho Beti Hui Hai Shadi Mubarak Ho Teri Raza (TV series) Ghairat Iltija Dil e Majboor Wafa Ka Mausam Mera Kya Qasoor Tha Gustakh Ishq It may take an hour to go through 84 sock's worth of page creations. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Wanggaeparkgae

    Wanggaeparkgae was blocked by Explicit and the block was (in my opinion) appropriate. Wanggaeparkgae has filed two unblock requests which have yet to be reviewed, but which will almost certainly be declined when they are. Others have started posting on Wanggaeparkgae user talk page expressing opinions about the unblock requests that are true, but which seem only likely to generate more WP:BATTLEGROUND responses in return, which in turn might lead to TPA needing to be taken away. It seems best, now that the account has been blocked, for well-meaning persons to simply leave things for admins to resolve. Perhaps an admin can step in, review the blocks, post a link to WP:UNBLOCK for reference and politely ask others to stay away since even the best intentions can unintentionally generate more heat than any good they might achieve. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Marchjuly: Salvio giuliano has reviewed the unblock request and dealt with it. For what it's worth, as one of the (two) parties who commented on the request, I didn't intend for my message to really be given much thought by the blocked user; rather, I just thought it bore pointing out to whoever was reviewing the unblock that the position that they had adopted was even more clear than merely one of incivility, and was adopted on my talk page too, not just on the page in question. Of course, there's a balancing act between providing useful information, and just ticking people off for no reason; I tried to strike the right balance with what I said, but maybe I missed the mark. Sorry about that. Either way, matter's dealt with now I've been trying to post this response for the last half hour, but mobile data is playing up... Groan! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 08:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think those comments were made in bad faith. I think they were truly made with the best of intentions. However, any administrator reviewing the block would've looked a Wanggaeparkgae's contributions as a whole and would've seen all of that other stuff. So, I think it's probably been better to let administrators deal with the specifics after a blocked has been issued; they will most likely request additional input if they feel it's needed when considering an unblock request. A bland "Please see WP:UNBLOCK for reference" which focuses on the mechanics of being unblocked can sometimes be quite helpful, but going into specifics sometimes can cause things to further spiral out of control. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Harassment

    I am complaining to Elie plus for harassment here--Persia ☘ 09:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Persia You must notify the user you are reporting of the existence of this discussion, per the instructions at the top of this page. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done so. Ignoring how old the user accounts are, they both mostly edit in mainspace, and Persia has almost no experience outside of that (also as shown by the confusion between harassment and personal attacks). That said, Elie plus does have enough edits outside of mainspace that they should know that WP:CIVIL is a core policy. While someone leaving me a "crying boy award" would have gotten (at worst, on a very bad day for me) a slightly annoyed rollback, it was incivil on Elie plus's part. Yes, Persia's nomination of Alireza Shojaian for deletion was a really bad nomination, but that doesn't excuse calling someone a crybaby. Unless either of them finds it necessary to say something stupid or someone else can bring up further incivility by Elie plus or incompetence by Persia, I'm inclined to just leave this at an informal warnings for both of them. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize for the bad joke. Them nominating a well sourced article for deletion got the best of me. That said, I will keep an eye on the AfD nomination patterns (which may come across as bad faith to some) of said user. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 10:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elie plus: Please delete your message, On my talk page--Persia ☘ 11:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Persia: You are free to delete any message on your own talk page (except declined block notices while they're still in effect but that's not important right now). Ian.thomson (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed it.— Diannaa (talk) 14:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Covid-19 and antibodies

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



    So I resume again. We DO have secondary sources (CDC) that support the antibodies tests done back in april. At least in USA. The articles need a serious revamp to account for the fact that there was not 53k cases but 642k infections in New-York as early as april 1. Now, because of the application of WP:GS/COVID19 voted here, All discussions about adding antibody tests in graphs (like this authority source above), in tables, in the lead of the articles or anywhere else relevant, where reverted and killed in the egg. People who were in favor of those changes have been warned to stop or actually banned. I postulate that it is unlikely that all those editors will now rush in and make the extra efforts to recover the objective 3 months of lag now accumulated in our articles. I do believe our rules say WP:DOIT not WP:pray for someone else to come and fix it for you.

