Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

  (Redirected from Wikipedia:AN)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to the administrators' noticeboard

This page is for posting information and issues of interest to administrators.

  • It is rarely appropriate for inexperienced users to open new threads here – for the "Incidents" noticeboard, click here.
  • Do not report breaches of privacy, inappropriate posting of personal information, outing, etc. on this highly visible page – instead click here.
  • For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.

The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over six days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Open tasks[edit]

XFD backlog
V Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
CfD 3 4 104 0 111
TfD 0 0 5 0 5
MfD 0 0 2 0 2
FfD 0 13 16 0 29
AfD 0 0 17 0 17

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection[edit]

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (28 out of 2416 total) (Purge)
Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
Draft:David Biga 2020-12-04 20:34 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated GeneralNotability
Ukwuani people 2020-12-04 19:40 indefinite edit,move Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content Yamaguchi先生
Draft:Harshil Anuwadia 2020-12-04 11:17 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Cabayi
List of United States presidential candidates by number of votes received 2020-12-04 02:09 2020-12-18 02:09 edit Persistent vandalism BD2412
David Bowles (author) 2020-12-04 01:15 2020-12-11 01:15 edit Persistent disruptive editing and edit-warring from (auto)confirmed accounts GeneralNotability
United States presidential elections in Michigan 2020-12-03 21:50 2020-12-17 21:50 edit Persistent vandalism BD2412
Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend 2020-12-03 21:03 indefinite edit,move New editors are prohibited from editing this Arab–Israeli conflict related page Wugapodes
AMCHA Initiative 2020-12-03 20:00 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: Page covered by ARBPIA. A dispute about this page was reported at WP:AN3 EdJohnston
Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People 2020-12-03 18:34 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: Page is covered by WP:ARBPIA. Request at RFPP EdJohnston
Draft:Phantom Forces 2020-12-03 16:12 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated GeneralNotability
Khalistan movement 2020-12-03 12:09 indefinite edit Persistent disruptive POV editing; per WP:GS/IPAK Ivanvector
Chirag Shah 2020-12-02 19:46 2021-12-02 19:46 create Repeatedly recreated Deepfriedokra
Something missing 2020-12-02 18:22 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Hut 8.5
L. Lin Wood 2020-12-02 17:16 2021-01-21 00:01 edit Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts Deepfriedokra
Elliot Page 2020-12-02 16:44 2021-01-02 16:44 edit Arbitration enforcement GorillaWarfare
Draft:Doraemon India 2020-12-02 15:41 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: repeatedly recreated under different titles Scottywong
Draft:Doraemon Movies India 2020-12-02 15:41 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: repeatedly recreated under different titles Scottywong
Draft:Doraemon broadcast in India 2020-12-02 15:41 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: repeatedly recreated under different titles Scottywong
Draft:DJ S UNIVERSE Q 2020-12-02 13:49 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated 331dot
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Profile Defenders (2nd nomination) 2020-12-02 03:51 2021-01-02 03:51 edit Persistent sock puppetry Barkeep49
Sarah Eaglesfield 2020-12-02 03:05 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Missvain
Deribb 2020-12-02 02:52 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Missvain
Western betrayal 2020-12-01 19:15 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement El C
Chaulukya dynasty 2020-12-01 04:36 2020-12-11 03:46 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: please discuss controversial changes on the talk page (semi-protection proven to be ineffective) Mz7
La Esperanza, Honduras 2020-12-01 03:01 2021-06-01 03:01 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Honduras200010 RoySmith
Tegucigalpa 2020-12-01 03:00 2021-06-01 03:00 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Honduras200010 RoySmith
Siguatepeque 2020-12-01 02:59 2021-06-01 02:59 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Honduras200010 RoySmith
Lisbon 2020-12-01 02:59 2021-06-01 02:59 edit Persistent sock puppetry: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Honduras200010 RoySmith

A question regarding possible good faith overprodding and over AFD related similar project articles over and over and how to improve them.[edit]

Sorry for the excessive title but as it implies I have a question if there is such a guideline for so many prodding and AFDing that is going on. There has been around four editors that I can think of that have been baiting comic book related fictional character articles that always vote delete and / or nominate them or prod the article almost all in one day. While there is nothing wrong with it I keep wanting to rescue these articles but it is in vain since they are picking them all in once. Again I assume good faith. Nothing to block someone over obviously. But at the same time I feel helpless on improving or helping Wikipedia. See here, here, here, here, here, here and here are just some of many examples. It’s been going on for a while now. Jhenderson 777 15:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing an issue with any of those; all the deletion nominations have explained what the issue is. Wikipedia isn't a directory of everything; for something to have a Wikipedia article, it needs to demonstrate significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources and the onus is on the people who want to keep the article to provide that. It might be annoying to have multiple related articles nominated at once, but if they all share the same issue it's not unusual for them all to come to light at once. Provided you can demonstrate the significant coverage in reliable sources, there's nothing to worry about and they'll all be closed as keep; if you can't demonstrate it, then the editors are acting correctly in nominating them for deletion. ‑ Iridescent 15:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I already said that. Though I feel that that there needs to be a guideline is to stop overnuking related articles on the same day if that makes sense. Definitely when they hop on the same bandwagon vote over and over. You know they are going to vote delete no matter if we add more sources etc that talk about it. Also how does one have time to improve more than one article anyway. Jhenderson 777 16:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comments- firstly, why weren't @Piotrus: and @Onel5969: informed of this discussion, which primarily concerns them? Secondly, it's interesting that people have infinite time to write unsourced crufty articles and regard sources as optional until someone raises an objection, but not too many objections because that's too much work. Reyk YO! 19:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Jhenderson777 could really use a mentor-type situation to go over Wikipedia guidelines and policies because I believe they have a very fundamental misunderstanding on the scope of this site. This is not meant to be an insult, but they have a very Fandom-like mentality when it comes to these articles. Their anger seems to come from the idea that these are being unfairly deleted simply because they personally lack the manpower to save them rather than the simple fact that most do not actually reasonably pass WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment, first thanks for the ping Reyk. Second, I do a bit of work over at NPP, particularly at what we call "the back end of the queue". Many of those articles are redirects for months/years, and then someone turns them into an article. I'd say of the ones which are legitimate (not someone simply removing a redirect, or blanking a page, or putting ###### on the page) probably 60-75% of them get "reviewed" without problem. Another 10% or so get reverted, and then get improved, and restored. The rest are simply poorly cited articles which don't show the notability of the subject. These either get reverted, or sent to AfD for discussion if an editor simply continually reverts the redirect (or asks for an AfD discussion), without making any attempt to improve the sourcing to show notability. If a valid attempt is made, and I am unsure about the notability, I usually let another reviewer take a crack at it. If they're "nuked" on the same day, that's simply when they came up in the queue. I tend to think of WP as an encyclopedia, and not a fan magazine, but attempt to adhere strictly both WP:GNG and SN guidelines. Regardless, just thought I'd explain my process. Take care. Onel5969 TT me 20:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
@Reyk: To ping them was a ridiculous way to boil the pot and very unnecessary and I knew it would cause editors like User: TTN to say crap like this when this was just a civil question where I assumed good faith on and I didn’t say names in the first place. I guess @TTN: isn’t aware that I created at least four good articles and B-class articles or I am well aware of how the guidelines and essays are. What I see you are unaware of @TTN: is of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Comics and I see how you dislike their rules on its way of handling it. Instead of deleting articles maybe you can discuss the way comic book character articles are in that particular page. Since you are not liking the way they were written all the time. I thank One15969 for being civil after the ping but I don’t really have a beef with him compared to the three other editors. He handled it better and more civilly while I can’t say the same with TTN. Jhenderson 777 22:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
First, I don't think TTN was pinged? Second, the Manual of Style deals with style, while this section, the AfDs, and TTNs comments deal with notability. It doesn't matter how well-written and well-structured an article is, when the subject isn't notable it still should be deleted or redirected. Fram (talk) 08:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, I for one have found the comments by Onel, TTN, and Piotrus in this section to be helpful and rationally thought out, and have added useful input into the discussion. Excluding them from a discussion started about their actions would have just been a one-sided airing of grievances. Reyk YO! 11:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Jhenderson777, you know that enormous "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page" banner you saw when you started this thread? It means what it says; Reyk is doing you a favour by correcting your negligence and notifying the editors involved. ‑ Iridescent 14:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Well thanks for him then. But I never complained in my first paragraph and I couldn’t remember names to ping at the time period. Also to mention I am busy in real life with things and I am on a mobile device editing which is tougher to edit on. Regarding the ping, I feel the topic is an irrelevant off topic banter and we should move on and move on from it. Jhenderson 777 15:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

(Thanks for the ping). This boils down to the mostly understandable fact that one can get frustrated, not having enough time to research and rescue content they consider useful. Tough - but Wikipedia cannot wait for one person. At best, I can recommend that Jhenderson777 asks for userfication/draftication of the article they want to work on. And there is nothing stopping them from reaching out to members of WikiProject Comics and related, creating a list of such articles, and working on them collaboratively in the future. What is more problematic is when one loses one's cool and starts making personal attacks against those they disagree with: "stick a fork in it for once... You are getting on my nerves." - as far as I can tell, TTN is always polite, unlike Jh777, and it is ironic Jh777 starts to complain about this about this, while in the very same post they say "editors like User: TTN to say crap like this". Then there is the smaller issue of not following the best practices (from the same diff: "It has cultural impact. I promise you that. Regardless if I found it or not." - which goes against wP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES which Jhenderson777 is well familiar with). Additionally, while WP:DEPROD does allow one to deprod things based on the weakest or none rationale, it does suggest adding a good one is best practices, and "Stop prodding AND AFDing so many related content simultaneously. Nobody can improve content with this kind of persistence to delete everything" is not it. I strongly urge Jhenderson777 to respect WP:AGF, WP:CIV, WP:NPA and like, and not to let whatever frustration they feel affect their edits. The only constructive thing here is to issue a civility warning and move on. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
That was just one time where I got frustrated, Piotr, and I admit my wrongness and to cool off. Also I do recall User: TTN being ugly to someone who voted keep one time. I wish I could find where it was at. But I think you know and refuse to acknowledge it because you warned him about it. Jhenderson 777 12:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The PROD process is not appropriate for the topics in question because it is only for "uncontroversial deletion" and "must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected" Such nominators clearly expect and get opposition but they persist regardless. Note that TTN's use of deletion processes was restricted by arbcom in a similar case. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • What's the timeline here? Were the nominations made in one batch, or are they ongoing? Were PRODs continued after it became clear that at least one person (Jhenderson777) was likely to object to them, and therefore can't be considered uncontroversial? – Joe (talk) 12:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
    • I have a little too much stuff going on in real life (despite being a wikiholic sometimes) to go through all that. There shouldn’t be controversy anyway. Since I called it good faith it not really that controversial. Jhenderson 777 12:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
      • I think these basic facts need to be established if you are expecting any administrator intervention as a result of this thread. If the nominations caused bad feelings but are finished, there's nothing to be done. If, as you claim in your original post, there was an overuse of PROD and/or AfD, we could address it – if it's continuing. Otherwise, what kind of resolution do you foresee? – Joe (talk) 13:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
        • There is just so many. I linked two articles that are prodded. Maybe someone like @Darkknight2149: can link all the prods and AFD going on. Apparently he reported this issue before. Jhenderson 777 13:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
          • Here is every article currently proposed for deletion, and at a quick skim I'm not seeing anything comic book related in there. If you're going to raise a complaint, the onus is on you to provide some evidence for it, not just make an allegation and expect us to take your word for it. As Joe says, what administrative action are you actually asking for here? ‑ Iridescent 14:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
            • There are several comic book characters with prod tags currently. For example: Zeiss (comics), who is a Batman villain. There are obvious alternatives to deletion in such a case. Either the article might be improved by reference to its stated source of The Essential Batman Encyclopedia or other sources such as this. Failing that, it should be merged into a page like List of Batman family enemies, along with all the rest. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
              • @Joe, reading your comment, I just got an idea. How about I declare all articles to be important to me? Then we could scrap the entire PROD system, as every single PROD could then be established controversial.. Look, I've been reading about the PROD system and to me, it seems to be full of loopholes. "Likely to object"? That's purely random. If I love cats and object to prod on cats and then declare I consider all cats notable, so this reasoning line would make all articles on cats resistant to this deletion method. Am I getting it right? - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
    • This stuff has been going on for a long time. The arbcom case I linked to was in 2008. TTN has since been inactive on and off for years at a time but has been especially active in the last year. Piotrus has likewise been especially active in this field in the last year. For example, here's a complaint about their prodding in February:

      Just in the last six weeks, I've "rescued" Tom Hughes and Margo Montgomery, Teacup in a Storm, Bluntman and Chronic, Breathless Mahoney, Tara King, Mike Gambit, Captain Battle, Cathy Gale, Dharma Initiative, Fanny Zilch, Knock-off Nigel, Mother (the Avengers), Oceanic Airlines, Persephone (The Matrix), Ethan Hunt, Purdey (The New Avengers), Scott Robinson and Charlene Mitchell, Steve Andropoulos and Betsy Stewart, Teacup in a Storm, Newton T. Bass, Batarang, Power Sword, Day of the Figurines, Nibbles (Tom and Jerry), Royal Flush Gang, Spike and Tyke (characters), Steve Johnson and Kayla Brady, Stormbringer, Sumuru (character) and Terrible Trio. The only thing that I "rescued" them from was Piotrus' inability to use Google Books and Internet Archive. Piotrus: it is time to step away from Prod and AfD. You are not good at it.

In the following discussion, there was a telling response

... I don't mid deprods or people disagreeing with me at AfD. All I do is to raise possible issues with notability and such for review. Sometimes the review ends up with deletion of content, sometimes with merger, sometimes with retaining it. This is just routine version of WP:BRD. We are here to improve Wikipedia, which sometimes involves discussions about what may need to be deleted. That's all. Please keep up the good job of saving articles, and if I ever do not reply to a good keep argument at AfD or such, please don't hesitate to ping me to re-review the situation. A rescued article is always better than a deleted one. It is just that sometimes someone has to clean our wiki house a little bit.

This indicates that Piotrus uses PROD as a form of bold cleanup – that he will prod an article with some issues as a way of getting it fixed or deleted. It seems clear that he expects that there may be reviews, rescues and other alternatives to deletion. This is not uncontroversial deletion and so the prod process should not be used. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I very rarely agree with Andrew about anything related to page deletion, and everyone knows I'm not a fan of having articles about things like minor comic book characters, but I really think Andrew hits the nail on the head here. PROD shouldn't be used as a way to test if someone opposes deletion. That's maybe what a {{notability}} tag should be used for. PROD is for when you are quite sure that no one will oppose the deletion.
That said, whether there is a problem or not seems susceptible to mathematics: what % of an editor's PRODs are deleted? If it's 50%, that's a problem. If it's 90%, it's not. Whether it's "overprodding" or not depends on the percentage. Lev¡vich 18:19, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I could likewise post a list of many articles Andrew deprodded and that he never even bothered to vote on when they went to AfD and that were unanimous deletes. Also, some comic articles do get deleted through the PROD system. It is illogical to claim that because sometimes someone objects to deletion in topic area x, then PROD is no longer applicable. While there are obvious cases on the keep side, it is impossible to guess which article will get deprodded. I've seen Andrew deprod articles that had zero references, zero reception, and where nobody, including him, was able to find a shred of helpful sourcing. I have also seen similar articles, or ones that are "slightly" better, get successfully deleted through PROD. Unless we rule that comic-topics are immune to PRODs, arguing that someone is making errors proding because some of their prods get challenged is a joke. All prods can be challenged, and unless someone is prodding stuff that habitually is kept, this is pointless. All prods are ALWAYS A TEST, since you never know criteria the reviewer is using. Plus there is the issue that if the reviewer uses bad criteria (like believing everything in a given topic area is notable because they are fond of it), does it reflect bad on the prodder, deprodded or the prod procedure itself? Anyway, as I am pretty certain most of my prods are deleted one way or another, I don't feel I am doing anything wrong - but let's look at the statistics, given that Andrew's problematic deprods and copy-paste keep votes in AfDs have been discussed here and in similar foras much more often than my actions. While I don't think there is any good way to get prod statistics (since edit summary search tools don't deal well with deleted edit summaries, AFAIK) ere's some data from AfD stats: for me Number of AfD's where vote matched result 79.5%, and for Andrew, 53.0%. 53% - that's about as good of a ratio as flipping a coin! It's pure noise, from the information sciences perspective, no value added. So one person here is much more often in-line with the community view than the other. Andrew said just above: "Piotrus: it is time to step away from Prod and AfD. You are not good at it." Right, Andrew, right... WP:BOOMERANG, anyone? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I've suspected for a long time that the point is for deprods to reflect badly on the person who placed it, no matter how silly the deprod rationale. But as I keep saying, as long as it's possible to deprod for dumb reasons like disliking the PROdding editor, or disliking the PROD process, mere whimsy, or just to be annoying, it isn't possible to infer a "controversy" that the other person should have been able to predict beforehand. Reyk YO! 11:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm no admin and a relatively new NPP editor but have to note firstly that User:onel5969 does exceptional work at what is ultimately a relatively mucky job. It's sometimes often hard to make the calls about what to keep, what to tag, what to delete. As a novice, I've found that process pretty difficult at times - and sometimes it involves terrible decisions (the autistic kid whose non-notable bio of himself you have to nix, dashing his clear hopes is one that I'll remember for a long time) and sometimes it's crystal clear. Most often, it's borderline and you have to take the call - and the opprobrium if you get it wrong. You also get the messages on your talk, the AfD arguments and all the rest. Do you deserve getting dragged to AN when the decisions regarding notability have clearly involved a number of editors and consensus? Not really. I'm not saying anyone's above scrutiny, but as far as I can see, the process has actually been working fine here. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
    • I harbor no hard feelings for him compared to three other editors off the top of my head who like to do Order 66 with most articles. All I got to say He kind of says and does the same thing predictably and I got to work harder sometimes when I wasn’t even finished. For example: Scribbly the Boy Cartoonist had to be improved tremendously and he jumped the gun on redirecting the baby article because it wasn’t proven yet. Then I boldly merged it and it got improved more so I am no better sometimes. Jhenderson 777 16:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
      • So work in draftspace. Works, no? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
        • Alexandermcnabb: I have to disagree with your comments about User:Onel5969's track record. It is nice that he is putting time and energy into doing NPP work, so A for effort. But one look at feedback from other users towards Onel5969's NPP actions on their recent talk pages from the last 2 months might call your comments about his supposedly exceptional work in question. Haleth (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
          • He was voted as number four contributor to NPP [1], a vote that was endorsed roundly by other NPP reviewers. With over 17,000 reviews in the past year. From my own experience, that's going to throw up some negatives - and I have personally found getting it right is by no means a walk in the park. A little breakage is inevitable - and he has broken, proportionately, a great deal less than I have so far. Like I say, NPP is a mucky job... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
            • That is not actually a vote, but a statistics tally of the quantity of reviews by each NPP member over the past year, not a vote of confidence on how consistently well each individual exercised their competence and judgment when reviewing flagged articles. Also, the endorsements I can see were for John B123 as reviewer of the year as put forward by the nominator. But I digress. Haleth (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • If an editor regularly is working in comic books they should know that the deletion of comic book character articles is controversial and so PROD is inappropriate. I see no evidence that AfD is being used inappropriately in this area. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
    • I agree with assessments by Barkeep49 and Lev¡vich of the situation. I don't think the persistent, recurring use of PROD by Piotrus as an appropriate "test" of a subject article's notability because he is unable to discern the other user's rationale to be appropriate. Pretty sure that is what an AfD is for since we are all supposed to work by consensus. Haleth (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Here's a fresh example, from my daily patrol of today's AfD log. It's a character called Rocket. This was prodded by Piotrus in the usual drive-by way, with no discussion or specifics – just a generic, cookie-cutter nomination. The prod was declined by Iridescent, "I'm not comfortable considering uncontroversial the deletion of a page that's been live for 15 years and has that much of a history. ...". Piotrus then nominates the topic at AfD, where I find it.
I am not familiar with this character and so start searching. I immediately start finding hits: DC: 10 Things Fans Should Know About Rocket. This is a listicle but it's at CBR, which is usually accepted at AfD, and the fact they wrote solely about the character is a promising start. Focussing on Google Books, I immediately find some meat: The Blacker the Ink -- Constructions of Black Identity in Comics and Sequential Art where there's some detailed analysis of the controversy about the character's decision whether to have an abortion. This already seems adequate but I press on. I then immediately find another book: Black Superheroes, Milestone Comics, and Their Fans. This is from a university press and has plenty to say about the subject, as she was a breakout character in the series and effectively became its main protagonist.
I only searched for a minute or two, just looking at the first page of hits, and have stopped searching now as it is already apparent that the subject is quite notable. The character is not just a routine superhero, but is literally iconic in their representation of contemporary black culture. To nominate such a character for deletion in these times of BLM seems remarkably crass. To do so as "uncontroversial" using the PROD process demonstrates a considerable lack of competence and clue.
Andrew🐉(talk) 10:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