    All admins should understand that, due to this admin decision taken here, our articles do not meet our basic criteria for WP:V. I DO fully appreciate the retroactive nature of the situation. There were no rules technically broken and blabla, but yet the articles need a serious revamp now.

    As stated above, I have fully aware of my karma for the time being and I can't do much more myself. I will GLADLY and voluntarily accept 2 good months of vacation regarding anything related to Covid-19. My message here is done, the source is out. Can we settle for 2 months please ? Iluvalar (talk) 22:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    You should attempt to discuss it with the admin who imposed the ban instead of bringing this here. El_C 22:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't this just one long topic ban violation? An admin should warn this user to drop the stick and move on. Valeince (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty much. Though I suppose it could be viewed as an appeal of sorts. El_C 22:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "banned from all pages related to Covid-19". I do drop the stick anyway, it's the point 2nd point of this section. It's an appeal, can we settle for 2 months ? Iluvalar (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, you need to discuss it with the admin who imposed the ban, not with the noticeboard. El_C 23:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The box said "You may appeal this sanction at the administrators' noticeboard." I'm confused. I get banned for having the best source so far. Iluvalar (talk) 03:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, if you are really going with this as an appeal, then sure. I just think you can get an idea about how to correct your behaviour from the admin who imposed the ban. I'm sorry, but as far as appeals go, it is not drafted in a manner which acknowledges anything about your own conduct, so the chances of it succeeding appears low. El_C 03:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I see that you already said it's an appeal. Sorry about that. Still, did you read what the sanctioning admin wrote to you about the reason for the ban and how to best appeal it? I'm not sure your appeal really reflects that guidance, so maybe withdraw so you can redraft...? That would be my advise to you. El_C 03:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not in any way shape or form an appeal, no matter what the OP says. This is a blatant content dispute being argued in the wrong place, by an editor with a topic ban regarding the subject. An admin should issue them a final warning not to do it again, and if they do, escalating blocks should begin. This is one of the most egregiously fast violations of a topic ban I've ever seen. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      How ? The source I bring date from June 21. How can it have been disputed, how can I be warned not to use it in the past. And on top, it cannot be a dispute, since there was not editors to dispute with at all. The only resistance I got in the past was the application of WP:MEDRS itself. I bring a NEW source from the authority in the domain. Iluvalar (talk) 16:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose unban: The appeal does not address the behavioral reason for the ban. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose unban, having spent more time than I should reading through the back-story here. As I see it the ban is in place for good reason—a repeated failure to understand that it's not Wikipedia's place to present the most up-to-date version of news, but to reflect the current mainstream consensus of secondary sources—and neither this appeal nor any of the talkpage discussion around it gives any indication that Iluvalar either understands the policy here, or intends to comply with it. I'm not a great supporter of discretionary sanctions which can too often be misused as a tool to shut people up, but this is a textbook example of sanctions being applied correctly. ‑ Iridescent 05:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment as the admin who imposed the ban: As far as I can see, the gist of this appeal seems to be "We now have a secondary source backing up what some prohibited primary sources (unreviewed preprints) said, so that means MEDRS failed in not allowing us to use those primary sources". And, to me, that is a near perfect example of not getting it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, and as Iridescent pointed out, there seems to be a refusal to get that Wikipedia is not supposed to present the most up-to-date information (even to the point of treating it as urgent that we do so). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      And, for those who wish to review previous discussions, here's a partial recent list:
      Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Excellent list if you read it actually.
      • Gangelt & preprints . perfectly sum up the climate. where JMV got a warning on his talk page to stop.
      • "IFR and WHO" the source was properly implemented in the article in unanimity.
      • "One Source to bring them all" the secondary source was already in the article, and no one contest it. I knew it would make people cringe, it was the objective. But... It secondary source is CDC so we keep it.
      • Talk:COVID-19_pandemic/Archive_31#IFR Here prior to anything else, Doc james reject a source from Nature.
      • Talk:COVID-19_pandemic/Archive_32#Possibly_good_news_regarding_the_mortality_rate Here, I MYSELF, pose resistance to antibodies results. in MAY 1.
      Iluvalar (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose unban, if it's an appeal - assuming this is a form of an unblock request, then as it doesn't cover the reasoning for the TBAN it's pretty weak (we don't really have a system for showing the Community (rather than a sole admin) made a factual error in the original discussion, but I don't believe it did here, so also not a great appeal on that route). If it's not an unban request, then it's a TBAN violation, so let's go with the former. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    (Closed) Unblock appeal of The3Kittens