For the editor who keeps persisting I need to show a link. How about this?. Does this summarize enough regarding the AFD's. Again I assume good faith’s just that I am one editor and can’t rescue so many articles at once if I tried and could. Jhenderson 777 13:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I just did a quick skim and I'm seeing pretty normal AfDs. I don't see any signs of disruptive behavior. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I didn’t say anything about disruptive and (as I said before) I am assuming good faith on them. I just think they are too persistent if anything. Jhenderson 777 17:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Too persistent isn't really a thing. Either someone's actions are disruptive at AfD such as by doing too many nominations in too short a time or doing too many poorly conceived nominations in which case the community can take action or their actions are not disruptive and no community action is needed. My assessment is tha the concern you've raised about AfD is not disruptive or otherwise a problem. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
"Either someone's actions are disruptive at AfD such as by doing too many nominations in too short a time or doing too many poorly conceived nominations" That's exactly the issue. Darkknight2149 07:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I understand that's the alleged issue. And it is why I have, with the evidence at hand so far, not seen enough to say that there actually is a problem. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why I was tagged here. If you're wanting my observations, I have already been vocal about it in the past. Fiction-related content has been an easy target for overzealous deletion. Part of it is that a lot of crufty material does fly under the radar in these areas, part of it is the aforementioned overzealousness, and part of it is a lack of familiarity (either with the subject itself or with deletion criteria). I don't see anything wrong in the examples that Jhenderson777 picked out above, but I have been continuously amazed at the lack of quality control at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements. For the past year or so, there has been an influx of low-effort nominations and votes (often from recurring nominators), many of which fail to cite a policy-based reason for deletion at all or fall under WP:IGNORINGATD. Common ones include "The article fails to establish notability" (not how it works), "The quality of the article/sourcing isn't good!" with no further rationale (not how it works), "It's just a minor character in a book" (this actually happened a couple of times in a row; not how it works), "When you combine a bunch of not notable characters into a list, you get a not notable list" (not how it works), "Current revision fails WAF and/or the manual of style" (not how it works), as well as recurring mischaracterisations of WP:GNG, subjective declarations of unimportance, assuming every article of a type isn't notable just because one wasn't, and barebones rationales.
There has also been a few recurring users (who double as nominators) who have been voting "delete" on every single nomination no matter what (usually with the same cookie cutter rationales), including on ones where significant coverage has been provided and there is a consensus for keep. At least one of them doesn't seem to have ever voted "keep" on anything, despite having been active on Wikipedia for years. That's not to say this doesn't ever happen in the other direction (Rtkat3 often votes "keep" without citing any policy besides "C'mon, let the article stay" and Andrew Davidson's input is hit-and-miss), but these are fewer and dismissed more often than the "delete" ones.
Aside from disruption, there is also a number of good faith nominations where a source check is performed, but the coverage is dismissed by the nom because they have a ridiculously high standard for "significant coverage" that outweighs the community's (Example1, Example2, among several others).
Overall, this is an AfD category that could use a lot more scrutiny and administrator eyeballs than it currently gets. Personally, the time I spend having to check and see if nominations there actually fail WP:GNG or a WP:DELREASON could honestly be better spent working on my other projects (this in particular is a current priority that has a lot of work to go) and my real life schedule can be sporadic. I did finish an ArbCom case related to this a few months back, but given the passage of time, haven't decided what to do with it quite yet. Darkknight2149 07:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I too have experienced this type of thing for pages that might have potential and support the claims of @Jhenderson777: and @Andrew Davidson:. Another example of this is the List of New Gods which I mentioned that most of the characters who no longer have their pages currently redirect there and who knows what would happen to them if that page is deleted like what I had to do with the page for "Titan (New Gods)". On a related note for the proposed deletion, I had to redirect Ned Creegan to List of minor DC Comics characters when it was threatened with deletion. TTN once tried to put up the Longbow Hunters page that I created in light of their appearance of Arrow for a proposed deletion which got removed by @Toughpigs: who left his reasons in the edit summary. I'm also listing some examples of Jhenderson777's claim here. --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The most important and effective thing to do is to add good sources to articles. There are lots of secondary sources in books and magazines about comics, cartoons and fiction in general. They're available on Google Books, Internet Archive, on Kindle, and in libraries and bookstores. The Wikipedia Library offers free access to, JSTOR and ProQuest. People who want to save fiction-related articles should be improving articles with good-quality sources — and not just for articles that are prodded or up for deletion. Get a good nonfiction book about comics history and go through it page by page, adding a reference for everything discussed in the book. TwoMorrows Publishing is especially good for significant, independent coverage of comics history. For example, there was a little run a few months ago of people nominating articles related to Jack Kirby's work. Kirby has been extensively studied and discussed for years, including a long-running journal devoted just to his work. Many people added information and references to the articles, and we saved almost all of them from deletion, plus now they're better quality articles. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
    • The onus is on nominators to cite a policy-based reason for deletion, per WP:ATD, WP:NEXIST, WP:ARTN, WP:PRESERVE, and WP:NOTCLEANUP. Not the other way around. Any user who is nominating a bunch of articles on the sole basis of them being poorly-written or poorly sourced is doing something wrong. What if we didn't do that, and still made the effort to clean-up/cite these articles? Because WP:NOEFFORT is no excuse. (And to be clear, I'm not talking about the number of legitimate nominations that have been filed, which goes without saying) Darkknight2149 19:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Worrying about who the onus is on is not the point. I've wasted time criticizing nominators in the past — the quote above criticizing Piotrus is mine, and I wish I hadn't written it, because it didn't make any difference. If you want articles not to be deleted, then the most effective way to do that is to find good sources, and add sourced information to the article. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I tend to believe that policy and procedure exists for a reason. Darkknight2149 23:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Agree to disagree, ToughPigs. They want the character to be Mickey Mouse level apparently. Look at all the improvements Nightscream and I made at Umar (Marvel Comics). That article still didn’t change the deletionists mind. Especially TTN's mind which he called it "smoke and mirrors" on being notable. I mean the group deleted the Injustice League without my knowledge. A primary Justice League arch villain group. I and another editor cite dumped Cain and Abel just recently. But it still is “plot dump” outside of having brief publication history. Nothing is pleasing these editors mind due to Wp:GNG which doesn’t sound as strict as they make it out to be and also so many link of WP:NOTPLOT going on that you would think sock puppetry is almost going on. Jhenderson 777 23:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Toughpigs, I agree with what you said and that is consistently the best approach when dealing with subject topics where notability is called into question. I think the crux of this discussion, and why Jhenderson777 got so worked up in starting this discussion in the first place, is whether Piotrus's conduct demonstrates that he adheres to this website's fundamental approach of assuming good faith from an objective point of view. I have not formed a view, though in some of his previous comments which have been highlighted by other users, he indicated that he does not know the rationales of other users and relies on his stance of presumed suspicion as a basis for his repeated (Jhenderson would argue that it is indiscriminate) use of PROD when questioned, even in cases where it may not be an uncontroversial deletion from a reasonable point of view. Perhaps both editors could reassess the objectivity of their approach when handling the issue of contentious deletion topics? Haleth (talk) 09:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
If you really think socking is going on, SPI is thataway. Otherwise it just seems like you're throwing shade on people just for agreeing with each other and not with you. Reyk YO! 11:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I said "almost" as in almost seems like it. It’s obvious my discussion here wasn’t originally about that. Yikes man! I am well aware of where to go to. There isn’t enough substantial evidence and again I assume good faith that it isn’t sock puppetry. Sounds like you are throwing shade at me and you really need assume good faith as well. Geez! Your comments seem kind of random and baity IMO LOL. Jhenderson 777 12:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes Haleth. People are reading too much of what I say. If you look at the title it even says “good faith”. Yet Piotrus pointed out that guideline like I am not adhering to it. Like what? Are you not reading my comments or are they not clear. Being on the spectrum it wouldn’t surprise me if I am not clear. But in good faith just let me know then. Also I assume good faith..and I do believe some articles should be deleted/redirected while some shouldn’t. Those I normally did not vote on because I knew the AFD would do its thing so I was a silent majority. So I am not always an inclusionist and disagreeing with the deletionists. The most bad faith thing I could think of to say is I do feel like these AFD's are being treated like cleanup which is a no-no. Also just advising to slow down the process because inclusionists MIGHT want to help save the articles but too many to save would be stressing for them. Jhenderson 777 14:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
It is kind of weird that nobody even pretends to follow WP:BEFORE these days, and that faliure to meet GNG is just taken as read when nominating and making delete votes. Artw (talk) 03:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Here's an example of comic-related content that gets habitually deproded by Andrew: Tara Fremont. Two paragraphs, all plot-summary, no references. All is well, eh? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Tara Freemont is quite similar to Garganta – another member of Femforce. Garganta was prodded by Piotrus on 18 Nov and that prod was then removed on 23 Nov. Too Tall Tara was then prodded by Piotrus on 25 Nov even though it was clear that that opposition was expected. The nomination even anticipates the opposition by stating "There is also an option of WP:ATD in the form of redirecting this to Femforce..." which makes it clear that the nomination was a violation of WP:POINT. Piotrus is wasting everyone's time by using the PROD process when it is clear, even to them, that there is a more sensible alternative. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Sounds like a bold merge seems like a more healthy alternative than prodding since prodding seems a bit controversial. If the article is a stub like that I don’t think anyone would mind. Jhenderson 777 14:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
@Jhenderson777 -->But isn't merging totally unreferenced content a violation of WP:V? What significance does this content add, given WP:ALLPLOT anyway? - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
@Andrew Davidson -->Are you saying that redirecting is the best option here? If yes, then why haven't you done so? Aren't you wasting everyone's time by making us move to AfD? After a prod is challenged (which suggested redirect as an alternative), redirecting does not seem uncontroversial, and indeed, it would be "a violation of WP:POINT I believe. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I would probably just Boldly redirect that one. Not necessarily merge which I am used to saying. Jhenderson 777 15:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
The Tara Freemont article is not "totally unreferenced" and so GizzyCatBella is commenting without having read it. WP:ALLPLOT, which they cite, is an essay and so is mere unofficial opinion. GizzyCatBella is wasting time by presenting unsupported and erroneous opinions. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Or of course GizzyCatBella is doing nothing of the sort, responding to a discussion about "merging as an alternative to prodding", relating to the article at the time it was prodded, when it was totally unsourced. Merging it then is what their comments are clearly about. WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL aren't essays. You could have asked "what do you mean, the article is no longer unsourced?", instead of attacking the editor and jumping to incorrect conclusions like "is commenting without having read it". Fram (talk) 09:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Andrew, look, when I viewed it first, it was unreferenced; then you added very weak references, which is technically an improvement, but please don't mislead people into believing this article was referenced before. The added references are also relatively weak, as can be seen in the ongoing AfD in which you have not even bothered to participate in (where there is not a single keep vote). - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


Wikieditor19920 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was already under a partial block from the closely-related Andy Ngo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (whose major target is Antifa), and continues to conduct debate via edit summaries not on Talk, and has been engaging in apparently tendentious editing at Antifa (United States) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) so I have added Antifa to he pageblock and extended it. This is in lieu of requesting an AP2 TBAN, which I think is defensible based on the lack of introspection displayed at user talk:Wikieditor19920 in response to the original pageblock, and noted by several well respected and calm editors, but I think we should be engaging in minimally aggressive controls right now due to the US political situation and associated elevated emotions. I encourage review and discussion of this, and this is without prejudice to action against the OP, Bacondrum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who is absolutely not blameless here. I noted this at WP:ANEW where the original complaint is lodged. I suspect Bacondrum may also need some kind of restriction here - it's getting silly. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I made a few sets of bold changes to the lead at Antifa (United States), and contributions to the talk page with detailed explanations of my edits. There was disagreement and these edits were reverted - but some edits of my suggestions, such as removing overcitations and pointing out where sources did not in fact support the provided language -- caught on and were later restored. Each of my edit summaries have been as detailed as my contributions on the talk page have been, and while they have not been met with unanimous agreement, they have resulted in minor changes to the lead that seem to be an improvement, including the removal of those overcites as well as small pieces of other redundant information. This is how WP:BRD works, and none of this is tendentious. I will note that my changes were intended only to make the lead more concise and did not involve the addition of any controversial information.
@JzG:, who had repeatedly used terms like "fash," "neofascist apologist," and "grifter" to describe the subject of the page Andy Ngo, something I asked them to tone down because of the obviously inappropriate and unproductive nature of these remarks,[2] has now banned me from that page until 2021. When I brought this up with JzG, they accused me of some sort of anti-Muslim animus for my edits at Linda Sarsour over a year ago, which helped elevate the page to GA status. If this doesn't show an obvious bias by this admin at the subject in question (specifically their language in describing the subject of a BLP), I don't know what does, and I can't think of a clearer case for admin abuse than here. I'm not even surprised, I'm just disappointed. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
As for the other user mentioned here, this is an editor who I've avoided and who has repeatedly sought me ought, for some inexplicable reason to either snipe at me at the talk page by calling my edits "blatantly POV" or to violate 1RR. An admin claimed that they "couldn't find the violation," despite my report showing two distinct reverts within 24 hours. The user went on to open an ANI. So that's how it goes. When you are on the "right" side, 1RR violations are ignored. When you are on the "wrong" side, as apparently JzG disagrees with my edits, both at Antifa and the "grifter's" page, then violations are contrived and used as a reason to limit your access to those pages. I stand by each and every one of my edits at those pages -- I never engaged in an edit war where I directly reverted someone's removal of my changes, I always did partial reverts and attempted to account for objections, and indeed, some of my edits ultimately remained in the article.
This latest accusation of a violation was for merging two sentences about the group's protest activity to note non-violent activity as well as violent (both were already in the article before I made any changes, just in two separate sentences) Because, in merging the two sentences, I removed "against those who they identify as the far right," apparently it was tendentious, but JzG does not realize that this language was objected to by another editor in the talk page, Aquillion, and my removing it was a partial acknowledgement of their objection. Of course, actually reviewing my edits and their compliance with WP:BRD and giving me the benefit of the doubt is much more difficult than simply swinging the admin hammer and throwing around phrases like "tendentious." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Wikieditor19920, you made several "bold changes" all of which appear to have been reverted, by more than one editor. You did this in the context of an existing pageblock on Andy Ngo. Did you not pause at any point to reflect on the wisdom of this, or whether you should first seek consensus for changes to long-standing text? I look forward to seeing you contribute to a consensus building process on Talk (of both articles). Guy (help! - typo?) 01:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
@JzG: No, they were not all reverted, as I just explained. My removal of citations was initially objected to, and then, coincidentally, agreed with by Bacondrum, who partially restored my changes. My last change was to merge two sentences and, as a show of good faith, remove language objected specifically to by Aquillion here, which was to qualify their protests against the far-right with "those that they identify." He called that language "weak." I disagreed, but I removed it nonetheless in my subsequent edits to the page -- I thought the sentences about their protest tactics went better together, and, in the process, I incorporated a specific request by another user who had previously taken issue with at least some of my edits. Only in an alternate reality is this tendentious editing, but, per usual, when you don't have the benefit of the doubt by admins who substantively disagree, then everything is cast in a negative light and used to justify extraordinarily stringent bans that aren't even issued for actual, severe violations (such as 1RR). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Wikieditor19920, so you won't have a problem with achieving consensus on Talk then, and demonstrating that you are in fact the good guy, despite past history. Great. That will be a decent result all round. I do recommend RfCs as a good way to settle intractable disputes. Guy (help! - typo?) 01:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
@JzG: I don't need to demonstrate that I'm a "good guy" to you. My work speaks for itself. You have misconstrued my contributions at this page in justifying this poorly explained ban, and forgive me if I have a problem with that. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand. Nobody needs to demonstrate anything to me, personally - I'm just zis Guy, you know? - but my advice to you, as an editor whom I respect regardless of personal differences, is to make it really easy for admins to see who's here to improve the encyclopaedia and who's here to right great wrongs. With that I will duck out, as long experience indicates that therse disputes go better when people are prepared to step back and wait for the dust to settle. Guy (help! - typo?) 01:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Wikieditor19920 rightly points out that Bacondrum is also under the same pageblock, it seems to me that equity might best be served by applying the same revised pageblock to both parties. What do others think? Guy (help! - typo?) 01:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I did not go past 1RR so I respectfully contest the idea that I should also be sanctioned. If I am to be sanctioned I request the diffs demonstrating that I have crossed the line...failing that I want to know exactly what I have done wrong, otherwise this is completely unfair. I'll be being sanctioned for having been targeted by a disruptive editor. Bacondrum (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Diffs showing the editor violated 1rr: First revert, Second revert, both in 24 hours. Here are the reports for the past three times in the last year and a half the user has the done same exact thing: 1, 2, 3. That's just to substantiate what I said when I pointed out the user was disregarding 1RR, something I very politely broached with them on their talk page (and which had absolutely no effect -- they continued making changes after claiming to have self reverted).
When I filed a report, Bacondrum, consistent with prior reports, offered a mix of faux apologies and crying wolf about being "harassed" claiming to be blameless, and that apparently worked; Inexplicably, this was closed without any action. For good measure, JzG, an admin who clearly agrees with this user about the page in question — I referenced above that JzG used the term "fash" and "neo-fascist apologist" to describe the subject Andy Ngo, and for the record, Bacondrum has used similar language at Talk:Andy Ngo -- unilaterally imposed a two-month ban, claiming I should have had notice about not editing at Antifa (United States) because of a page block at Andy Ngo. Apparently the same did not apply to Bacondrum, who violated 1RR at that page while under the same block, which seemingly is fine, but I should have known not to make any bold edits at that page or ones that other editors might possibly disagree with, no matter how minor. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Wikieditor19920, you won't win much sympathy here with your continued attacks against JzG here. You made your point that you disagree with how they have handled this dispute but you continue making personal attacks that can result in a sanction in itself. Diffs are more convincing that sharp language. Liz Read! Talk! 03:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
@Liz:, Not one aspect of what I wrote is a personal attack, I am referencing specific comments by JzG and my issues with their action here. But thank you for the reminder that any criticism of an administrator is liable to be misconstrued or just misrepresented.
  • Springee, well, yes, because without it nobody would know or care who Ngo is. His popularity among the fash is entirely down to his crusade against Antifa and his apologia for neo-Nazis. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC) [ Diff
  • Wikieditor19920, which I did, but the RfC is specifically designed to discuss a single word, whereas most of the sources I have seen (and all the recent ones) either don't use it, or qualify it. Because, you know, he's a grifter. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC) Diff

And the other user involved mirrored those same comments in kind:

  • Ngo is the very definition of a Hack writer - nothing more, nothing less. This is a ridiculous argument. Bacondrum (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Apparently, my mistake was suggesting that maybe we shouldn't use such language. My life would be a lot easier if I hopped on the boat and bashed the subject. But because I don't, I'm treated like an enemy by admins like JzG, and the burden is on me to prove I'm a "good guy" or on the "right side." Absolutely ridiculous. And in the meantime, when you happen to agree editorially with the admins about this kind of stuff, magically 1RR violations are written off or ignored. This type of behavior and misuse of admin tools does harm to the credibility of the site as a whole. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

And let's just be clear about what exactly JzG has presented as the basis to justify a 3-month topic ban on two pages. I changed this:
  • Antifa political activists are anti-racists who engage in protest tactics, seeking to combat fascists and racists such as neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other far-right extremists. This may involve digital activism, harassment, physical violence, and property damage against those whom they identify as belonging to the far right. Much antifa activism is nonviolent, such as poster and flyer campaigns, delivering speeches, marching in protest, and community organizing.