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


    The following is the statement of The3Kittens, who is requesting unblock through UTRS; as they are community banned per WP:3X; I am posting their statement here. I am doing so as a courtesy and offer no endorsement or opinion on the matter. 331dot (talk) 09:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    RickinBaltimore and Chestford, it's not necessary to block my account to protect Wikipedia from damaging edits. I'll understand that I will never involve in legal threats, vandalism, sockpuppetry, edit-warring anymore. I also understand that I will never violate the three-revert rule anymore. I understand that I will never involve in evading my block anymore. Please unblock my account, my account's underlying IP address, my account's access to my talkpage, fellow account TSMWCfan, TSMWCfan1 and TSMWCFan2. We all will never involve in doing all such threats anymore. I will only make useful contributions. The reason why I was blocked was I put a warning message "Warning, before you read the page, do not vandalize the content, in whole or in part. Those who vandalize content such as removing content networks and shows will be sued by "Sun Group" and "Wikimedia Associations". This resulted RickinBaltimore to block my account. I will understand and promise that never put such warning messages anymore. Please change my block type from Indefinitely blocked to Temporarily blocked.

    • I'd like to know who the "we" is who wants to use all these four accounts. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC) (See below)[reply]
    • Oppose unblock, endorse community ban, and move to prohibit them from making any further unblock requests via any approach (including but not limited to via UTRS) for six months. The3Kittens has gone out of their way to lie to us. See for example, User talk:TSMWCFan2 where they claim, "I'm not a sockpuppet of The3Kittens", even though they obviously were and subsequently admitted they were. Maybe we could consider the case six months after their last block evasion, though at that point, I'd want to see some justification to believe they have sufficient competence to edit here. --Yamla (talk) 09:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose unblock - given that we had a flat out lie less than a week ago, there's didly squat chance we could trust them now. Normally I hate appeal prohibitions but actually I back Yamla's thought. A 6 month prohibition from appeals through any route, with that time resetting any sockpuppeting is detected. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose unblock -- this level of meretricious behavior should not be tolerated, and I don't see any meaningful signs of actual intention to contribute to this project. I'd also be curious as to who these supposed "Sun Group" and "Wikimedia Associations" might be, if not something pulled out of their collective VULGARITY OMITTED. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongest oppose possible To be blunt: Find another hobby. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong oppose. Socking to support your own unblock from a socking ban? It doesn't get much more clueless than that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    REVDEL request

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



    Could somebody please RVDEl this offensive revision on Tim Dodd, a BLP? --AussieLegend () 10:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. But next time, please ask for revdeletion on the talk pages of an admin rather than in such a high-visibility venue as this noticeboard. El_C 11:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Self-requesting close review

    I recently closed Talk:University_of_Pittsburgh#RfC_about_the_description_of_the_governance_of_this_university as "no consensus". ElKevbo has questioned this close on my talk page, essentially arguing that I did not properly accept the expert nature of the sources he proposed as definitively settling the RfC question. I had weighted the arguments in favor of "public" as somewhat more persuasive than those for "state supported" but there was a clear plurality for "state supported" and I felt dismissing those !votes would amount to a supervote. I have explained this but ElKevbo still remains unsatisfied with my responses. Posting here to open this to wider review. Thank you for your time. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Question about verifiabilty in lists on templates