To this:

  • Antifa political activists are anti-racists who engage in protest tactics, seeking to combat fascists and racists such as neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other far-right extremists. This may involve digital activism, harassment, physical violence, and property damage, and nonviolent activities such as poster and flyer campaigns, delivering speeches, marching in protest, and community organizing.

There is absolutely nothing ban-worthy about this edit. I had not made any similar or partial reverts in the past 24 or 48 hours and it was a limited change. And yet, for a 1RR violation, he happily accepts false denials from Bacondrum that he did nothing wrong regarding 1RR and is technically correct, despite diffs obviously showing otherwise and the fact that this user has repeated the same conduct thrice before. This was an abusive block stemming from an editorial disagreement over a bold edit. This is exemplified by the unjustifiably lenient and chummy treatment towards an editor engaging in actual violations of DS but who happens to be on the "right side" of the disagreement. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

That is disingenuous. The history of the article shows a pattern of non-trivial edits by you, which are then speedily reverted by others. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:40, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Question:User:JzG Maybe I miss something but aren't you WP:INVOLVED in AP? --ְְShrike (talk) 07:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Shrike, Not in this article, to my knowledge, but that is why I brought it here for review by other admins. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:40, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
JzG, I think the best course of action is too ask a sanction here or at WP:AE and then impose it by uninvolved admin if it justified --Shrike (talk) 08:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't see why that'd be necessary, or how Guy is too involved to enact a sanction themselves?
As far as the sanction itself goes, am I correct in thinking that there are no individually problematic diffs here, rather the issue is persistent large-scale bold additions to controversial parts (eg the lead), which are quickly reverted for being bold, and a lack of awareness that their approach may not be best for this particular article? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Because they involved in the same topic and have opposite POVs --Shrike (talk) 10:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

JzG, why don't you point to these "non-trivial edits." Was it where I removed a total of about 12 words from the lead? Or where I removed sources citing WP:CITEOVERKILL, and was reverted by a user before the exact same change was re-added by Bacondrum? Because you have not provided a single diff either here or on my talk page, but you seem to rely on false representations by Bacondrum that 1) his making two reverts within 24h isn't "technically" edit warring, and that my making changes to same page over the course of a week is? @ProcrastinatingReader: And can you point to any of these "persistent, large-scale" additionals to controversial parts, or are you aware that my largest edit merely removed 15 words? As with JzG, who is 100% WP:INVOLVED, you did not read the diffs.
Shrike You are exactly correct. Not only do JzG and I apparently have different points of view about the article, I'm insufficiently committed to his points of view about the subjects themselves. And as for AE, What's the point? It's an obviously unjustified ban, but when I reported Bacondrum for his persistent edit warring, another admin, Black Kite, just closed it without explanation or action and suggested there was "no violation" despite diffs. Totally incomprehensible. And yet, JzG presents innocuous a completely contrived violation here -- rehashing baseless arguments by Bacondrum -- and boom, three-month ban. If we can find an admin to ignore Bacondrum's obvious edit-warring and JzG can use admin tools with impunity against editors whose views he considers incorrect, whose to say another admin won't just come in and rubber stamp whatever he does? That's pretty much how it works around here. I also find it hilarious when JzG claims he "respects me personally," yet accuses me of anti-Muslim bias for editing Linda Sarsour (which I got to GA status), when I called him out on his outrageous comments at Andy Ngo. This is a WP:INVOLVED admin using their tools granted by the community to punish an opposing editor for a frivolous, contrived violation, even as they ignore open violations of discretionary sanctions by others. And he's not the only one. But I'm afraid the likely outcome is another admin will come in, draw some artificial distinction to justify it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 11:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm not accusing you of anything - I'm trying to clarify the TLDR of the reason for the ban in the view of the sanctioning admin.
However, And can you point to any of these "persistent, large-scale" additionals to controversial parts, or are you aware that my largest edit merely removed 15 words? seems quite inaccurate. I just looked at the history at a skim which shows sets of major changes to the lead from you (eg Special:Diff/988739848/988769763, Special:Diff/989452230/989455729, Special:Diff/990109873/990137392, or Special:Diff/990687183), and each being swiftly reverted, by 3 different editors.
And, as some advice, the walls of text above are not helping, and such format may be more suited for WP:AE. Take the appeal there, or if you'd rather the conversation happen here, could you please actually let other people converse? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
@ProcrastinatingReader: That's fine. But just realize that all of those "major" changes are removal of citations and minor changes to wording, which were reverted as a knee-jerk reaction by one user until the talk page realized that my suggestion might have some merit and accepted the same changes from another user. My edits were fully within WP:BRD, and each set of changes I made sought to account for points articulated at the talk page by others, which, contrary to what JzG represented, I was an active and regular participant in. And the kicker here is that the other user in fact violated 1RR but has been allowed a pass for it by two admins now. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 11:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I think it's better for everyone to be on the same page first before anyone starts trying to make an argument which may not even match with Guy's reasoning for the sanction. Somehow, 4 diffs has been turned into all of the text above, which is somewhat hard to navigate. You're also kinda repeating the same points and trying to turn this into something that is, in my view, irrelevant to the matter of whether you or anyone else should be blocked or unblocked here.
As far as 1RR on the other editor goes, I presume you're referring to Special:Diff/989462509/990109873? If so, whilst that rewording is perhaps technically within the scope of the definition of a "revert" if taken very literally, from a quick glance it appears it did not revert your actions (which were wholly reverted in Special:Diff/989462509 by another editor) or anyone else's in recent time. Unless I'm mistaken there, and I have only quickly glanced, I don't particularly believe in sanctioning someone for technical violations which show no intent to edit war. You link to User_talk:Bacondrum#Antifa above, and the editor seemingly tried to communicate with you and seems confused, and you did not respond? Seemingly the editor tried to resolve your concern in Special:Diff/990139380 but had no clue what you were talking about. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Ugh. I have just found Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Bacondrum_reported_by_User:Wikieditor19920_(Result:_Closed), and now I'm mildly frustrated at my time being wasted here. This seems quite disingenuous to me, and trying to get another editor sanctioned under a legalese, technical definition of revert (aka, a copyedit), after it has already been resolved, is quite inappropriate. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
@ProcrastinatingReader: You should either follow accurately what's going on or stay out of it. You claim you don't believe in a technical violations which show no intent to edit war. 1RR is not a technical violation, it's edit warring. I filed a report only after asking the user to stop, politely. They said they would, then continued to edit war, and lied about it on the AN3 page. This editor is not confused in the least -- they acknowledged the 1RR violation, continued it, and then denied it after being reported. This is their third time being blocked or warned for the same violation, as I linked above, and yet editors like you still give them the benefit of the doubt based on an unconvincing set of claims of ignorance. Of course, when I make changes to language, it isn't written off as a copy edit, but when this user does so outside the limits of 1RR, it's copy editing. So you hate "legalese," but apply it for me and not this other editor? These are exactly the phony distinctions that I was talking about earlier. You're right about one thing: I'm not going to keep re-explaining myself to editors who arbitrarily pre-judge a situation without even looking at what transpired, or selectively choose to ignore facts. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Three uninvolved administrators have rejected that report there, and one further administrator has criticised your approach here. Your tripling down is greatly unfortunate. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
And they are wrong. I'll provide the diffs again. First revert., Second revert. Two distinct reverts interrupted by another user's edits within a 24 hour period. But when you're just looking for a post hoc justification to nail someone you don't like or disagree with, what do facts matter? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't know you or the other editor, and I couldn't care less for the Antifa article. So perhaps a good start here is to acknowledge that every admin and editor who says your assertions are false aren't all conspiring against you. The first edit is not an obvious revert, as multiple uninvolved admins at ANEW have told you. I still don't have a view on your original block, but I take a very dim view of this persistent, meritless attempt to pull down another editor, at least on this "1RR" charge. It is unacceptable, and you should stop. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
@ProcrastinatingReader: I'm not going to continue arguing about this with you. You have no idea about the situation and are another jumping on the bandwagon. But just so we're actually dealing in reality, the first edit is a direct revert of this previous edit.Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - Administrators might want to look at their conduct at the Pit bull article, including edits like this and their numerous talk page edits where much of the same behavior is demonstrated - discussing bold edits through edit summaries, removal of sourced content, introduction of NPOV language, etc. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
discussing bold edits through edit summaries. Do you mean in addition to discussing my changes on the talk page? It's really interesting where a detailed edit summary is contrived as a violation. See this RfC on sources, where I directly discussed concerns at that page with arguments/content presented by PearlSt82, which I was only briefly involved in, and where other users agreed with my points. Shame on you for misrepresenting that, PearlSt82. "Introducing NPOV language" and "removing sourced" material" is a one-sided way of presenting editorial disagreements as if they somehow show wrongdoing. I'm also presuming you meant to say "POV language," which is just false; my changes in fact added what I saw as genuinely NPOV language, which is precisely what we should be doing. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Further examples of bias and inappropriate commentary between JzG and Bacondrum at Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory

So that it's clear I'm not the only one who's encountered this problem: At another page, these two users exchange barbs over a discussion of sources that went well beyond the line.

  • Davide King, cultural marxism moved into the media mainstream the same way that climate change denial did: through motivated reasoning by grifters. Being part of the mainstream doesn't stop it being bullshit. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • JzG Hit the nail on the head. Spot on. I think the issue is that some people are rightly embarrassed to find out they have been regurgitating a Nazi era antisemitic conspiracy, so they get upset about it and make up excuses. Bacondrum (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Without delving into the complexities here, both editors apparently use hostile, aggressive language in reference to editorial disagreements between editors and vitriolic accusations are thrown about casually in the same manner I pointed out at the Andy Ngo article, from these same two editors.

  • In another thread, in response to another disagreement, Bacondrum replies to the opposing editor in the dispute: Oh my. What a tantrum. Oh well, bye...WP:NOTCOMPULSORY That thread makes me want to quit, what a bunch of whinging bullshit. Bacondrum (talk) 20:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

It is laughable how some commenters here are trying to pin the blame on me for "pulling down a good editor" for calling out Bacondrum's edit warring. This editor calls names and attacks others the moment any kind of disagreement arises, in a brutal and personal way. Despite seemingly distancing himself from this behavior from Bacondrum at the start of this thread, JzG either participates in the conduct or gives a symbolic wag of the finger and a wink for what should be a patent violation of WP:CIVIL and grounds to ask the user to take a break from the page. If this isn't either incompetence or bias by an administrator, I don't know what is, and JzG's actions against me are just one part of that pattern. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

  • You're pretty clear about your take on JzG, but, reading the above, I don't see a single editor who agrees with you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The evidence is posted above says all there is to say. But knocks like yours, Beyond My Ken, have absolutely nothing to do with substance and everything to do with making someone feel isolated, regardless of whether or not they bring up a valid point. I'm surprised that's the only thing you have to say, given your past issues with Bacondrum mirroring mine, but everyone's entitled to their opinion. (And yet, Shrike seems to understand exactly what I'm saying, so your observation is also not correct.) Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Actually, you should read Shrike's comments again, because they have little to do with your complaint, and are more general in nature. Not every possible criticism of JzG means that the person agrees with you. Nor do my past disagreements with Bacondrum -- we're now on good terms, BTW -- have anything whatsoever to do with this case -- but I guess you're just grasping at straws and striking out at anyone who comes here to comment because your complaints are not getting the least bit of traction. That possibly also accounts for your WP:BLUDGEONing this discussion with repetitive WP:BATTLEGROUNDy walls of text.
    I suggest that the Law of holes applies here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: Call it whatever you want. I stand by what I've said about the severe and arbitrary nature of this block by JzG and the evidence I presented. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Fine. Could you please learn how to properly indent discussion comments? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: suggests my documenting a 1RR violation is "harassment," yet did not even look at the diffs or my attempts to broach the issue with the editor beforehand, and proposes a ridiculous and punitive ban. They claim that I have a "track record of personal attacks," yet provides no such example. That's because I do not attack editors. You will not find one comment by me calling an editor "whinging" or calling their argument "bullshit" as in the diffs above, but yet again, this behavior is of no concern, nor is the fact that a clearly WP:INVOLVED admin imposed an excessive and arbitrary restriction on a page we've both been working on. This "circle the wagons" and "death by a thousand cuts" to anyone who dares question authority or the house point of view is what drives editors away.

It's easy to dig diffs, talk page notices, or disputes from the past four years and claim whatever you want and ignore my contribtuions, but the fact is any editor involved in AmPol has butted heads with others and engaged in passionate debates. When you are on the "wrong" side of those debates, it always seems to attract "warnings" and other sort of attention. The way that editors pull years-old threads out of context is just silly. @Bishonen: cites a thread where I asked another editor, who repeatedly appeared at pages I was editing to revert me, to not WP:STALK my edits if they were doing so, as "illustrative." The user got hostile and filed an ANI, which was ignored and archived. Other users who had followed the situation at that thread noted that I did absolutely nothing wrong, but Bishonen presents it here as damning evidence of I don't know what. I'm familiar with Bishonen's work and respect them, but this is just so one-sided and misleading.

If I had used the phrase "grifter" or "(insert negative association)-apologist" to describe any mainstream, popular subject, without providing a source, I would have been indeffed without question, as would any regular user. And that would be the right decision against any editor coming into AmPol with that kind of attitude. But again, you would never find one such example of any statement by me. But if I criticize those expressions coming from an admin -- especially one who just banned me from a page we've both been involved in -- then apparently that is a "personal attack" or "battlegrounding." I never claimed perfection, despite the accusations that I've never shown introspection, but apparently it's much easier to simply resort to punitive and extreme ban proposals and avoid an uncomfortable discussion about why the conduct I highlighted above is either tolerated or encouraged by admins freely and what kind of problem that creates for a productive atmosphere. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

You can dig up diffs or disputes from the past four years Anything you'd like to disclose? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
@ProcrastinatingReader: Sorry, are you asking for something specific or just every time I've had a disagreement, made an edit that was reverted, or objected to something in an article? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
You know what, there is. Bishonen outrageously accuses me of "POV" without a shred of evidence, even as I've presented multiple examples of here, in the specific conduct I took issue with, of admins and users actively deriding and expressing negative opinions about the subject of a BLP. This ridiculous double-standard reminds me of a comment raised by a user at the thread Bishonen provided:

@Bishonen: One of the complainants here has told another editor in an American politics related MfD: [309] How about you and your whole busybody crew fuck right off!! Back when that happened, it was mentioned at AE etc. and nothing was thought of it. Now you are warning Wikieditor19992 for far, far less. It seems that there are two sets of standards at play. Different rules are applied for different editors depending on whether they follow the house POV. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I meant that your account is from 2018, but you say four years, so I'm just curious what you were editing on beforehand? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
@ProcrastinatingReader: None, that is my rough guess about how long I've been editing Wikipedia for (i.e. been using this single and only account). It's not something I keep track of, and it may be 3 or 2.5. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
So, you're saying that your "rough guess" about how long your tenure on Wikipedia has been (2 years and 8 months) is 4 years or 3 or 2.5? That's believable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
That's right. I just checked the diff again, it was September 2018. Congratulations. It's not something I sit around and think about or keep track of, but I would figure you to assume bad faith or infer something nefarious. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
As with much of your editing, it probably wouldn't hurt you to think a little more about what you're doing before you do it. Perhaps then you might realize that there's no reason for the 14th repetitive wall-of-text argument because the previous 13 pretty much said what you wanted to say, and you're only creating a bad impression by saying it again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken That was obviously an honest mistake. Nonetheless, clearly you have a point, since my communications are being pretty quickly disregarded. Regardless, I think I brought up a few legitimate issues:

  • Use of admin tools by a WP:INVOLVED admin to impose a three-month ban for an extremely minor edit
  • Concerning expressions used about a BLP
  • Seemingly arbitrary standards applied in resolving an editorial dispute with sanctions

Could I have expressed myself better? Sure. But the proposed WP:PUNITIVE block addresses nothing, and it feels like retribution for my having criticized an admin who subsequently requested a desysop. I don't know if it's related, but the fact that this administrator did so immediately afterward raises an obvious question about the propriety of the intial block. And rather than addressing this point, ProcrastinatingReader brings up talk page notices from 2018 to aggressively lobby to have me blocked for bringing it up. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, @Slywriter:, just to clarify, are you referring to me when you describe American politically conservative editors? If so, I'm going to ask you to strike that, because you are a) mischaracterizing my views and b) you really don't have any information to characterize my views, party registration, or personal beliefs in the first place. My concerns about disparaging a BLP extend to all pages regardless of any ideological spectrum they fall on, as I already indicated. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, @Slywriter:. Agree that that kind of material is frustrating, disagree that I went lower by bringing it up, but appreciate the feedback. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
May not be my finest use of the english language but my point is if you keep finding yourself dragged onto the drama boards by other editors/admins then you should take a step back and ask why and how can I avoid it going forward. Now unfortunately, the community may force that upon you but I do think it would be a net negative to Wikipedia for that ban to be a complete one that drives you away from the project Slywriter (talk) 02:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Appreciate it! We'll see what happens. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
For those who seem to suggest my only positive contributions have been outside AmPol, this is untrue. I helped bring Linda Sarsour to GA status as well, one at the intersection of AmPol and PIA. It's far more difficult to make those kinds of changes on a page where every edit is challenged and argued about, as opposed to that of a small college or little known academic, but I accomplished it, why? Because my edits were neutral and well thought out (as were those of the others who I was working with). So it's simply wrong to dismiss my work in that area of the encyclopedia based on a few unfortunate encounters. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