    There are loads of templates that list members of deposed royal families as if their positions still existed, which I think is absurd, but my question is, do entries on templates need some means of verification? Just as an example. please look at Template:Ducal Family of Parma, about living members of a family who lost their positions as rulers of the Duchy of Parma in 1860, when it ceased to exist. It lists about 60 people, about 50 of whom have no articles about them, it just lists them as "Prince" or "Princess" somebody or another, which is ridiculous imo since there have been no Princes or Princesses of those territories since 1860, but that's a (never ending) argument for another place. What I would like advice on, is is it OK to remove all those entries like "Princess Marie-Gabriella" or "Prince Erik" that are not blue linked to articles and therefore we have no way of verifying them? I feel all these templates about members of abolished royal families should just be deleted, but that takes time, in the meanwhile is it OK to remove the listings (there are hundred of them) of "Prince" and "Princess" whosiwhotsis that have no citations, no articles about them, no way to check if they even exist or are possibly hoaxes? ThanksSmeat75 (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    If they are living, WP:BLP is your friend here. If they are dead, well unless there is a reliable source it can still be removed. It just may take more time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Smeat75, good question, we don't do inline citations in templates but there's no reason they could not be sourced on the template talk page, and any that can't be sourced, removed. Guy (help!) 22:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I hadn't seen this thread before removing all the unlinked names in the Austrian archduchesses template, but I (obviously) agree that such information is unverified clutter that potentially violates BLP privacy. It also directly contravenes the standards of WP:EXISTING, which says unlinked items should be avoided in navboxes. JoelleJay (talk) 01:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A similar discussion regarding this concern is at TFD (others may see the current discussion where both I and Smeat have commented).
    I have removed the unlinked content in this particular template per WP:NAVBOX/EXISTING. If these templates generally are unsalvageable in any meaningful sense, you can take them to TFD. If they are instead salvageable, consider opening a discussion on one of the village pumps or perhaps MOS:BIO to consider how best to deal with these. I see in the archives there that someone cared about them enough to have an RFC.
    This otherwise isn't really an issue for WP:AN as no administrator action is necessary. I would recommend closing. --Izno (talk) 04:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    There were recently some disturbing edits to Lynching of Wilbur Little, which could have been anything from WP:FRINGE to vandalism to good-faith edits. We're a long way from needing any kind of administrative action, but if some more people could add Lynching of Wilbur Little to their watchlist, I think that would be useful. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    James Briefcase

    This account was blocked for being a vandalism-related account and I noticed that he created redirects to multiple NHL teams. There is an IP who removed vandalism on "Pittsburgh penguins". There are some other NHL redirects with hidden text vandalism, and since he got blocked for vandalism, I request an admin to take a look since being blocked indefinitely can cause an account's created pages to be deleted. Some redirects are improperly capitalized as "REDIRECT" should be in all caps or no capitals at all. If they can't be deleted then I wonder if it's okay to fix it to proper capital letter usage. I'm not perfect but I'm almost (talk) 00:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Unless a blocked user's contribs were entirely problematic, we don't habitually delete all of their contribs. If their contribs have problems, you are more than welcome to fix them. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 01:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Appealing my topic ban

    Appealing for my topic ban while reporting PatCheng/PCPP/STSC/LucasGeorge being socket puppet, and Bloodofox/HorseEyeJack being POV editing

    A. The AE report against me was launched by PatCheng who seems to be socket puppet accounts of User PCPP and User STSC circumventing topic bans

    1. PatCheng was active before summer 2006, turned less active in summer 2006 and stopped editing in Sep 2006. But in Jun 2019 PatCheng suddenly showing up reporting me in an ANI case and an AE case after failing in the ANI case, while PCPP created the account in Jun 2006, made first edit in Nov 2006 and was topic banned on Falun Gong in Feb 2011. The editing interests of PatCheng in 2006 and PCPP in 2007 and later are extremely similar. Both editors focused extensively on video games and popular culture, and on Falun Gong and the Epoch Times (these 2 articles are in both editors' top 5 editing pages). Both accounts seemed to edit from the same POV on topics related to China.
    2. PatCheng and PCPP edited Template:Blizzard Entertainment: PatCheng's:4 April 2006, 4 Apr 2006, and 23 Mar 2006‎ and PCPP's edits:4 Aug 2007‎‎, 22 Mar 2007, and 14 Mar 2007
    3. PCPP edited Template:Command & Conquer series: 14 Feb 2008, 14 Feb 2008 PatCheng edited Template:Command & Conquer: 2006-03-21, 2006-03-18, 2006-03-18, 2006-03-15, 2006-03-14
    It's very strange that two unconnected accounts would edit the same video games' template pages, AND that they would also both primary focus on editing Falun Gong/Epoch Times pages (exhibiting the same POV), AND that one account was created when the other stopped editing. Statistically, the chance this is a coincidence is very low.
    4. on 28 Jun 2009, Simonm223's message to PCPP about editing FLG article, AND PCPP's message to Simonm223 on editing FLG article, and on 16 Jan 2010 PCPP reverted Falun Gong article to the state that Simonm223 edited. Before PCPP’s ban in 2011, he worked with user Simonm223 on FLG topic.
    PatCheng's message to Simonm223 about the FLG related article ET. PatCheng was the first user who posted the NBC reports against ET on August 20 the same day when NBC released the report. On the same day, PatCheng notified user Simonm223 who subsequently went to the ET page and did many questionable editing after PatCheng's notice. Here are 2 examples: 1 and 2 As there isn't any record that PatCheng communicated with Simonm223 before, suppose PatCheng is unrelated to PCPP (who had worked with Simonm223 before), how could PatCheng inform Simonm223 in editing FLG topic after PatCheng’s return in 2019 just re-starting his editing on Epoch Times?
    5 STSC created his account in Jul 2006 and was inactive - edited 125 times before 2011. PCPP was topic banned in Feb 2011. In 2011 STSC turned to be quite active - edited 1535 times in 2011 alone and was topic banned on Falun Gong in Apr 2016 The account LucasGeorge was in Jan 2012 after PCPP was topic banned in Feb 2011, turned to be active in June 2016 - 2 months after STSC was topic banned. Recently LucasGeorge removed reliable sources related to CBC reports from ET article in the same way PatCheng did before he was topic banned using undue weight as the rationale.
    Two of PCPP’s top 10 edited pages are Kilgour–Matas report and Criticism of Confucius Institutes while among LucasGeorge’s 10 edited articles, there are two very related ones to PCPP’s two: Organ transplantation in China, and Confucius Institute.
    6. PCPP was topic banned in 2011 from Falun Gong and so was STSC in 2016. Both violated the ban multiple times. 3 examples for PCPP: User_talk:PCPP#January_2012, User_talk:PCPP#Are_you_deliberately_courting_another_ban? and User_talk:PCPP#July_2016. 2 examples for STSC: STSC was warned for violating the topic ban in June 2016, and STSC was warned again in July 2016 since at that time on PCPP's talk page, STSC attempted to help PCPP get unblocked by framing an admin as being involved. BTW, as PatCheng and PCPP worked as Simonm223 (mentioned in point 4), STSC also had communication with Simonm223. STSC left a message to Simonm223.