I appreciate the overall message and tone of Wugapodes's comments, while I disagree with the suggested remedy. Even so, I'm seeing several editors attributing to me supposedly persistent battle-grounding, personal attacks, and everything in the book. While I don't think anyone who's edited AP-32 (including myself) can say they never once said something that they wish they had phrased differently, I resent the rush to judgement on topic bans and indeffs, severe and punitive remedies, without a single diff showing me disrespecting another editor, attacking another editor, or making an unfounded accusation. ProcrastinatingReader accused me of "parading attacks" against the user Bacondrum and filing a "frivolous report" at WP:AN3. I disagree but accepted the outcome. The response by Bacondrum was to:

This is not me "attacking" the user, this is what happend. It was then that JzG decided they would unilaterally, and without warning or notice, ban me for three months at two pages where they have been WP:INVOLVED, while letting Bacondrum off with a mere warning for the 1RR matter and their follow-up comments about me on multiple talk pages. Even the edit by me that JzG supposedly premised this on was exceedingly minor: I merged two sentences, removing a phrase objected to by another editor, and removed sources, something that others including Bacondrum agreed with on the talk page. This is not the kind of conduct that should lead to a T-ban. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Block proposed[edit]

  • Indef for ongoing attacks and frivolous litigation against Bacondrum, a few steps removed from harassment, here and at ANEW; plus their track record of incivility and personal attacks from a skim of ANI & their talk page history; plus battleground behaviour; persistent bludgeoning -- all of which are on display above. That includes [3][4][5][6] (warned by Bishonen), multiple warnings for such conduct [7][8][9], prior sanctions [10][11] by @TonyBallioni and Black Kite. Regular throughout their tenure [12][13][14], gaining the attention of no less than a dozen totally different admins. Too many issues, regardless of any content merits. @Liz and Swarm: gave advice for self-reflection on your approach to collaborative editing on Wikipedia and ask yourself whether this is an environment you can work in one month ago, and at the heart of this dispute is not reverts but battleground behavior across several forums [...] if this dispute between you and Bacondrum continues [...] you will face a more serious sanction; this advice apparently hasn't worked. This kind of conduct drives editors away, which we are already in short supply of, and wastes the time of others, whilst deteroriating the editing atmosphere, and hence should not entertained for this long. Unfortunately, I feel another AP2 TBAN (their previous, 3mo for battleground behaviour, expired) will be insufficient, especially given the lack of introspection above, plus narrow editing interest and the broadness of the issues. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support indef. ProcrastinatingReader offers an impressive/depressing collection of diffs and links, including noticeboard threads illustrating the way people are worn down by Wikieditor19920's wordy and untiring POV-pushing. As I'm always saying, the time and patience of constructive editors is Wikipedia's foremost resource, and this editor is depleting that resource. This thread, which slid into the archives without a close, may be the most illustrative of all. And the warnings and sanctions, such as a three-month Am Pol T-ban, seem to have had very little effect on the user's style and attitude. If the proposal for an indefinite block doesn't gain traction, I suggest another T-ban from American politics, but this time not time-limited but indefinite. That does not mean forever, but it does mean there has to be constructive and useful editing in other areas, probably for at least six months, followed by a convincing unban request. I actually think it's time for an indefinite block, though. Bishonen | tålk 21:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC).
  • Support indef After reading PR's diffs and especially, Bishonen's pointer to the January thread, I think an indef block is well-deserved to protect Wikipedia from WE19220's disruptive and harassing behaviors. Like Bishonen, I also support an indef AP2 Tban if there is no consensus for an indef block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support AP2 TBAN; Oppose CBAN An indefinite block after a community discussion is essentially a community ban, and I don't think we're at that point yet. I think there's enough disruption to warrant a broad topic ban from the more contentious parts of the encyclopedia though, and a TBAN let's us see if WE19220 can contribute positively or whether a CBAN should follow. Wug·a·po·des 00:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
    FTR, the issues extend to PIA also (see many of the links), so a ban would also have to cover that topic area imo if going TBAN route. But didn't you tell me these discussions are hard to do again? ;p That discussion blocked that editor for far less issues. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
    Sure throw in PIA too. An indef TBAN (like this) is different from a time-limited one (like in the example you give). A time-limited TBAN means that even if there's still problems we have to have a whole new conversation which--in that specific case--was unlikely to happen since the original thread had to be resurrected from the archive just to get sanctions in the first place. Meanwhile, any admin can indef WE19220 if they continue to be disruptive--we don't need a community discussion for that--and especially if they violate the TBAN. WE19220 seems to be productive outside these areas--they've started articles on academics and alumni and brought Goucher College up to GA. Jumping straight to an indef CBAN is a lot when they can clearly behave just fine outside these areas. That's what TBANs are for. Wug·a·po·des 03:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
    I'm usually the one who supports lesser sanctions, but for this kind of behaviour, which is a cancer to any collaborative environment, I genuinely do not see why anyone wants to allow this. You see one GA, I see the GAs that didn't happen because the editors were driven away. The editor says above the discussions I linked are from 2018, when most of them are from 2020, some not even a month ago. They think every uninvolved admin was against them. They do not get it; can you honestly say this conduct is rehabilitatable?
    Sorry, I cannot get behind your idea that any admin would indef themselves: nobody did so to date, instead opting for slaps on the wrist. Neither whilst this editor paraded their attacks on Bacondrum above - the very thing they were warned against doing - on the administrators noticeboard, one of the most watchlisted pages on this site. That a community discussion is now required is an administrative failure. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
    Our blocks aren't punitive, they are preventative, and since the disruption seems limited to defined topic areas, we can prevent disruption by banning WE19220 from those topics. I'd support a CBAN if those were the only areas to which WE19220 contributed, but it's not. I can come up with tons of hypothetical GAs that might have been written, but it doesn't change the fact that WE19220 actually wrote some and a CBAN won't magically make those hypothetical GAs or editors suddenly appear. The GAs and creations by WE19220 aren't even in the area of conflict; I'm not going to support a CBAN because someone thinks WE19220 will be disruptive outside of the TBAN areas since we have clear evidence that WE19220 can contribute fine outside of this topic area.
    People can change, even between topic areas, and we have many editors--even some admins--who started their careers with indef vandalism blocks or successfully appealed CBANs. In fact, I make it a personal goal to welcome back every contributor who successfully appeals a CBAN (e.g., Mar 2020, Nov 2020) per meatball:WelcomeNewcomer and meatball:ForgiveAndForget. So to your question can you honestly say this conduct is rehabilitatable? Yes, because I've seen it multiple times. It is far better to try and retain and reform editors where we can rather than kicking out people we don't like and hoping others magically appear. It is hard to get people to contribute, I say having run edit-a-thons and doing outreach with academics. You can wax philosophic about editor recruitment and retention, but kicking WE19220 out won't magically solve our problems and it is unfair to make them a scapegoat of a problem they're barely even part of. We have tons of editors who simply cannot contribute well in certian areas--Beyond My Ken, who is supporting a CBAN, is under an editing restriction himself. The Rambling Man has a topic ban and multiple interaction bans. We literally have TBANs for this exact reason and we should use them before resorting to more drastic measures like complete removal from the community.
    Finally, speaking as an admin, slapping an indef on someone in the middle of a community discussion is usually frowned upon per WP:SUPERVOTE. The ban discussion you started is why admins are hesitant to dole out sanctions because it could be seen as circumventing community discussion. Is that right or good? I don't know, but it's certainly strange to fault all admins for not taking action sooner on something we found out about literally a couple hours ago and which is actively being discussed by the community. Could the admins in the past done more? Sure. But they didn't and I'm not going to punish WE19220 now just because other admins were too kind. I'll certainly look at the blocks to find out where disruption is likely to continue to occur and take action to prevent that disruption, which is why I oppose a CBAN and prefer a TBAN: WE19220 seems fine outside of politically contentious areas. Wug·a·po·des 22:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose CBAN / Support TBAN (Broadly) The leeway given to certain editors in how poorly they treat subjects of articles on talk pages can be frustrating for american politically conservative editors (Though I stand by the original statement, Wikieditor is right that I lack the information to apply said statement to his specific circumstances). It even gets to the point where you believe that they are out to get conservatives editors that disagree with them. However, when they go low, you go lower is not the wikipedia way and Wikieditor needs a break from AP2 for everyone's sanity and so that they can understand wikipedia is ultimately not a battleground for supremacy of ideology. Reliable Sources, rationale debate and avoiding personal attacks is a much better way to improve articles. Slywriter (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support indef I haven't seen this editor before, but reading through this thread and linked discussions I can see a history of battleground editing which many warnings, noticeboard discussions, topic bans and blocks haven't been able to stop. The editors we actually want to retain on these articles are the ones who don't engage in battleground editing, and we're not doing them a service by tolerating this. I suppose a topic ban from modern US politics would take care of the immediate problem, but these are issues which are likely to crop up elsewhere. If we have to impose multiple topic bans, as suggested above, then that's definitely a situation where we should be looking at an indefinite block. Hut 8.5 08:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose JzG's descriptions of Ngo as a "grifter" and Ngo's actions as "apologia for neo-Nazis" are inappropriate. Wikieditor19920 has been right to scrutinize such BLP treatment, and I think it would be dangerous BLP-wise to remove editors who make sure that stuff like this doesn't get a free pass. Sadly, too often discussion in the AP32- topic area is hostile, and certainly Wikieditor19920 could do his part and improve. But it seems biased to ignore JzG's track record or consider criticism of Bacondrum as "frivolous litigation" when he has multiple blocks for edit-warring and battleground attitude. At that point it becomes sniping for POV. --Pudeo (talk) 08:56, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support TBAN / Oppose CBAN. Pretty much per Wugapodes; it appears that 19220 can contribute positively to the encylopedia in areas that aren't contentious; it would seem a shame to lose that. Black Kite (talk) 11:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support indef as first choice per Hut8.5, second choice TBANs from AP and ARBPIA - indefinite with appeal possible after 6 months. This is based on what I've seen of his edits over time and nothing to do with NGO or JzG. --Doug Weller talk 11:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose We have to see the full context here yes I think user should take a step back but admins shouldn't take actions in discretionary area that there are WP:INVOLVED even if they didn't edit certain article there are proper procedures for this --20:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrike (talkcontribs) .
  • (1) It's far from clear that Guy was "involved" as defined by WP:INVOLVED. (2) People should actually read WP:INVOLVED once in a while, especially the part that says: "...the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion." (3) Guy brought his action here for consideration as to its appropriateness. The fact that we're now !voting about a possible sanction for Wikieditor19920, in which a number of admins have endorsed a sanction stricter than Guy put in place, and a reading of the section above indicates that the community's consensus as well as the consensus of admins is behind Guy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not seeing enough for a indef. Most of the examples above are overlaps and links to the same thing over and over. I am concerned with the same people showing up over and over with warnings and threats. That gets less and less productive every time it happens. PackMecEng (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
    • That cuts both ways. The same people show up to defend... Just sayin'. --Valjean (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
      • Not so much actually if you look at the overall people involved. Sure there are a few that show up defending them, but the vast majority are on the other end. Your comment reads more like WP:FALSEBALANCE. PackMecEng (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support CBAN, with TBAN second choice Time is precious here, and I don't have much patience with editors who are timesinks. Miniapolis 23:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support TBan (AP2) per Black Kite and Doug Weller. -- Valjean (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support CBAN first; broad TBAN second per Doug Weller.--Jorm (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, Wikieditor19920 should be more succinct, but other than that he is a constructive editor. 11Fox11 (talk) 06:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support CBAN as first choice. PR's links above show sufficient disruption that I believe this editor to be a net negative. Support INDEF TBAN from AP2 & PIA as second choice. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support indef as first choice, with TBAN as second choice per the concerns raised by Miniapolis and Doug Weller. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support indef and AP2/ARBPIA topic bans. Whereas I don't see any knock-out diffs that alone would warrant an indef, persistent arguing-to-death is very corrosive in a collaborative community and that is worse than a knock-out incident. Johnuniq (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose CBAN Personally, I find myself disagreeing with Wikieditor19920 frequently. I think his problem is with WP:BLUDGEONing the process, WP:IDHT and Wikilawyering which I don't think at this point warrant a community ban. If they could just take some of these criticisms on board and drop the persecution complex, they could continue to make worthwhile contributions. But I think their persistence here and refusal to drop the stick will result in some sanctions. Their complaints about a relatively limited page block (two articles?) might result in a topic ban or community ban. Not a smart move to take it this far. Liz Read! Talk! 05:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support ONLY AP2 TBAN, oppose indefinite ban, I think that a lot of this editor's contributions are really good. He just needs to refrain from bludgeoning discussions where he is too passionate. At this point, we should try a limited TBAN. Kate Riley2019 (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Haleth and Jiren related[edit]

Hey I know i have been here before. This might not even be the right place for it. If so I apologize. I diagree with an admin @Joe Roe:. It seems that he stripped an autopatrol right after an editor @Haleth: editor (who i just got to know here on Wiki recently) recommended me to use autopatrol. I was mostly like “ok whatever” if it’s important like he claims i will do it. So i did. I was rejected. Ok that didn’t bother me as much. But then I figured out why and that he stripped away Haleth's autopatrol away too. That seems a bit overexcessive. Especially since he based on it another editor (an reviewer who commonly redirects back work after just reviewing them when he claims it doesn't pass GNG). Again i dont harbor hard feelings on Onel5969, sometimes we do have conflict and maybe I shoud’t have autopatrol rights because of him. But that does seem to show favoritism on Joe Ro's part to strip a right on one editor and not give one based on conflict that i had on the other. I would think it’s assuming bad faith myself. But the bigger issue is that he then obviosuly stalked Haleth's work soon after and then changed Jiren to Jiren the Grey because he seems to think a "cartoon character" is not as notable as a real life location (which happens to be a stub). I always assumed you need consensus to do page move presumtions like that. Again I am not an admin but I kind of contesting what he is doing on that. Jhenderson 777 19:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Joe has been notified now, though Haleth and Onel have not (though I'm not sure if Onel needs to be notified, I don't see any diffs so I can't make heads or tails of who is actually involved in this). Primefac (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry that is harder since I am using a mobile device. I was also going to notify the editors but I am slow on that too edit. Will Joe's edit history do? I will link that if you want?Jhenderson 777 20:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I will notify Haleth (who seems inactive at the moment) and also link the two issues that i have next too. Also I thank you for the notifications. Have you tried phone texting on Wikipedia? I don’t recommend it over just using a computer lol. Jhenderson 777 20:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Ok here is where Haleth said to notify something I knew little about except for the fact that I never had the privilege of getting it automatically. Here is the reason why I was rejected and Haleth's rights were revoked. Here is where he is notified that the editor's rights are revoked. Here is where he moved Jiren to Jiren the Grey. (Note Since I did a lot of out of wiki stuff after I linked this, I will show the rest later to avoid edit conflict.) Jhenderson 777 21:13, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Here is where he reverted the move log of the city apparently thinking it is the primary topic and accusing Haleth of systematic bias and hijacking. Hereis where said he was glad he did it and called the character a "cartoon character" like I mentioned. That's it. That’s all I was talking about. No hard feeling if what did wasn’t wrong. Though I disagree with the name title and WP:AGF was not used IMO. Jhenderson 777 21:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Wow, this really is something. If Joe Roe has indeed stalked my user contributions and read my talk page thoroughly, which Jhenderson777 has suggested, he would be aware that another editor has also recommended that I sought autopatrol rights, though I did not see him furthering his act of retaliation by also revoking that user's right on this basis. For the Jiren issue, WP:Before showed that the Ethiopian city of Jiren no longer exists, and whatever sources I could find on the topic are passing mentions on books through a quick search. If it was a very important capital city, I'd expect to see more writing on the matter by historians and anthropologists. Given that the article appears to be a perma-stub for well over a decade and only supported by a single source, I would not be surprised if the article is scrutinized or even sent to AfD if encountered by other editors who draw a harder line on notability or even verifiability. Again, BRD. If he disagrees, he could simply revert me and then start a move discussion on the topic, and if he believes that I have made a genuine mistake then he could always reprimand me for it and I am more then happy to concede and apologize.
Could someone advise what is the avenue for me to appeal for restoration of autopatrolled rights, and make a complaint to against Joe Roe in his capacity as an administrator as well, since he has shown the same systemic bias he has accused me of with the name-calling and removing my autopatrolled rights without giving me an opportunity to explain myself? I should note that my decision to pursue autopatrol rights in the first place have nothing to do with evading scrutiny by NPP users like Onel5969, and I am not gaming the system as accused by Joe Roe. Haleth (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse; when I saw Special:Diff/989487297 and Special:Diff/989718312, I already expected to see the latest entry in Haleth's user group log. I'll invite Wugapodes (granting administrator) and Onel5969 to the discussion to see what they think about the removal. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
    Could you clarify what is it that you are endorsing? I am not sure exactly what you are trying to say.Haleth (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
    I think 'endorse' is "I endorse the removal". --Izno (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
    Sorry for the ambiguity. Yes, I endorse the removal. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
    Are you, or any other administrator or editor able to clarify then, whether this page is the appropriate avenue for me to appeal the removal and part of due process? Haleth (talk) 01:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
    Haleth, generally, per WP:ADMINABUSE, If a user believes an administrator has acted improperly, they should express their concerns directly to the administrator responsible and try to come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner. That said, WP:AN is generally the right place to discuss administrative action, and now that a discussion exists, the choice of the venue (and the chance of having a low-publicity discussion) is gone. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
    These comments do indicate that Haleth at least missed the point of autopatrolled. It's not to avoid or get around NPP, it's a sign that the user is trusted enough to skip NPP. --Izno (talk) 23:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Besides Wugapodes, At least one NPP editor and one administrator have endorsed my ability [[15]] to create quality articles which have been previously redirected due to notability concerns. I have also indicated [[16]] that I don't mind NPP editors reviewing my work. I also feel that Jhenderson777 has demonstrated that he too is also trusted enough to skip NPP as he has been an active editor here on wikipedia for several years, which is why I suggested that he do so. I only nudged him further since he has given an indication that he might put it off and forget about it, and it is certainly not part of some conspiracy or pact against Onel or the NPP group as alleged by Joe Roe. But maybe my opinion has little weight since I am not an admin or NPP patroller. It is not to game the system as Joe Roe has accused me of doing, and I feel that they have demonstrated in their series of actions that they does not believe in good faith in spite of being an admin on this site. I requested autopatrolled rights to alleviate the backlog for NPP users, as I sometimes see pages I created or undid a redirect for being reviewed months after they have been created. Haleth (talk) 23:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment as granting admin. I don't usually work at PERM, and at the time was helping clear a long-standing backlog. I welcome the revert and review. I think Joe is within his right to refuse Jhenderson and revoke Haleth. The autopatrol policy says admins can refuse at their discretion if they think it would be beneficial for the editor's creations to go through NPP, and if the goal is to avoid scrutiny, well, that's a reason to think the added scrutiny of NPP would be beneficial. As for revoking, there doesn't seem to be any guidance on that so I think disagreeing with the grant in the first place is as good a reason to revoke as any. To describe my thinking at the time of the grant, Haleth's request was rather different from Jhenderson's and on the surface looked fine--exemplary even. I saw that they'd created 40ish articles with over 20 being C-class or better, and nothing stood out to me after spot checking one or two of them. Haleth had been sporadically active, but over a long period so I presumed they knew the core policies (and they said as much). I can't remember if I saw the conversation with ZXCVBNM on Haleth's talk page, but if I had I didn't think too much of it at the time. On the whole Haleth seemed like a fine editor who met the qualifications, so I granted the usergroup. If actions since then cast doubt on their ability to use the right well, or if the original grant was in error, then I should be reverted. Wug·a·po·des 23:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I am still quite confused. As said before I was invited like he was once. Is there something wrong with that? What was the admin thinking? Was he thinking we were going to use it irresponsibility. I promise I wouldn’t have and I am sure Haleth wouldn’t either. I myself did it out of request naturally Also I don’t see his Jiren edit as constructive at all. Though it’s not a topic I am involved in myself so I discussed it instead. Jhenderson 777 23:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I did not "invite" you such since I am neither a NPP editor or admin. I suggested that you do so, since I assumed from recent events that you do not have autopatrol rights even though you appear to have been editing on wikipedia for many years and I have reason to believe that your work is trusted enough to skip the NPP queue. I believe that your right to have autopatrol rights should be assessed based on the quality of your work, but I suppose I can understand why our conversation may be misinterpreted as "gaming" the system. So, I believe the real issue for other administrators to examine, is whether they think Jhenderson777 has a poor grasp of wikipedia policies and thus should continue to be subject to scrutiny by NPP editors? Haleth (talk) 23:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes that's what I meant. You recommended it to me like another editor did to you. I fail to see the problem of why you would get autopatrol rights gone. I myself wasn’t sure I wanted it. But it still was like a slap to the face to be rejected because of the accusations he made on us. Jhenderson 777 23:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I think you should only apply for autopatrol rights, or request for anything for that matter, if you are absolutely sure you wanted it. It was never my intention to influence you in an undue manner or to thwart NPP efforts. Nothing is stopping any editor, even IP users, from proposing anything we have done substantial work on to AfD if they are found to be questionably notable, whether we have autopatrol rights or otherwise. Haleth (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I wanted it. I also thank you for directing and showing me where to go to get it. I was just multi-tasking at that time that I made my request too brief. Didn’t expect the outcome to be so negative (especially in your side). Jhenderson 777 01:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Additinal Comment:I think I know what happened. I mentioned that somebody recommended me it and that opened a can of worms. I was quite busy that day with Wiki contributions and (being ADHD and all) I shouldn’t worded it the way I did. For that I apologize. I also didn’t put much effort on my reasoning anyway. Still feel what the admin done on Haleth was wrong though. Hence this conversation. Jhenderson 777 00:10 28 November 2020 (UTC)

  • For those unfamiliar with the autopatrolled right (autoreviewer), it exists to lessen the impact that high-volume article creators have on the new page patrol backlog, by automatically marking their creations as reviewed. Sometimes people come to PERM with the idea that it's a sort of reward for being a regular editor, but we try to combat that by making it clear (e.g. in the box at the top of WP:PERM/A) that it has no impact on editing and is only a clerical tool for NPP. The guidelines for granting it are brief, which leaves a lot of room for admin discretion in determining whether the editor requesting it regularly create articles that we can be relatively certain would not benefit from going through the new page patrol process.
Haleth was granted autopatrolled early this month, at his request. I revoked it because I saw this conversation on Jhenderson777's talk page, after he alluded to it in his PERM request. There, he said plainly that he requested autopatrolled because he had ran afoul of a particular NPP user and recommended Jhenderson777 do the same if you don't want any newly recreated or un-redirected articles to be flagged by the NPP team. I didn't see it at the time, but there is also this conversation on Haleth's talk page which makes it clear that Haleth's PERM request was a direct response to a similar suggestion by another editor, so his insistence here that he asked for it it because he suddenly became concerned with the NPP backlog does not ring true. Asking for any user right to avoid scrutiny by others is a giant red flag. I am not sure if I'd have granted his original request—certainly I can see why Wugapodes did—but with this new information and the fact that the request came shortly after Haleth had an article PRODded by Piotrus, it's obvious to me that his creations would continue to benefit from going through the new page patrol process.
Naturally, after I pulled the right, I reviewed the articles Haleth had created in the time he had autopatrolled. There were only two. Thrall (Warcraft) looked fine. Jiren the Grey was also fine in content, but I saw that to create it Haleth had usurped the title of an article about the capital city of the Kingdom of Jimma. This seemed to me to be a blatant failure to consider long-term significance in determining the primary topic, so I reverted the bold move. I can appreciate how editors working in a niche subject area can get a bit of tunnel-vision with regard to the significance of topics (in this case Dragon Ball Z characters vs. historical cities in Africa), which is exactly why it's good we have a new page patrol process where an editor with a broader view can review it. In any case, what happens to the article now is a content decision: if Haleth disagrees with me, he's free to use RM to get a consensus for his move.
I'm confident that pulling the right was the correct thing to do, and that Haleth's creations should continue to be reviewed by other editors. – Joe (talk) 09:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I am not sure if you have perused the admittedly-lengthy argument I have posted. If not, please do because I believe you have either overlooked or ignored other comments on my talk page while only focusing on the ones that support your biased rationale. I'll respond to your points right away.
  • I have in fact considered the long term significance of the topic. Again, please read argument. It gets no original coverage in the Amharic version and is essentially a translation for the English one which is very sparse in content. I would not be surprised if another editor who has stricter standards of notability then me flag it for AfD or propose a merge to the modern city it is actually part of. In any event, I have already proposed a request to move to since you dispute that it is the primary topic.
  • Yes the editor suggested it, and I agreed with his assessment that it helps ease the NPP backlog as well, especially with an editor like me who has been generating a lot of article content which other editors including NPP editors have found satisfactory thus far. Like Jhenderson777, I was not aware that I am eligible to seek autopatrol rights or that it exists at all.
  • As for the article PROD by Piotrus, that article was created five years ago, well before I started taking an interest in improving my content contribution and learning more about notability guidelines on Wikipedia. I agree that it does not match notability standards in its current state, and certainly hardly any editors have contributed to it since, so I boldly redirected it myself. I don't think it's fair that you are using this as an example to justify your view of my conduct when there are many other examples.
  • No, I don't think your decision to pull my autopatrol right is correct and that it is in fact a punitive decision which you are attempting to promote as encouraging a broader view. I am disappointed by your response as I don't believe that I have done anything wrong or disruptive besides your contention of my bold edit on Jiren, and that you are judging my conduct as an editor by a few off-the-cuff comments. I can continue to edit with or without being autopatrolled, but my position is that your decisions are ill-advised, should not be endorsed and sets a bad precedent considering your position of influence. Haleth (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I note that the other directly involved parties who have been pinged have not responded on this page, so I'll try to summarize what I want to say now. To save everyone time and as per confirmation from ToBeFree that the situation which applies here is WP:ADMINABUSE, the only appropriate recourse for my grievance on this page is to continue the discussion started by Jhenderson777, instead of a two way conversation between me and Joe. I will provide disclosure in detail as to why I sought autopatrol rights in the first place. As noted, this dispute is in relation to fictional topics, but I also edit in other topic areas from time to time, like food and cuisine topics, and general Wikipedia:WikiGnome activity in a variety of topics which I myself don't keep track of, so bear with me.

On 3 November 2020, a NPP editor posted on the Video Games project talk page about reviewing articles for three subject topics which were previously redirected more then a decade ago, but which I undid and rewrote the contents along with introducing multiple sources to demonstrate their notability. The editor excused themselves shortly afterwards and said that there were no apparent issues with the articles. Around the same time another editor (should I ping the editor?) messaged me and suggested that I apply for autopatrol rights; this editor appears to have good standing with the community who has created numerous articles on niche but notable topics, takes a more hardline view on notability then me in their own words, and is also known for starting some AfD discussions where we have on numerous occasions agreed or disagreed during consensus, so he was clearly not teaching me to game the system, and I presumed that he pointed me in that direction because he has a level of trust in my ability to create worthwhile articles on Wikipedia and the NPP is known for struggling through a backlog. I have noticed previously that some of the articles I have created or redirected were only marked as "reviewed" months after my last edit. Both the aforementioned editor and an administrator who is one of the most active NPP participants have also given me a vote of confidence for my contributions. In fact, I have previously considered about applying to help out NPP or AfC in the future.

A few other editors have noted that my comments on Jhenderson777 talk page to be problematic. I suppose it could be construed as "gaming the system" without context. I would like to provide reassurances that it was said purely in jest, and it should not be literally taken as me instructing Jhenderson777 to "game" the system. It does not change the fact that Onel5969 was well within their right as NPP editor, or any editor, to PROD or send all three articles recreated by Jhenderson777 to AfD, even in cases where consensus is ultimately against deletion or if they have been found to have erred in judgement. I have no vested interest in the articles surviving AfD and did not voted in the deletion discussions, though I did provide a comment. Jhenderson777 does not remember our previous interactions, but we did in fact have years ago and I recalled that he was already much more experienced then me as an editor and seemed to have a solid grasp of policies and guidelines. I am surprised that he does not have autopatrol rights even after editing on Wikipedia for more then a decade, because his edits were undone by a NPP editor shortly after he recreated said articles, and he appears to have a good standing with the community as well who has created or undid the redirections of a large volume of articles over the years.

I agree with Izno's comments that being autopatrolled is a sign that the user is trusted enough to skip NPP and telling Jhenderson777 to apply is my way of vouching my trust in the editor's ability to contribute meaningful to the project, and any administrator can scrutinize his eligibility anyway. Another editor have recently sought my contribution on my talk page to a BLP article, albeit also for the video game project, so I presume that's another vouch for trust even though I don't do a lot of BLP work. So Joe's accusation of my true motives to seek autopatrol rights is incorrect and quite frankly, false as it had nothing to do with to do with thwarting Onel5969 or another NPP editor. If my comments about "maybe one person" is further nitpicked as proof of insinuation about Onel5969, I can assure you that those are just my personal thoughts about yet another NPP editor uninvolved or unmentioned in this discussion and I will not go there, and again is not why I sought autopatrol rights in the first place.

As for Joe's accusations that I practiced systemic bias by "hijacking" an article about a real world city (which no longer exists) to prioritize a "cartoon character", which he uses to justify his admin actions to remove my autopatrol rights and revert/move/cleanup deletion the said articles, here's the article in English and in Amharic: [Wikipedia]. A quick Google translate revealed that save for two additional photos which are absent in the English version, the contents of both articles are essentially identical with the exact same source; therefore, I assumed in good faith that the term is hardly the WP:Primarytopic for English language wikipedia, as I would think that if the city is as culturally relevant as Joe Roe has suggested or assumed would have received significant coverage in the Amharic edition of Wikipedia. In anticipation of an argument that the discrepancy may be due to a low number of internet users from Ethiopia, this list shows that Ethopia ranks #37 globally in terms of number of users, assuming the information is cited from a reliable source. The article seems to be a WP:Permastub and efforts with WP:Before reveal some books on google search which contain passing mentions of the city. I am not here to dispute the notability of the city as a subject topic, but my decision to boldly move the article was not contingent on my account having autopatrol rights in order to "game" the system as Joe had suggested, and I did some due diligence in good faith before moving the article as it was clear to me that it is not currently the primary topic of the name in English language media.

I don't have a problem with considering the possibility that my edits to the Jiren articles were in error and would have been happy to oblige if Joe Roe wanted to engage me in a BRD cycle. However, I personally find his actions to be troubling as he appears to be an experienced administrator and an Arbcom member, and though he presents himself as an advocate against systemic bias, which I admittedly have a vested interest in promoting since I do not fit within several characteristics of "an average English Wikipedian", his actions and comments comes across to me as a demonstration of his own biases and a lack of good faith. I honestly wonder whether this is an instance of WP:TOOLMISUSE or WP:INVOLVED since he exercised his administrative powers as a party to a content dispute with his expressed opinions.

This is my attempt to resolve my grievance with Joe's actions in a civil and orderly manner. Do kindly advise if I am supposed to ping any of the uninvolved editors in this dispute which I have mentioned as support for my argument as I don't want my actions to be interpreted as WP:Canvassing. Haleth (talk) 09:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I honestly wonder whether this is an instance of WP:TOOLMISUSE or WP:INVOLVED – this is a ridiculous allegation. I wasn't involved in a content dispute with you when I revoked autopatrolled. I don't think we've ever interacted before. Naturally, after I determined that your articles should not be automatically reviewed I reviewed the articles you created whilst they were. It would have been irresponsible not to. The only advanced right I used to revert your bold move of Jiren was move-over-redirect, which is routinely done for any user on request. This is the BRD cycle that you have repeatedly complained above that you want me to follow. Also, my name is not John. – Joe (talk) 10:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse Joe's actions. Sorry I haven't responded sooner, but I have been rather ill, and have limited my time sitting up at the computer, so this is the first time I've seen this thread. I think both Haleth and Jhenderson777 are both very passionate about the niche topics they cover, but sometimes that passion leads to overzealousness. I think based on the conversations already linked to on Haleth's talk page from another editor, and Haleth's suggestion on Jhenderson777's talk page are a clear indication of an attempt to avoid their "articles from being flagged". I don't think any other rationale is really necessary. Onel5969 TT me 12:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
    • I can’t speak for Haleth. But I know that my intentions were not to get the articles to get flagged. Especially since i didn’t know that is what that did. Also I assume good faith on Haleth an and the other editor too. I do admit I get passionate with projects. If that is a problem...then I guess I don’t need silly autopatrol. Jhenderson 777 12:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
    • If it's okay for you to label our editing patterns to be overzealous, then is it ok for me to describe some of your actions as NPP editor to be characteristic of overzealous deletion? A cursory look at your talk pages seems to indicate that a lot of editors feel that way, regardless of whether their concerns are justified or not. Haleth (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Haleth, this now looks like a pretty strong case of "There is nothing wrong with my editing", and a good time to drop the stick. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Now you are just being ugly to someone who admitted he had to take a WikiBreak from all this mess. What disruption did he do to make such claim of that link you posted? What ever happened to WP:AGF? He just did the same thing @Zxcvbnm: (who despite some differences regarding deletion/inclusion did nothing wrong in my opinion either) did to him and still has his rights. He passed on his knowledge is all he did. I still think this shouldn’t never have happened! It was a failure of assumptions along with being an advantage of power. Also it would be kind of unfair to count One15969's vote because he and Haleth had differences in opinion on this exact page. (Just read my other post) Jhenderson 777 18:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not familiar with basically anything that happened here but I just want to say that I haven't seen an article that Haleth created that is non-notable and would therefore be grounds for revoking Autopatrol. I suggested it because they seemed like they were familiar with GNG and it still seems that way. I have absolutely no doubt that Haleth was not trying to "evade" autopatrol, that seems a total misinterpretation.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
    • I should add that Haleth was awarded a barnstar from WP:VG and I was about to award them one if they hadn't before. It seemed like a pretty open and shut case for being able to create one's own articles without interference.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
      • My sentiments exactly! I will note that I had my fair share of barnstars, dyks, ga articles too. I just don’t show them off anymore like I used to. Haleth is a bit newer on the field than I am. Though he is already a better copy editor than I am I feel. Jhenderson 777 19:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Commment. A PROD of mine is mentioned here, but can anyone link it? What happened? I can provide a commentary but I can't locate the relevant diff. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
    • W@Piotrus:Wrong section...I believe. The other one should be above. Jhenderson 777 12:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I guess my question is what is the end goal here? To get autopatrolled status returned? Because I don't see any movement to sanction Joe Roe for his actions, from admins, I see support. Before this complaint gets any longer, you might consider what exactly it is that you want to achieve in it and focus on that. Liz Read! Talk! 04:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
I was never sure what needs to be done with Joe. Hence why I brought it here. Was it wrong? Was it right? It didn’t seem to be. So that’s why I brought it up. But it’s obvious that Haleth wanted the autopatrol right back. He is so upset that is inactively cooling off. Jhenderson 777 12:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
🙂 With all respect for the unwelcoming, unthankful situation they're in, I'm afraid this public escalation on their behalf didn't really benefit anyone. Haleth saw a need to defend themselves and all they got was more administrative support for the hurtful measure. I think the earlier this thread is closed and archived, the better. Not because Joe had to fear scrutiny, but because everything relevant has been said by both sides of the conflict, and all that's left to be gained is repetition and more frustration. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Liz: Would I like autopatrol status restored? That would be nice, if it happens. But if no other administrator besides ToBeFree takes a position and agree/disagree with my opinion as well as that of two other editors that I may have been treated unfairly by Joe, then so be it. Joe is adamant that his decision was completely justified, so I have to agree to disagree. In fact, I look forward to feedback from what other admins or editors have to say in scrutinizing my actions or Joe's since this has been publicly escalated before I could deal with him on his talk page, and I want to believe that everyone is still interested in assuming good faith. I have made full disclosure on what motivated me to seek autopatrol rights since my trustworthiness have been called into question, so others can judge for themselves and perhaps give me the benefit of the doubt.
With regards to ToBeFree's assertion that my behaviour falls under WP:IDHT, I'd like to point out that two other editors have spoken up in this thread on my behalf on their own accord; one of whom also commented that other editors have previously vouched for my contributions by awarding me with barnstars, which stands in contrast to Joe's accusations (from his rather harsh comments outside of this thread) of my incompetency or implied lack of trustworthiness. With regards to administrative support, Onel5969 is not an admin, User:ToBeFree is the only other admin who specifically endorsed Joe's decision and seems keen on ending this discussion as soon as possible, three other admins including the granting admin Wugapodes have commented on the situation without taking a clear position either way. But ToBeFree is also correct, in that I have nothing further to add. So no harm letting this discussion stay open, as it will stall anyway if no other editor or administrator takes a position on whether the revocation of my autopatrol status due to a misinterpretation of my extemporaneous comments as opposed to a demonstrated lack of competence as suggested by User:Zxcvbnm was the right call. Haleth (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

block(s) review[edit]

Per this question, I'd like to ask for feedback on the blocks I issued at Talk:Syrian Kurdistan, three of final four sections. —valereee (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Here's what I was about to post on my talk page in response to a question: Except in the most egregious cases, we do not block editors for single lapses of behavior; we warn them, we point out our policies, we have a conversation with them. For example, I have one block on my record, for saying something really really nasty to another editor who was being (and continued to be for quite a while after that) a total asshole of the worst sort, the polite racist. I was already an admin at the time, so the standards for me were higher. My nastiness rose to the level of deserving some sort of rebuke, and the block was appropriate. This particular case doesn't go anywhere near that level. The proper response would have been to comment "You're not assuming good faith here", not wielding the admin hammer. If there was an ongoing pattern of bad behavior, then blocking for that pattern of behavior would have been appropriate. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 19:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Valereee, thanks for opening this. If I've understood correctly, you blocked GPinkerton for 24 hours for posting "the ongoing behavioural issue is tendentious use and abuse of sources and a WP:AGENDA with a blithely carefree approach to uncritically repeating 20th-century propaganda claims as though appropriate for deciding content." That seems harsh. Can you explain the reasoning and what the other blocks were for? SarahSV (talk) 19:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Sarah, JPG, the issue was the ongoing incivility/ABF at that article talk, to the point that it was creating fairly major disruption and creating a pretty hostile editing environment for anyone who thought about trying to help there with content issues. We had multiple ANI reports, each also with incivility from various 'sides'. Girth Summit and I went to the article talk and said we weren't going to try to retroactively correct the incivility but that it had to stop. The next three instances of incivil ABF, I blocked for, trying to balance each editor's block history with the length of the blocks. One had no blocks for years, another none, so I blocked for an hour. The other had multiple recent blocks, the most recent of which was 24 hrs, so I did 24. I'm totally open to opinions that my actions were too harsh, and if that's the consensus, I'll certainly apoWhat I'm trying to accomplish is to get the editors there to stop assuming bad faith, and we're having a hard time even getting them to understand what that means. —valereee (talk) 19:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. One editor was blocked for opposing an edit with the words "cherry picked sources that further pushes the debunked 'Syrian kurdistan' fraud." The danger is that just about anyone could be blocked in that scenario. SarahSV (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
My 2c is I'd use the word "benefit", not "danger" :-) In the context of the three ANI threads currently open, the various interventions by more than a half dozen administrators giving warnings for weeks now, all because of the toxic environment arising from that talk page, I endorse these ABF blocks, because everyone on that talk page was on notice to stop accusing everyone else of pushing fraud and so forth. Warnings did not work; short blocks was the right way to go. And FWIW, IMO, the month-long full protection on the page should be lowered, and if there are editors who edit war, they should be blocked, too. Longer-term partial-blocks should be considered for future violations. We're way past discussion and warnings when it comes to Syrian Kurdistan. The behavior of a few has resulting in no one being able to edit the article or have productive discussion on the talk page. Levivich harass/hound 20:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, well, FWIW, IMO if editors are assuming good faith what they'd say instead is something like "these sources don't adequately represent the various RS characterizations of this issue." Again, YMMV, but in this article talk, what we're seeing is a lot of ABF from a lot of editors. —valereee (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I was blocked by Valereee for saying at the talkpage that another editors suggested edit was "cherry picked sources" and told by Valereee to "Talk about the edits, not the editor." when I pointed out that I was talking about the suggested edit he stopped replying. I want an apology from valereee for the baseless block. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