    B. Horse Eye Jack and Bloodofox were conducting POV editing in Falun Gong article

    I was trying to address the issue Horse Eye Jack and Bloodofox brought the article before being reported by PatCheng. Please allow me to go over the context of all related edits this year, as it was not explored by the admins reviewing the complaints from PatCheng.
    1. In mid-May 2020, Bloodofox did a major change without prior discussion to the lead section of the Falun Gong article, which had been stable for over 1 year and has been under Discretionary Sanctions for many years. Multiple users(excluding me)complained the edit on the talk page. By the beginning of June, I notice that Bloodofox's edits were problematic. One main issue was that Bloodofox had misrepresented his sources. The following lines were added into the lead section of the article. a) “The Falun Gong administers a variety of extensions in the United States and abroad...” b) "The new religious movement also operates Shen Yun…" but these lines were not supported by any of the 6 sources provided. C). Also, the NYT source and NBC source were further misrepresented by Bloodofox. [16].
    2. From June 3 to 5, I tried to address the issue by discussing and editing in good faith: Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_43#The_Last_Paragraph_of_the_Lead_Section, Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_43#"Extreme-right". In my edits, I cited the following reliable sources that addressed Bloodofox's misrepresentation issue a) and b), and then expanded the content.
    a. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Behind-the-blitz-Falun-Gong-practitioners-spend-14966684.php "Shen Yun was formed in 2006 by followers of Falun Gong"
    b. https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/CULTURE-AND-RELIGION-Dissident-media-linked-to-2587555.php
    c. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-21/what-is-the-falun-gong-movement-and-does-china-harvest-organs/9679690
    d. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3340868/ns/world_news/t/falun-gong-thrives-us/
    My edits did not touch contents supported by Bloodofox's sources, but modified their unsourced lines into a line like “Falun Gong practitioners formed performing arts company Shen Yun and Epoch Times”, based on the new sources. I said to User:Horse Eye Jack on the talk page that he is welcome to add any RS supported contents. Please note WP:NOR should be followed. But User:Horse Eye Jack kept reverting without reasonable grounds and multiple reliable sources in my edits were deleted. Here are Horse Eye Jack’s reverts from June 3 to 5: [17] [18] [19] and Bloodofox's revert on June 5: [20]
    Meanwhile, Horse Eye Jack accused me of having COI and being a SPA, he then reported me in an ANER case (failed). I responded by providing real-life examples of what COI would look like (discerning myself from COI persons). But Horse Eye Jack misconstrued my words as attacking him.
    3. On June 10, I did two edits:
    a. [21] As per the discussion Talk:Falun_Gong/Archive_43#"Extreme-right", at the same time, I fixed the issue that NBC was used twice for the same line.
    b. [22] with a summary stated that ”It was not reasonable to put the info of overseas FLG follower groups ahead of the "Origins" section. I am moving it to the section called "Falun Gong outside China".
    For the edit b, my concern was that the re-organization was undue, as it places the fringe aspect of overseas Falun Gong organizations in the very beginning, obscuring the introduction of the group. (My concern was later addressed, as Bloodofox's problematic reorganization was substantially undone by another user, without disagreements from the community). Despite my reasonable objection, my edit was still reverted by Bloodofox [23] without giving any explanation, which I felt was ungrounded and disruptive.
    After Bloodofox reverted my edit b, Horse Eye Jack then reverted my edit a: [24] ignoring the consensus on the talk page 5 days ago, which had agreed to specify that it was the NYT and NBC that had reported the Epoch Times of associating with right-wing politics.
    Bloodofox and Horse Eye Jack’s reverts were unjustified. At that point, feeling that there were bully users who wouldn't allow any constructive edits that addressed the disruptive WP:OR issue, I restored the article to the state prior to Bloodofox’s major edit in May in the following day: [25] with a summary stating "the page is also under WP:discretionary sanctions. WP:ARBFLG shows activists tried to promote their views here. The significant change made to the relatively stable article in May by one user had no discussion consensus. Since then the article has been not stable. I am restoring back to the status prior to the change in May. "

    C. One very possible reason that I was reported by POV editor PatCheng three times

    I have never met PatCheng in Wikipedia editing, nor had any conflict with PatCheng, yet I was reported by PatCheng three times (one ANI case and two AE cases). Esp. last year PatCheng showed up first reporting me after 13 years’ retirement was very surprising. I notice POV editor STSC (Falun Gong topic banned in Apr 2016) seemed to be the connection between PatCheng and me. PatCheng's reports against me seem to be revenge in response to my 3RR report against STSC.
    WP:ARBFLG shows other two anti Falun Gong activists were topic banned in 2007 as attempting "to use Wikipedia for ideological struggle and advocacy on FLG related articles. I fully agree with the following Wikipedia principles that were applied in WP:ARBFLG:
    • Wikipedia is not a soapbox: Wikipedia is not a soapbox for propaganda or activist editing.
    • Neutral point of view: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires fair representation of all significant points of view regarding a subject.
    • Point of view editing: Users who engage in disruptive, point of view editing may be banned from affected articles or in extreme cases the site.
    I respect human rights and paid attention to human rights topics. In the beginning I edited the article Zhang Jianhong (a poet and human rights defender who died of CCP's human rights abuse). and completed the creation of the article Xu Pei (a poet and human rights defender in Germany) this May. Both figures are human rights defenders. The China's Communist Party's persecution of Falun Gong turned Falun Gong an international human rights issue and FG related pages often were not following WP:5P2 mainly because there were anti FG activists who often promoted their narrative in their POV editing while disregarding Wikipedia policies and WP:ARBFLG. Thus, aside from my interest in refrigeration engineering related articles, FLG became my one focus.
    In 2015/2016, I tried to prevent STSC's POV editing in FLG topic. STSC warned me six times and reported me for 3RR violation but he was the one violated 3RR, not me. So I reported STSC for 3RR as well. While in User_talk:Marvin_2009/AEresponse to PatCheng’s AE report, I had refuted PatCheng’s fake accusations one by one, one of PatCheng’s accusation in his 3 reports against me saying “launching a 3RR case against the user who reported him” looks esp. unusual. Reporting STSC’s 3RR violation is not an offence by any mean. An unrelated user to STSC is unlikely to mention this in AE reports. Aside the evidence in section A, This also indicates that PatCheng and STSC seem to be related.