SD, the issue is that "cherry-picked" implies it was done deliberately, whereas "these sources don't adequately represent the various RS characterizations" doesn't. SarahSV (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
"these sources don't adequately represent the various RS characterizations"... who talks like this? Are we lawyers in a courtroom?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Supreme Deliciousness, of course no one talks like that. We write like that, because it's more respectful than accusing people of cherrypicking and pushing debunked fraud. We assume good faith. But feel free to put it into your own respectful phrasing. —valereee (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • It seems these blocks have expired, so while a lot of this may be moot it's worth thinking ahead to how we can better manage decorum at Syrian Kurdistan. One thing that stuck out to me was the hour-long block as it seems like a weird amount of time. Cool-down blocks are an c2:AntiPattern because they tend to have the opposite effect on people, making them more upset, and I struggle to think how a one-hour block would be useful for anything other than a cooling off period. Given Levivich's comment though, I think a stern talking to wouldn't be very effective since that's been tried without much success. I think a better course of action would be to use discretionary sanctions. Some pretty standard ones would be page bans, topic bans, interaction bans, etc, and I think handing a couple week-long bans would help improve the environment more than blocks right now. But feel free to get creative with the sanctions--if there are issues with bludgeoning or sources, try limiting the number of responses per thread a person can make or enforce some sort of format for source discussions. I think the intention of bringing decorum to the talk page was correct and commendable, but I think blocks were the wrong tool for the job. Wug·a·po·des 00:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
    Wug, I'm wryly recognizing that idea of we used to call antipatterns 'bad ideas.' My thinking was that the shorter the block, the less harsh it seemed as a response, and was just a desperate attempt to say, "hey, no, seriously, I'm serious here, STOP." But I think you're right, a different approach would be better. Maybe an 'only warning' template? I don't know. This article is just a black hole for time and energy. —valereee (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
    It is that. Blocks are our pointiest sticks, and often draw blood. One of the recipients of your one hour blocks has been editing (sporadically, but so what) since 2006 without any evident issues; the unblock request says "Prefer indef". That's how much of an insult that block is received as, even if your intent was not to drive someone away. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 00:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
    Jpgordon, I saw that, and it's one of the things that made me open this. I don't ever want to drive a well-intentioned editor away, and if I can improve how I deal with issues, I want to. —valereee (talk) 00:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I endorse these blocks; personally I would have blocked everyone for the same amount of time, and it would have been somewhat longer. As Levivich reported above, all of the users who were blocked have been taking warnings from multiple administrators for many days now to discuss the content and to lay off the personal sniping, both on the talk page itself and in the several ANI reports that have spawned from this incident, while other editors involved in the talk page discussions have been begging for admins to do something. If we were not going to move past warnings into actions, we were going to establish a precedent that any aspersion is acceptable, and it is not. Valereee should be commended for trying something to make Wikipedia better. As for lowering the protection level I'm against it: these editors have just continued feuding and nothing has been settled or even really discussed at all in any constructive manner, and I have no confidence whatsoever that if the protection is lowered that the editors involved won't immediately resume their content feud. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
    I'd not have complained about blocking the bunch of them for disruption, tendentious behavior, whatever. My concern was this use of mini-blocks, and their justifications ("blocked for seeming not to assume good faith in this instance".) That's not the right way to use the pointy broom. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 00:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • For the most part I agree with Ivanvector's comments above. However, looking at Talk:Syrian Kurdistan, it is clear that the main problem there is not incivility as such but persistent tendentious editing by several (perhaps most) participants in the disputes there. As I understand it, the page is now covered under the Syrian civil war general sanctions. So any uninvolved admin can start handing out topic bans there, and I really think they should. Nsk92 (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) No objection to the blocks; agree with Levivich that as long as the disputes are localized to one or two pages, longer partial blocks are another reasonable approach here. --JBL (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Nsk92, one of the problems is that until we peel off the ABF/incivility, it's hard for editors to even deal with the tendentious editing. IMO the content disputes can be more clearly seen when there aren't the various ABF to maneuver around. That said, I think the blocks were the wrong thing to do. I apologize, both to Supreme Deliciousness, Fiveby, GPinkerton, and to the community. I should have instead given a partial from that page or a tban. Thank you all for your helpful feedback. —valereee (talk) 10:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • That talk page looks like a mess. Seems kinda strange to criticise admins for not doing enough and simultaneously blame them for doing something. Warnings are empty if only followed up with more warnings. ABF is never a localised attitude anyway. Personally, I learned my lesson questioning valereee's blocks, they seem to work out for the better. I also think 1hr blocks in such situations are better than week long page sanctions or topic bans, both for the blocked editors, but more importantly for the content on the page. Thus, good block. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
"... are better than [...] topic bans." Certainly not. The talk page is simply crying for topic bans to be imposed to several long term tendentious editors. That would stop their disruption for good, and would help with more than just the page in question. Since General Sanctions are available in this case, they should have been used a long time ago. Nsk92 (talk) 11:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, depends on the behaviour, right? By in such situations I was referring to these blocks, not the whole talk page. If it's chronic POV and TE that's something else. I imagine different reasons apply to different editors on that page, and GP's comment below seems worth looking into. I think an issue is also that it'll take a fair amount of admin effort, on someone's part, to look into this, and it probably doesn't feel worth investing that time if the resulting action will just be overturned with an appeal that dodges the point. It also likely doesn't help that, apparently, no parties have immaculate hands. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
This is also the kind of thing I mean; obvious ad hominems to obfuscate the issue. GPinkerton (talk) 11:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
GPinkerton, I'm going to accept responsibility for not making this clear earlier, but your ban is from discussing this article anywhere, as your participation has disrupted AN/I. It's only a few hours. Just go do something else. —valereee (talk) 13:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Is there somewhere else I should seek resolution? This approach doesn't seem to be working. GPinkerton (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit miffed that among some admin there is much concerns for the blocked editors and apparently no concern for other editors. The blocked editors might be upset by being blocked? Good! What about the rest of us getting upset by inaction? Do we matter? Blocks are a pointy weapon? Yes! What we needed was a pointy weapon! Blocks draw blood? Good! Maybe that'll encourage those editors to change! It bothers me that we prefer a situation where a page is full protected instead of a situation where three editors are blocked, because we're worried about those three editors' feelings. There are thousands of editors to consider! It bothers me that this has resulted with the enforcing admin apologizing to the editors, when it's those editors, not the admin, who did something wrong. And it bothers me when admin who did not spend a single minute of their time trying to help this situation would spend time criticizing those admins who did spend time trying to help this situation. In my view this block review moves us backwards. I respect val's conclusion here but I still think they were good blocks, and better than TBANs, and better than long term partial blocks. If someone had issued such blocks two weeks ago it would have saved probably over a hundred hours of editor time from a dozen editors. Don't be so afraid to use the admin tools, don't be so hesitant to pick out bad apples, please. For the rest of us. Remember the rest of us, it's not just about the squeaky wheel. And for gosh sakes, prefer blocks to full protection. Stop punishing the many for the acts of a few. Sorry to rant but it drives me nuts to see someone with good instincts get turned around by others with less good instincts. Levivich harass/hound 14:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
    +1 ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
    Lol, sorry, Levivich. :) I do think a partial would have been a better choice, at least for SD and Fiveby, and even for GP a partial + tban for that article. I don't really feel like anyone criticizing my actions has done anything wrong or been too harsh, I came here voluntarily, asking for feedback, and after giving it some thought, I could definitely see the point. I apologized not because I thought I should have done nothing but because I could have made a better choice of what to do, and if I'd made that better choice, it would have been more productive, especially long-term. —valereee (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
    "Less good instincts"? Up yours. I saw a highly unusual use of the blocking tool, that was not (to me) evidently within policy, and I questioned it, and clearly my questioning it was correct. If that drives you to a rant, if that drives you nuts, you need to find a new hobby. This was a minor disagreement (if that) between two admins with over 100,000 edits and 30 years combined Wikipedia experience. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 15:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
    WP:CIVIL applies here just like everywhere else. Bear that in mind - The Bushranger One ping only 17:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
    "Up yours" is fair but it's not a minor disagreement between two admins. First, I agree with you it's not a disagreement really at all. But second, it's bigger than two admins.
    I wrote this joke last year:
    A Wikipedian and a vandal are stranded on a desert island. On the first day, the Wikipedian builds a raft. That night the vandal destroys it. On the second day, the Wikipedian tells the vandal that one or more of his contributions to the raft did not appear constructive, and rebuilds the raft. The vandal destroys it. On the third day, the Wikipedian asks the vandal to please refrain from making unconstructive changes to the raft, and rebuilds it again. The vandal destroys it. On the fourth day, the Wikipedian tells the vandal that if he destroys the raft again, he may not be allowed to participate in the building of the raft, and rebuilds it once more. The vandal destroys it. On the fifth day, an admin arrives with the navy, declares that nobody can build a raft until everyone on the island agrees on whether or not a raft should be built, and sails off.
    The joke is an allegory about (among other things) admins protecting pages in the wrong version and requiring non-disruptive editors to work with disruptive editors in order to get the protection lifted, when what they should do instead is simply remove the disruptive editors. Syrian Kurdistan is that island right now. 50,000+ editors and not one can edit Syrian Kurdistan for a month because we're worried about upsetting disruptive editors. This isn't just about two admins disagreeing; this obstructs the progress of the project in a very real and harmful way. Levivich harass/hound 16:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
    The allegory is invalid. If these editors are not editing in good faith -- if they've proven that our assumption of good faith is unwarranted -- then the editors should be removed. Content disputes are not WP:VANDALISM. NPOV violations are not in themselves WP:VANDALISM. Tendentious editing is not in itself WP:VANDALISM. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 17:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
    You unblocked accepted an unblock request of an expired block with an |accept= reason questioning the validity of the block without talking to the blocking admin first and finding out the reason for the block. You assumed you knew better and took action, even, apparently, without being aware of the background, including four (now) open ANI threads. You also assumed incorrectly in this thread that it was a "single lapse" (it wasn't). You think the question is whether these editors are "editing in good faith" (it's not; the question is whether they are editing disruptively; the only people who are questioning good faith are the editors who were blocked for ABF), and your take-away from my last post is that I think the problem is vandalism, content disputes, NPOV, or tendentious editing (it's none of those things; it's incivility, bludgeoning, and ABF; note I used the word "disruptive" multiple times in my last post). So I stand by "less good instincts." I imagine you stand by "up yours". I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. :-) Levivich harass/hound 17:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
    Admins aren't police officers and a block isn't the same as jail, but to use that familiar analogy: if a police officer can't see a good reason why a prisoner is in jail, should he (A) ask the arresting officer, or (B) unlock the jail cell and then ask the arresting officer? Levivich harass/hound 17:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
    Bullshit. I didn't unblock anyone; the block was already expired. I didn't assume, I asked a question based upon the only information provided by the blocking admin. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 18:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
    Sorry, my mistake: you didn't unblock, you accepted an unblock request of an expired block. I've fixed it above. Levivich harass/hound 18:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
    Jpgordon, I have to agree with Levivich that this is an issue bigger than a disagreement between two admins. I respect your opinion, and I trust your judgement, but if I'd given a vaguer reason -- disruptive editing, maybe -- would you even have thought to object? Because what's going on at that article is incredibly disruptive, to the point it's daunting to anyone who might try to come in and help with the content disputes. Whole long paragraphs of ABF, resulting in walls of text. I believe apologizing and deciding to use another solution in a similar situation in future was a good idea, but the original blocks weren't IMO a wrong choice. They just weren't the best choice. —valereee (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
    You are correct. We have the large problem of what to do on that terrible talk page and similar situations. My only issue in this instance was the use of the micro-blocks, and that appears resolved (they are not the best tool to use in that situation), so I'm outta this one. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 18:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I repeat: If the admins participating in this thread really feel like doing something useful, they should stop arguing about microblocks and instead hand out a few topic bans for tendentious editing to some of the more vexatious participants at Talk:Syrian Kurdistan. That entire talk page is a cry for help. Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant are availble. Nsk92 (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
    Nsk92, Vexatious: [17] (See source and next comment; clear misrepresentation of sources.) GPinkerton (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
    Now I have been blocked (for stating the facts in this edit) but persistent, blatant, tendentious, and nationalistic editing continues unabated and unadmonished, with the crudest of barrel-scraping ideological distortion. The procedures are malfunctioning badly. How much of the encyclopaedia is interlarded with such nonsense because of inadequate administrator oversight? This should worry everyone, a lot! GPinkerton (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
    I don't have the time or frankly interest to wade into that pit of vipers, but I will say this: GPinkerton, the fact you keep getting pulled into discussions on AN and ANI on this topic repeatedly (a) might reflect on your editing, not theirs; and (b) even if it doesn't, even if you're genuinely working from the standpoint of verifiability, not truth, it might not hurt to step away from the topic area for awhile and both calm down and let others calm down regarding you. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
    The Bushranger, a cursory look at the page history and talkpage will show that option (a.) is insupportable. I don't have the time or frankly interest to wade into that pit of vipers is becoming part of the problem, yet the issue is complex one which is cut-and-dried nationalistic POV-pushing when actually examined even briefly. The opportunity to crush the vipers is available, but unused. GPinkerton (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Unblock request for Truth gatekeeper[edit]

Truth gatekeeper was originally blocked on March 20, 2019 by @Bishonen: for "persistent tendentious editing, misuse of sources, and BLP violations". The next day, @Doug Weller: check user blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Truth gatekeeper. They lost TPA and have requested unblocking via UTRS appeal #37213. Check user by @Ponyo: showed no recent socking/blockevasion. The unblock request is fairly detailed and hopefully addresses each of the reasons for their block. It is carried over below. I have restored TPA so they may respond to concerns there.

Dear Sir/Madam, I made an appeal with the key:- (Redacted) However, the appeal was DECLINED. I'm appealing again after improvements based on the last feedback I got. Here are some of my own mistakes and how I will address them, in eight sections (I - VIII):

I). Edit-war and tedious edits:- I will not break the three-revert rule which was one of the things that got me blocked. If by some chance I get a comment to fix something, I will carefully do so, instead of getting into an edit-war and reverting. I will also avoid any tedious edits from now on. Surely I will avoid edit-war from now on, after being blocked for almost two years.

II). My wrong assumption about block:- Two years ago, I thought a block was not serious and that I could always create a new account and bi-pass it, so I was careless in my edits. Now I have seen that the Wikipedia block evasion detection system is quite robust, so I will be extremely careful not to break any of the Wikipedia policies so as not to get blocked again. I have not blocked evaded for over a year and a half now and I will never do so. I have also matured, and I will be careful not to break any of Wikipedia policies.

III). Sources/reference:- I have learned that I must only use very reliable sources. Even on my WP:EVADE a year and a half ago, I have started only using reliable sources. I will even be more careful from now on, and use sources that are very reliable and easily verifiable. I have also for example learned to include the exact quote from the source/reference, I'm using the quote attribute of the "ref" tag ( that is, <ref |quote= EXACT TEXT... ). I started using this in my WP:EVADE a year and a half ago, to make the reference verification easy for the overseeing Admin and for the readers.

IV). Violations of WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE :- I have not done WP:EVADE for over a year and a half now. If I get unblocked now I will of course not do WP:EVADE. As for the WP:SOCK, I only engaged in WP:SOCK after I got blocked, mainly as a block evasion. However, I never engaged in WP:SOCK before I was blocked, so I will of course not engage in WP:SOCK if my block is lifted. I never at a time had more than one account and WP:SOCKed, before I was first blocked. I started to WP:SOCK so hide my WP:EVADE. I have understood that I have SOCKed while trying to EVADE, and that it was extremely wrong of me. But I never SOCKed before I was blocked, and I will not do so if I get unblocked. I will neither EVADE nor SOCK anymore, and I have not done so for the last year and a half.

V). POV issues:- I will be very careful not to do any POV anymore. And I will only use very reliable sources that don't have POV issues like Reuters and British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), and state things as exactly they are.

VI). Wikipedia policy violations (like NPOV & BLP):- I have gone through the policies, I promise to be very careful from now on. I will follow all of the Wikipedia policies carefully. I will not use sources that have NPOV issues. I will even be extra careful if I edit a Biographies of living persons (BLP), since I have understood that it is a very sensitive thing. I even started making little improvements on this on my WP:EVADE edits a year and a half ago, I will even be extra more careful from now on. And like I said above, I never did WP:EVADE for over a year and a half now, and I will never do it again.

VII). Though I made many more mistakes, few of them are from the Editors. For example, I correctly changed "almost a million have been displaced" by with the correct figure "1.5 million", but I was wrongly accused of distorting the figure ( ). But even the current Abiy Ahmed Wikipedia-page version says "1.5 million" (like me) backed with many reliable references; furthermore, here is also another source link from a speech quote of Abiy Ahmed himself on the legitimate AfricaNews media that quote him say "After I came, an additional 1.5 million people were displaced." ( ).

VIII). I have a wide range of IP addresses as you saw on your Sockpuppetry-investationgs back then, so I couldn't be blocked by IP-address. I abstained from block evasion for the last year & a half since I personally want to follow Wikipedia's policies and make contributions in the right way. This also shows that the current block is not necessary, because if I wanted to disrupt I can do so even from the computer I'm now writing you this from (since my computer's IP address is not blocked). This shows that I do NOT have the intention to make a disruption, since there isn't any IP block currently stopping me even now if I had the intention to disrupt. Kind regards,Truth gatekeeper.

Thanks, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Weak Support everyone deserves a second chance and this is a well written appeal. However, WP: WALLOFTEXT. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Barring CU evidence to the contrary, i support unblocking on the basis of the good appeal above. I do, however, have two suggestions: First, what appears to be the special area of interest/conflict ~ Ethiopia and the Tigray Region ~ is obviously at the moment even more appealing to those of one side or the other, so i suggest Truth gatekeeper stay away from that area consistently and carefully, at least until a better track record is established in contributions; second, i highly recommend a name change, as editing with the perspective that name suggests is like editing as User:World's Greatest Wiki-editor ~ just setting one's self up for a fall; happy days, LindsayHello 19:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - An editor who chooses "Truth gatekeeper" for their screenname is not going to change their stripes, no matter what they say in their appeal. I am not in favor of returning PoV editors to the fold without some sort of safeguard, such as a topic ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment You're saying that CU by User:Ponyo showed no recent socking. May I ask on what grounds the check was performed? I'm asking because our policy explicitly prohibits checks to "prove innocence." Iaritmioawp (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
    Requests by individual editors to have a check run on their account to prove themselves innocent of a sockpupptry charge are declined. Checking an account with a history of socking as part of an unblock appeal is absolutely permitted by policy (and is often expected).-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) Users who are blocked for sockpuppetry are routinely checked for ongoing block evasion when they make unblock requests. This is nothing new, and the usual unblock request template includes a link to checkuser which pre-fills the reason "User talk:Username, unblock request" (we have to give a reason for all checks). The prohibition on checks to "prove innocence" relates to checking users when no reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry has been established. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
    Because I could not have proceeded with an unblock appeal w/o checking with a check user first. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
    Without first consulting a CheckUser, administrators must not undo or alter any block that is specifically identified as a "checkuser" block, such as through the use of the {{{checkuserblock}}} or {{{checkuserblock-account}}} templates in the action summary.[7] If an administrator believes that a checkuser block has been made in error, the administrator should first discuss the matter with the CheckUser in question, and if a satisfactory resolution is not reached, should e-mail the Arbitration Committee. A reversal or alteration of such a block without prior consultation may result in removal of permissions. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I have no opinion that I wish to express on whether this person should be allowed to edit here, but I agree with others above that the use of this user name can only end in tears. If the appeal is allowed a change of user name should be a condition of returning. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
    I must confess that when I saw that user name I was skeptical. Perhaps appellant can address this issue. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support unblock. It's been a year and a half, they understood what they did wrong, and they've refrained from socking all this time. Let's not second-guess future behavior based on a username. If they want a new username, that's cool, but making it a condition of unblocking seems just plain silly. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support unblock – per Roy. The username accords with WP:U policy and I don't think my personal opinion about the username should affect whether or not the user can edit. Otherwise I see no reason not to unblock per the principles of WP:SO and WP:ROPE. Levivich harass/hound 03:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support unblock per RoySmith and ROPE. Truth gatekeeper: I think you should strongly consider changing your username to something unambiguously innocent if you are unblocked; think of it as a new name for a (hopefully) clean start. Your current name will only lead people to be skeptical of your intentions and motivations. Best wishes from Los Angeles,   // Timothy :: talk  04:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support unblock per above. starship.paint (talk) 05:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose unblock this addition is one of few medium/large additions, and they all appear to be uncited cut and copy and the few actual content additions they have actually made all appear to be copy paste from the www. I can't see that there will be usefull contributions from the user and so whatever username they edit under I do not support unblock. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

replies from Truth gatekeeper[edit]

I). About my user-name ("Truth gatekeeper"), I have already tried to clarify this on my answer on 20 March 2019 ( ). I meant the "Truth gatekeeper" user-name the other way round; meaning that I only want the truth to be written on Wikipedia, and that I want to expose or remove false (and un-referenced) information that has been written on Wikipedia. I meant it like a guard, who only lets "truth" come-in. I obviously did not mean it the other way round, (as most of you seem to interpreter it). However, I have decided to change my name once (or if) I get unblocked, to another not confusing/misinterpretable user-name (like Loves_VirginiaWoolf1882, or something even more simple).

Anyhow, I'm very sorry for creating a confusion with the "Truth gatekeeper", but my desired meaning for the user-name is being misunderstood.

II). Sorry for the WP: WALLOFTEXT on my appeal, it was due to lack of awareness, and from improving & reusing of text from my previous appeal; (but it was not intentional). Truth gatekeeper (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Carried over by me --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
{u|Truth gatekeeper}} There is no "confusion" over your username, what you describe as your motivation is precisely what we don't want on Wikipedia. We do not add or delete things on the basis that they conform to our personal definitions of "truth", we do so on the basis of whether they are verifiable and supported by citations from reliable sources. Those things we take as being "facts". Facts are mutable, they can change as more information or evidence becomes available about them. "Truth" is immutable, it is what it is to the beholder.
We really don't need or want a "Truth gatekeeper", what we want is an editor who will follow our policies and improve articles by the addition of verifiable information and the removal of unverified information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Truth gatekeeper Re-ping. See my last comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
My "I am not here to promote a POV" t-shirt .... --JBL (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
To be fair (and disagreeing with BMK, something i do with reluctance), in the real world the word "truth" is often used in exactly the way that Truth gatekeeper seems to be using it ~ for what BMK is describing as "fact". For that reason i'll reaffirm my support for an unblock, nothing in either one of Tg's replies makes me change it; happy days, LindsayHello 06:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Truth gatekeeper Reply #2

Hi everyone (@Deepfriedokra:, @LindsayH:, @HurricaneTracker495:, @RoySmith:, @Ponyo:, @Phil Bridger:, @Beyond My Ken:, @Levivich:, @Starship.paint:, @TimothyBlue: and the rest),

Thank you all for your support and for reviewing my appeal. @Beyond My Ken:, I saw your last comment and yes I understand, and I made those same points on my appeal text ( Furthermore, what I meant by "un-referenced" is "unverified" (i.e. follow Wikipedia's policies and improve articles by the addition of verifiable information and the removal of unverified information).

Truth gatekeeper (talk) 09:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Carried over by me --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2020[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).


Administrator changes

removed AndrwscAnetodeGoldenRingJzGLinguistAtLargeNehrams2020

Interface administrator changes

added Izno

Guideline and policy news

Technical news


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
No idea who is responsible for the above, but any way; I have no interest in editing, but I hope some standards are upheld there? I followed the link to the survey, and I notice banned editor Slowking4 there posting "anti-social users that harm the project, i.e. Fram, and his enablers."[18], and this kind of rather extreme personal attack (on a discussion about how to deal with harassment!) is left alone for 4 days now. If the WMF can't even keep their own pages harassment-free, then perhaps they shouldn't try to impose a UCOC or to deal with supposed harassers based on secret evidence and so on? Fram (talk) 08:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
The discussion has now been archived by a WMFer working on the anti-harassment team, without removing or addressing the offending comment. If they can't even patrol and act upon personal attacks and harassment on their own pages about the very subject, they have no business lecturing or supervising other sites. It won't stop them of course, it never does. Fram (talk) 08:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
@Fram: meh I regularly see worse on these boards with zero action including removal, and that's even been from you, so it seems lame to make a big deal over that one comment. Especially since it's on meta, which is a community site, rather than a WMF site, even if it was their survey and so I assume they retained the right to override the meta community if they desired. Nil Einne (talk) 12:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
It's a discussion started by WMF, closed by WMF, about actions to be taken by the WMF. Actions specifically directed against harassment, by an organisation which tries to create an image as if they care about harassment (in general, not just against their own) and is giving the strong impression that they will impose such rules and regulations (like the UCOC). I improved my approach after the whole framban thing, even though the WMF way of handling things was disastrous. I'm not trying to make a big deal about this statement directed against me (I've seen worse this week on enwiki), but to highlight the blatant hypocrisy of the WMF acting as our saviours against big bad editors, whenthey can't even keep discussions they started attack-free. It's not even part of a heated discussion, where people cross a line in a back-and-forth (not acceptable, but much more understandable), but an out-of-the-blue comment by an editor banned here (and elsewhere) since many, many years, who feels the need to insert a jab against someone not in the discussion, not even on the same site for that matter. Fram (talk) 13:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

From an uninvolved perspective, I see you as a minor martyr in the Big-Brother-action by W?F. Unfortunately, once your username becomes a shortcut for the whole situation, you seem to lose control of it. You are no longer User:Fram, but are now WP:FRAM. Once you become part of the language, part of the culture, it's hard to censor its usage. I don't see it generally as someone poking you, but instead poking the situation; however, in this case they appear to be poking you, but you've become a "public figure" so I guess no one considered it personal. IDK, once a username becomes synonymous with something on WP, like ESjay of RicKK, maybe it's best to drop the moniker alltogether? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 01:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Spitballing - autoprotect bot[edit]

There were a few of us discussing this the other night on IRC, and I just saw there was a similar proposal at the meta wishlist, so I thought I'd bring it up here. Background: we got hit by a vandal the other night, and for whatever reason we ended up with over 110 edits and reverts in the span of an hour before the page was locked down (and yes, it was reported to RFPP, just not seen quickly enough). While we don't really want vandalism sitting about until an admin can appear (i.e. "I've already reverted them five times, I guess I'll wait for a sixth"), we also don't want to be clogging up edit histories with this level of back-and-forth. Hence, the thought for an autoprotection bot.

Since we have the "Revert" tag now, our thought was that if a page experienced more than 5-10 "Reverted"-tagged edits in a span of say 10-20 minutes, an adminbot automatically protects the page for an hour or two (whether semi- or fully-protected is up for debate, since the warring might be between two AC users). This would give us mere mortals a chance to investigate the issue and hand out any blocks or extended protections as necessary, without the messy result of potentially dozens of edits to clean up.

I know this is a bit more of a BOTREQ, but since the bot would be an AdminBot (and on that subject, I think it should be a dedicated bot for this specific task) it would need to be discussed here first anyway. Primefac (talk) 13:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

As an idea I think this is great, but I would like to see some constraints on the admin bot before I would give my support. I would want to see that self reversions be excluded from the count, especially if this applies to more than just mainspace pages. Some questions:
  • The reverted tag does not detect all reversions, as there is a limit as to how far the mediawiki software goes back to find out if a edit is a reversion. I think this limit is 10 previous revisions. It is possible, but unlikely due to the 10-20 minute timeline, that some reversions might go untagged if the edit rate is very high. Would the bot also check for reversions which were not detected by the software? If so, when would be the bot be prompted to do this on a page?
  • What namespaces will this bot monitor? I would argue that there is a case for all namespaces to be monitored and protectable, but only if self reversions are not included.
Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
As near as I can tell every vandal edit linked above was tagged, so I'm not too concerned about the system "missing" something; either way they were up to almost 20 reverts (and 40 edits!) in the first ten minutes, so if an edit or two gets skipped it's unlikely to matter. I don't see any reason why it couldn't monitor all namespaces, but obviously article space is the reader-facing space that would need it the most. Also, if someone is self-reverting that quickly (especially in the articles space), they should be CIR- or DE-blocked for being disruptive. Primefac (talk) 14:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
As a technical note (I'll probably raise this at BRFA, but in case I forget) maybe it should maybe check for undo/rollback/manual revert rather than reverted: N number of consecutive edits that are reverted once will have N many "Reverted" tags, even though it's just one revert. Alternatively, some logic to count a consecutive set of "reverted" tagged edits as a single revert, to ensure the reverted edits were recent and also check what kind of editor made them. Makes sense to only do it for IPs/non-autoconfirmed and to semi-prot I think, and then perhaps the bot reporting protections in the last day to WP:RFPP in a separate sub-section.
For the record, Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Automatically_report_highly_reverted_pages_for_page_protection is also slightly related. Worth adding that Filter 249 usually catches these, and User:DatBot usually reports them to WP:AIV already, but some timezones have more admins active at AIV than others. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I support this, but I'm concerned that someone who knows what they're doing could game the bot into locking an article with a gross BLP violation visible. I'd like to make sure that if the bot is going to protect a page, it first reverts to the latest non-reverted revision. It might also be useful if the bot would list any pages it protects this way in a new subsection at RFPP so that there's a central place for admins to review. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Pretty sure if we've got a bot locking pages, it'll be posting it somewhere for review. I do also see the potential for gaming, and that's a pretty good solution. but if it's being reviewed faster due to a post from the bot, it will likely be fixed faster (WRONGVERSION and all that). Primefac (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC) struck and added to following PR's comment below 15:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
it first reverts to the latest non-reverted revision What's the best way to determine that, though? See [19] for example. The first set of reverted edits aren't actually tagged. One could assume the editor with rollback has reverted correctly and that revision can be trusted, but perhaps they haven't reverted far back enough, so someone else comes along and reverts further. How would the bot know which one to go with? Also a tricky assumption to just go for the earliest revision before that single editor edited, in case it's a case of multiple IPs/accounts causing issues. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
And we need to consider the following scenario: a user prepares, in advance, 3 different accounts. Account #1 inserts vandalism or BLP violation. Accounts #2 and #3 immediately edit war over a different part of the page. The bot kicks in. Yes, a simple CheckUser would expose this, but it probably wouldn't be done immediately. (talk) 16:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
(non-admin) but I'm concerned that someone who knows what they're doing could game the bot into locking an article with a gross BLP violation visible couldn't this be solved quite easily by just having the bot use either extened-confirmed or semi protection? Usually these kind of vandalism wars are done by either IP's or new users Asartea Talk Contributions 17:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
(responding to all the points above) I interpreted the proposal as intended to address this problem: an article is generally stable with incremental edits when Editor A comes and makes a bad edit (in good faith, vandalism, BLP vio, just debatable, whatever) and is reverted by Editor B; instead of WP:BRD discussion Editor A hammers the undo button, Editor C reverts again, Editor A restores, etcetera. Yes, reverting to the most recent non-reverted revision is a weak solution, but it would work in this scenario (which in my experience is the vast majority of simple RFPP requests) and it's better than nothing in any more complicated instance anyway. There will always be very dedicated POV pushers and other disruptive editors, we will never program an automatic solution to that problem, and we should stop throwing out good proposals because they don't solve those very complicated issues. For this run-of-the-mill edit warring (which is a very widespread problem but tends to be low-impact) this is a good solution. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Also, just a thought about that phenomenon: when your edit is reverted, you get a notification that reads "Your edit on [page] was reverted." When you click on the notification, you're taken to a diff of the reversion, which displays the undo button right at the top of the page; if you have rollback there's a second option for reverting, and if you use Twinkle there are three more revert buttons. But there is no "discuss" link anywhere on that page, which perhaps could take you to the talk page editing a new section titled "revert of revision [xxxxxxxxx]" or something. Maybe we should address that. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
The issue is, I think, that it is quite hard for the bot to determine what revision to revert to. In your case, assuming everything is tagged and whatnot and only includes one account reverting it may be simple, but there are still various other cases that can happen (such as the cases above) and the bot needs to know either what to do in them, or at least know not to do anything (which is somewhat a corollary of the first). This distinction seems quite hard to technically make, and could very easily false positive in restoring a bad revision which needs to be cleaned up by hand anyway. So I think it's a lot of effort for what is probably going to fail much of the time anyway. imo it's better for such a bot to just protect, then let the reverter do a final cleanup edit by hand. Since there's reverting going on most likely there's human eyes on it anyway, so I don't think the bot should second guess them. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
See, I think you're overthinking it. It's obviously not going to be perfect, but if the trigger (as I understood the proposal) is for some number of revert-tagged revisions, the bot simply walks back from the current revision when it arrives to the next one that isn't flagged as a revert, restores that one, and protects the page. It doesn't need to review that revision or do any thinking at all to determine if it should ignore that revision and keep walking back. All that is is the revision prior to the chain of events that triggered the bot in the first place. If the bot protects that revision it's at least reasonably predictable that it will be a "safe" revision, whereas if the bot just protects on arrival the odds are close to 50/50 (and weighted in favour of the editor who clicks the revert button fastest) that the protected version will be harmful. If the bot is just going to blindly protect then I'm against the proposal; in that case I'd rather the bot just detect revert warring and report it for admin attention. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Hmm. See, for example, link I sent originally, [20], for some reason (I don't know why) the original edits Materialscientist reverted didn't get the "Reverted" tag (even though RB was used). If I understand you right, and it walks down the tree and picks up the first one which isn't "Reverted" at some point when this was going on, the first revision meeting that criteria would be "15:00, 1 December 2020‎ Metaveroo", which is exactly the revision which shouldn't be restored? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Personally, I think everyone's overthinking it. Not many people watch RFPP, but loads of people (as evidenced by this discussion) watch AN, and there are dozens of folks on IRC that have custom notifications that trigger based on specific bots, users, and/or filters (within five minutes of the IRC crew finding out about Fishburne's page, everything was locked, blocked, and RD'd). I don't necessarily see the point of this bot to hide the vandalism itself, but to stop the vandalism. If the WRONGVERSION is on the page for five minutes until someone at AN/IRC/RC sees the edit and reverts, that's not the end of the world (even if it is something like one particular LTA who likes to call famous men paedophiles). there are OS-able edits that are on pages for hours (if not days) at a time, so this idea that a few extra minutes of vandalism is a tragedy seems somewhat silly (to me).
Now don't get me wrong, I have no issue with wanting to make a bot that can revert to the (hopefully) last-good version of the page (ideally pre-vandalism), but at the very least I would think that such a bot protecting the page to prevent similar 100-edit-vandlism-sprees from happening would be a good thing (and, as evidenced by this discussion, finding that last-good edit can be problematic). Primefac (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd certainly back the listed articles being on RFPP - I wouldn't want it on a dedicated page, for example. I'm sure the normal process will bring it up, but if this is trialled, could we get that dropped on AN as well, so those of us not normally deep in the bot creation could see how it's going? Especially since people reviewing the bot's actions normally will be mostly standard RFPP admins, not bot-focused admins? In terms of the general concept - I'd say I'm very cautiously interested, but would need good answers for all of the issues and cases above. An edge case where it doesn't trigger is fine, but false positives could be really problematic. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Interesting idea worth pursuing. I share the "gaming" concerns (protection-on-demand-via-bot) but I think countermeasures could be developed to reduce that concern. Maybe start with a trial period with the bot posting to RFPP instead of protecting. I'd be curious to see how often the bot was triggered and in what circumstances. Levivich harass/hound 16:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
    From a "gaming" perspective, I don't think it would work too well. The bot would lock down the page, make one (or more) notification(s) to highly-trafficked pages (and likely trigger various notifications at places like IRC or even the OS queue at OTRS), and the vandalism reverted (I would guess) within 10 minutes. The protection would also likely be short-term, maybe an hour or two, and could be extended if necessary (for actual gaming or repeat offences) or allowed to lapse once the relevant parties are blocked. Primefac (talk) 18:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
    Sign me up for the red team :-) Levivich harass/hound 19:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Interesting idea. I'd also cautiously support - maybe throw together a proof-of-concept that just posts "here's a page where I detected edit-warring and here's what I would have done" to a userspace page so that we can start hashing out the detection and WRONGVERSION issues. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Sounds potentially promising for semiprotection in response to vandalism or other obvious disruption. Maybe it only protects if X edits by new/unregistered users are reverted by at least 2 experienced editors in a certain period of time (to stop one person from gaming it). Applying full protection sounds a lot more dangerous. I can just see one autoconfirmed user removing a BLP violation, another autoconfirmed user reverting them, and the page ends up fully protected with the BLP violation on it. Getting the bot to revert to a "stable" revision wouldn't necessarily help with this. Hut 8.5 18:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The Data, with > 5 reverts since midnight earlier today, for something to look at. Obviously would be tighter than 5 reverts in a day for a bot, but seems there's no ongoing edit wars of >5 reverts (with the exception of Liga MX Femenil, I guess). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
    Some onwiki list following the same logic at User:ProcBot/EW. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • One thing to keep in mind is the principal that bots are just alt-accounts of their operator, so the admin running such a bot would need to be personally responsible for all the protections that they apply to ensure they are aligned with the protection policy. That being said, protection vs blocking is meant to be nuanced and a page should not be protected for example if 2 users are in a revert cycle with eachother - likely those users should be blocked. I'd like to hear from whatever admin would want to take ownership of this situation and hear what parameters they are thinking about using for their automated actions. Also keep in mind that bots should never be relied upon to make a future edit or action - so if this is the type of situation that would be better handled with the edit filter, that is worth exploring as well. — xaosflux Talk 19:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
    @Xaosflux: are edit filters actually able to deal with this, beyond what 249 can do? Not sure if it's beans-y to say, but given that they can't see context or change tags, the method they deal with it is a bit easy to beat, plus they can only target the vandal. the bots can instead target the rollbacker, which seems better since the person reverting won't actively be trying to take steps to avoid being tagged, so they'll flag pretty much every case I'd think? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
    @ProcrastinatingReader: right, EF can't "see tags" on an in-process edit, it's a bit of a chicken/egg problem but has been requested at phab:T206490. — xaosflux Talk 23:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm cautiously optimistic about the bot, but share xaosflux's concerns. It might be better to set up an edit filter instead. I remember seeing a "non-autoconfirmed user rapidly reverting edits" tag which if defined by an edit filter would probably be a good place to start. Part of the problem too is that a number of admins who frequent RFPP (including me) haven't been very active these last few weeks so things are slower than usual. But if this gets off the ground, I'd like the bot to make reports at RFPP rather than a dedicated page. Wug·a·po·des 23:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
    Re: a dedicated page: people keep saying that, but when I made the post I had no thoughts that it would post on a new board, and I don't think it should be on its own page. Primefac (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
    @Primefac: "why not both?" ala WP:AIV/TB2 on WP:AIV....? — xaosflux Talk 23:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
    Sure, I can think of a half-dozen good places to post, which is why I've been somewhat confused as to why people seem to assume we'd be starting a new board for it. Primefac (talk) 23:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
    @Primefac: Sorry if this has already been thought of, but should there be a specified limit on the rate at which pages are locked? Like X-amount of pages per hour, removing the potential for the bot to be gamed into spamming whichever board it populates. The limit could be based on the number of requests received during busy times at RFPP, thereby only functioning as a safeguard rather than throttling the bot. Regards, Zindor (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
    Actually, ignore that. I can see now that would create a way to completely stop the bot working. Perhaps it could be throttled over a certain rate. Zindor (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Those who can see private filters may want to look at filter 1102 (hist · log) ("Rapid disruption"). It's loosely related to what's being proposed here, and I plan on proposing that it be set to disallow once I finish fiddling with the parameters. I'd rather not say exactly how it works, per the concern raised by Ivanvector; someone might try to game it into locking in the WP:WRONGVERSION. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
    Suffusion of Yellow, this is a work of art. – bradv🍁 18:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