    D. PatCheng's POV edits spread in Wikipedia Falun Gong topic

    After to the Epoch Times article on Aug 20, 2019, when it was just released, a lot of other RS supported contents in the ET article that were not in line with the view from PatCheng and the like-minded POV users were censored and removed - one example: a previous edit from one reviewer on PatCheng's AE report against me. PatCheng even removed content from a CBC report by falsely claiming the quoted as Original Research. Some users or even admins could have been misled by the POV article.
    It was Bloodofox who promoted the NBC report that PatCheng first introduced to Wikipedia in August 2019 to Falun Gong related articles in May 2020 and June 2010. In the process, WP:OR contents without the support of NBC or any sources were added. It is evident that RS-supported views sympathetic to the victims of the persecution were censored, but info accusing FLG were stated as facts rather than NPOV descriptions that include who the accusers were. Although on articles under Discretionary Sanctions Bloodofox conducted major edits that violated WP:V and WP:NOR many times, there was one involved user often showed up for reverting and warning other users who tried to address Bloodofox's damages to the articles. Here are 2 examples: 1 and 1. The reverting of my 7th edit and the subsequent warning against me were in the same pattern.
    I believe that both criticizing views and praising views should be fairly and proportionally represented without bias in an article. For any sourced views not failing WP:RS and WP:Due, I would have no problem to see them being posted. But for contents failing WP:V or WP:NOR, I believe they should be corrected. All my this year's 7 edits in the Falun Gong article reflected WP:NPOV spirit. POV editors PatCheng/STSC, Horse Eye Jack, and Bloodofox seem to reject any RS supported views that were different from their POV. Thus I became a barrier for anti-FLG POV editors. It seems to be because of PatCheng's pro-CCP POV and my effort to address POV edits, that he kept attempting to get me banned since last year.

    In his AE report, PatCheng distorted my words for framing me being personal attack. The evidence presented against me did not show evidence of policy violations, aspersion-casting, or disruptive editing, as claimed. Please review my evidence in User_talk:Marvin_2009/AEresponse, since the admins reviewing the complaint did not appear to carefully review my evidence before deciding to ban me.

    In summary, it was Bloodofox and Horse Eye Jack who were engaged in disruptive POV editing, and I only tried to correct those questionable WP:OR content. It was an involved user's erroneous revert & warning seems to be made use of by the Falun Gong topic banned PCPP/STSC’s sock puppet user. As such, PatCheng's AE report against me should be considered as being invalid and the topic ban enforeced on me should be canceled.

    For any valid criticism, I will improve. I note that English is not my native language, which sometimes might have made my discussion hard to understand. I will try to improve in this area. I will continue consult with other editors first before making significant content change. Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) —Preceding undated comment added 02:51, 27 July 2020

    • This is extremely lengthy and convoluted. This looks more like an indictment against other editors than an appeal of one's own sanctions. One must address one's own prior editing, show examples of constructive editing in other areas, and explain how they will edit constructively in the area applicable to the restrictions. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]