And thanks for being a good sport about it A-NEUN. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Looks like User:A-NEUN got blocked by accident. The blocking admin was trying to block this vandal but blocked A-NEUN and now admin seems busy Huggling. Can someone unblock them please? ‐‐1997kB (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Left Materialscientist a message. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
    Unblocked, thanks to all involved. Primefac (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the unblock. Mistakes happen. Thanks to 1997kB for noticing before I did, and raising it here! A-NEUN ⦾TALK⦾ 18:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

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


Hi, I went to Soundcloudlegends' userpage after they approached me on my talk page, asking for help with image uploading. The userpage was non-existent, but here's what's weird. There is no log of their account being created. I checked CA, there was an account. They even uploaded an image. Then I go to XTools, since there was no log of the account, and it's telling me that the user doesn't exist. What is going on here? Slykos (talkcontribsrights) 21:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

They only registered about four hours ago (17:21 UTC to be precise), and xtools can sometimes lag behind enwiki. Primefac (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@Primefac: To that point, XTools is about 7 hours behind in lags right now, so that makes sense, yet there is no log for the account. Probably just a glitch. Face-wink.svg Thanks! Slykos (talkcontribsrights) 21:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Jeffery lever[edit]

Is this guy (User:Jefferyleverrr) creating his own page and then spoofing from User:Margetmilan and an IP?? at Talk:Jeffery lever?? Govvy (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Also there is Draft:Jeffery lever Govvy (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Cosmetic bot day close review[edit]

A CENT-advertised discussion at the Village Pump on a "Cosmetic Bot Day" was closed by S Marshall where he proposed guidelines for a trial of the idea. The closure led to disagreement and discussion under the discussion, at the bot noticeboard, and on his talk page. I am asking the community to review the close and whether it is in line with the discussion and policy.

Personally, I am concerned that the close is a forced-compromise/left-field supervote since at least one proposal (#3) doesn't seem to have been brought up by anyone in the discussion and multiple bot approval group members have pointed out that the requirements are impractical. The issue with S Marshall's proposal #3 was raised at the village pump and S Marshall pointed to his talk page where, in response to BAG member concerns, he said he would not re-close the discussion.

It also appears that the close overrules WP:BOTPOL without sufficient consensus to amend policy. Per the bot policy, all bots (emphasis in policy) must be approved at WP:BRFA before they may operate and their technical details must be reviewed by the bot approval group. On his talk page BAG members raised concerns about the close circumventing that process, and S Marshall refused to amend the close to take this into account instead saying that a second RfC would be required to determine technical details of cosmetic bot operation. Despite comments from editors in the original discussion (including me) who explicitly preferred using the typical bot approval mechanisms instead of a bespoke process, S Marshall said he would not amend because he did not see consensus to leave technical details to BAG, but based on s Marshall's own characterization of "rough consensus" I don't believe the discussion had sufficient consensus to overturn the policy of requiring BAG approval for bots.

For those reasons, I would like the community to review the close, and I recommend that it be overturned so that a new editor can close the discussion. Wug·a·po·des 21:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

To avoid splitting discussion any further, I've left notes at the above discussions and a standard notice template on S Marshall's talk page. Wug·a·po·des 22:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Closer: I do think I was clear, in that closing statement, about differentiating my assessment of community consensus from my personal suggestions about how to implement it. The hypothetical cosmetic bots would still need to be BAG approved and I didn't say otherwise. What I've been asked to do is re-close to say that the community approves a trial and delegates all the details to the BAG. I don't think that's what the community has decided.—S Marshall T/C 22:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
    • If you will be offering novel opinions, you should participate in the discussion, not add your opinions at the top and discourage any further discussion. Doing otherwise does not make it clear that your opinions are unsupported. It's also not clear at all how leaving implementation details to BAG and requiring bots to go through BAG functionally differ--in both cases the details are ultimately up to the BAG. Wug·a·po·des 22:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • While the closure seems to be out of step with the discussion, the wider community having more control over bots than the traditional "let the BAG do what it wants" is something the bot community needs to deal with. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
    ... which is relevant how to this thread? If you believe the BAG is regularly overstepping its remit, {{rfc}} and/or WP:BOTPOL and/or any of a bunch of other places have space for you to raise it. --Izno (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
    How is it out of step, though? To my mind, that discussion admits of two closes: "Consensus for a limited trial" (which absolutely must not flood people's watchlists or cause BLP issues), or "No consensus for a trial". You can't get to "Consensus for an unrestricted trial" from there.—S Marshall T/C 23:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
    @S Marshall and Izno: There are a number of BAG members in these resulting discussions that come across as absolutely incredulous that the wider community could even approach making decisions about bots --Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
    "There are a number of BAG members in these resulting discussions that come across as absolutely incredulous that the wider community could even approach making decisions about bot" I'm going to put a big fat [citation needed] on that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
    Not that anyone asked, but for the sake of transparency, I'm not a member of BAG. I pointed out concerns of BAG members since they'd be most affected by the outcome and generally know bot policy, but my concerns about the close are my own as a community member and participant in the discussion. If you follow the links I gave in the OP, 4 non-BAG members (not including me) raised concerns about the close. While there may or may not be issues with how BAG members responded to the close, they are far from the only people who took issue with it. Wug·a·po·des 20:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • the wider community having more control over bots than the traditional "let the BAG do what it wants" is something the bot community needs to deal with. Says who. We're not 'doing what we want'. There is zero-community mandate to have bot trials that somehow avoid editing vital articles or BLP articles (and a cosmetic bot by definition cannot cause any BLP issues). Those are things S Marshall made up out of thin air from someone that closed an RFC that isn't an admin (see WP:NONADMINCLOSURE), or have any bot-related experience. Let BAG do its job and oversee the trials, if someone is even interested in coding such bots. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
    @Headbomb: I agree with you that those are inappropriate supervotes. But, at the same time, I agree with Fram below. You and a number of you colleagues come across as dismissive of the fact that the community could possibly decide on restrictions on the place, manner, and timing of bot edits. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
    Struck after it was brought to my attention that I was overstating the level of input by BAG members in these discussions --Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
    The community could very well decide that there are restrictions on bot edits. It already has decided such (see the pretty much the entirety of WP:BOTPOL). What the RFC didn't do is put new restrictions on such bot edits (in fact there is a support for lessening those restrictions), or overturn the current policy of requiring BRFAs before bots are approved. The community could certainly choose these things in the future, but it didn't in that RFC. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
    tbh that comment is equivalent to there being an RfC on the blocking policy, a non-admin closing it in a disputed way. Then when admins (who are expected to understand the blocking policy the best) complain that the close is (a) not an accurate summary and (b) infeasible when it comes to how they do blocks, others commenting "but that's just you overstating your role in blocking / dismissive of the fact that the community can change the blocking policy!" ignoring that the point is not who gets to block, but that the close is problematic. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn close, personally, I think that several of these points do not represent the consensus in the discussion. Point 3 is not mentioned anywhere in the discussion, apart from the closing statement. The point about one edit per article was mentioned in several comments, but I don't see consensus for this personally. The close does also suggest some level of supervote. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 00:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
    Overturn it to what? No consensus?—S Marshall T/C 02:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
    Overturn to nothing, and let someone else close it, or overturn to there's consensus to explore a trial, and let BAG do its job. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
    I would prefer that it be overturned so that the discussion re-opens. Therefore, someone else can come along to close it. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • (involved, voted support) Overturn and re-close — Normally I wouldn't engage in a line-by-line response to a closing statement but I see SM asking for specifics about the problems with the closing statement, so here goes:
  • I'm somewhat surprised to find that rough consensus exists for a trial of Cosmetic Bot Day. – The bolded part is the only summation of consensus in this closing statement AFAICS.
  • I'm not surprised at all to see that there are a number of very grave and serious concerns about the proposal. – Closer's opinion, but "a number of" is vague. A lot? A majority? What's hugely missing is any kind of description of what those concerns were or how many editors shared them.
  • I think we need to respect those concerns ... – Because they have consensus? Or because the closer personally thinks these concerns have merit?
  • ... and be as cautious and conservative as possible, which means placing some restrictions on the trial. – Two editors !voted "support with restrictions" as far as I can see. Did "placing some restrictions" have consensus, or is this the closer's personal opinion?
  • There isn't a consensus about what those restrictions should be, ... – Is there consensus that there should be restrictions at all? (Over and above the restrictions that already exist.)
  • ... but after reading editors' concerns here, I can think of some starting points. – That's great but it's something that should be said in the discussion, not the closing statement.
  • I propose that: ... – Everything after this is a proposal, not a summation of consensus (and not binding), so I won't respond to it.
Every sentence in the closing statement up to "I propose..." has "I" as the subject: a sign of a closer who is sharing their thoughts, as opposed to summarizing the thoughts of other editors. There is only one clause of one sentence in the closing statement that describes what editors actually agreed to (it's the part in bold). We need a closing statement that spends more time describing what was agreed and less time describing the closer's opinion about how we should proceed. S Marshall has some good ideas; he should have !voted. It's that classic adage: if you have an opinion, don't close, vote. I don't know if my understanding has consensus – I'll leave it to an uninvolved editor to decide – but my understanding was that my support !vote meant I was supporting allowing BAG to approve cosmetic tasks if those tasks were run on a "Cosmetic Bot Day". I did not understand my !vote to be supporting any specific restrictions, or supporting not having BAG involved. The proposal quite clearly was: This proposal is to have 1 day a month or year etc.. that is exempt ie. "Cosmetic Bot Day". Any such bot would require approval though WP:BRFA as normal ... The "trial run" issue is a red herring: the first Cosmetic Bot Day is, by definition, the trial run. If it goes horribly, there won't be a second Cosmetic Bot Day. Levivich harass/hound 03:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

BAG (or the representatives here) seem to misunderstand / overestimate their role. While no bot may run without BAG approval, it is perfectly acceptable for non-BAG community processes to impose restrictions or otherwise define tasks a bot may or may not do, or days a bot may or may not run, or people who may or may not run bots. RfCs or similar discussions can't approve a bot to run, but BAG may not approve a bot which goes against an RfC conclusion. This is separate from whether the closure of this RfC correctly represents the actual discussion; that can of course be challenged. But not because it intrudes on BAG territory, because it doesn't. If the community decides that only one bot may do cosmetic edits, then BAG may not approve two such bots (they can of course approve none at all). BAG may refuse to approve any bots under some RfC conditions, they may point out that some RfC conditions are not feasible, ... but there ends their role, their power. Fram (talk) 08:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

That is correct, and no BAG member is saying otherwise afaics. The issue here is not that the community is prohibited from deciding by consensus which bot tasks it will and will not tolerate (ensuring consensus exists for a given task has always been part of the BRFA process). But there's a difference between ensuring tasks have consensus, and requiring (effectively, due to the infeasibility of exhaustive lists of restrictions, and per SM's talk page clarification) tasks with novel restriction or scope (compared to a previous CBOT task) be individually submitted to community for RfC, reducing BAG to an advisory role, a concept which has already been rejected (eg here). Consensus could have required that cosmetic tasks go through RfC in batches, but I don't think any participant was trying to vote for that, and it's unacceptable that a close create an outcome which no participant (other than the closer) envisioned. For all practical purposes, this proposal was closed with "consensus against". ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Again, I'm not defending the actual close. But the general tone of some comments (yes, that's rather subjective), and actual comments like "There is zero-community mandate to have bot trials that somehow avoid editing vital articles or BLP articles [...] Let BAG do its job and oversee the trials" give a strong impression that at least some BAG members feel that such restrictions would be unacceptable and should only be decided by BAG, which is incorrect. If the community would e.g. want that, for some specific bot task, the bot again needs community approval after the trial, then the BAG can not decide that this is not necessary. The opposition from some bag members here is not simply "the closure is not representing community consensus" (which is a good reason to protest of course), but "you are invading our turf", which is false. BAG has an important role, and while an RfC can in general not overrule that role, it may go above and beyond BAG to impose additional or exceptional restrictions. Fram (talk) 09:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I think this is just miscommunication. As a BAG member too, albeit a newer one, that's not my interpretation of BAG's role and I don't think Headbomb is saying otherwise. BAG does not decide consensus, it interprets it, and it is already required to ensure any task (cosmetic or not) be in compliance with consensus. If consensus supports some type of edit, it usually falls within BAG's remit (indeed, much of its point) to ensure a bot task's specification is in line with that consensus, applying restrictions where either its specification or its technical design may cause problems which could exceed the bounds of consensus (and it regularly does so, eg Cewbot 6). Consensus here did not explicitly support any cosmetic only limitations (such as "do not edit BLPs"), thus the default is BAG, after deciding if the task itself has consensus, decides whether a given function or technical implementation is such that it would be problematic if it operates on BLP articles (and, if so, it would impose an operating restriction in the BRFA). Community consensus can, yes, always override that particular, by stating "X edit can be performed but not on BLP articles", but it did not do so here; the misrepresentation of the discussion is the crux of this issue, everything else is merely an aside when analysing the practical effects of this close. Which is @ SM's talk, and pretty much says that each CBOT task needs to go to RfC individually or in batches, and thus BAG reduced to an advisory role (and that is contrary to consensus). I think that's what Headbomb is saying here.
As an aside, the close is effectively forcing the community to further limit the usage of cosmetic bots, even when consensus didn't state its desire to do such; SM's close seems to outline his concerns of cosmetic bots, not of the community's. Heck, I just did a CMD+F for "BLP" and the word was only mentioned once in the discussion, and the concern was promptly refuted with "configure your watchlist differently". ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, then I think we're all on the same page here. Fram (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
See reply to Guerillero above. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Regarding feasibility concerns; as someone who suggested tight restrictions, a couple of comments. Regarding one edit per article, perhaps bots could be rewritten to take in article text on stdin and write the new text on stdout (maybe taking the title before that), so that we could chain a bunch of them together for one edit. (I'm sure other solutions exist.) Regarding timeframe, as GreenC correctly pointed out, 12 edits per minute only gives 17,280 edits per day. Maybe bump it up to 30 edits per minute and run it for a week; that gets us to 302,400 edits, which is enough to do every article after ten of those. And of course the bot might not even have an edit to make some fraction of the time; assume half (I dunno, maybe a frequent AWB user could correct me on that), and you're down to only five weeks, or 2.5 years if you do one week every six months. Distributing the articles for each week evenly throughout the alphabet might be one rough way to make sure nobody's watchlist gets particularly hammered; we could also distribute by category tree or topic area (WikiProject). The vital articles restriction also kind of makes sense to me, although given the reaction (or just the fact that it didn't come up in the discussion) we probably want further debate. Generally, I recognize minimizing disruption is the first priority; it's on bot operators to work around the restrictions that come from that, and not to push the envelope on watchlist/page history impact. I'm neutral on the rest of the close. Enterprisey (talk!) 10:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn - SM's close isn't really a close .... It's a "I propose X, Y and Z" - I sort of see his "close" more as a !vote than anything so IMHO it should be reclosed. –Davey2010Talk 10:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Generally (responding to a number of contributors including Davy2010, Dreamy Jazz, Levivich et. al.): If you've considered the debate and decided my close was wrong, then shouldn't you be able to articulate which close would be right?—S Marshall T/C 16:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
    No, not at all; that's incorrect logic. A person can identify a problem even if they don't know or can't effectuate the solution. For example, I don't have to know how to land a plane to know when someone did it wrong. But if I were to sum up the result it would be: There is consensus to have 1 day a month ("Cosmetic Bot Day") where bot tasks are exempt from the Cosmetic regulation, assuming there is otherwise consensus for the bot task. Any such bot task would require approval though WP:BRFA as normal. Levivich harass/hound 17:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
    I would say consensus to have a trial for a cosmetic day (i.e. have one such day, and then pause and see what comes of it), rather than close with an indefinite thumbs up on such a day. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I had been reading along with this discussion with an eye to being a possible closer. If this review is closed such that the original discussion would need to be reclosed (as opposed to a more directed overturning to no consensus or consensus against or to the original close being endorsed) I am prepared to serve as a closer. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Re-close Levivich hits the nail on the head. This closure is a gross misrepresentation what the !voters said. The closer's suggestions (which shouldn't have been put into the closing statement in the first place) were not discussed and don't even make sense. There's no reason to exclude vital articles or BLPs from a trial – bots cannot introduce BLP violations (only humans are capable of doing that).
Regarding the concerns raised here by Fram/Guerrillo of the BAG's role, leave the details to BAG is just a shorter way of saying "leave the details to be chalked out per the normal process – which is WP:BRFA". Anyone can participate in BRFAs, you don't even have to be in BAG. Having to get an RfC consensus for every technical detail of the bot operation (which is what S Marshall recommends on his talk page) would be a really really inefficient process, that likely leads to the same outcome. – SD0001 (talk) 03:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
That's not how I read it (close + responses though). Even the aspect that after the "trial" (the one day of cosbot runs), another RfC would happen to evaluate the trial and decide on a definitive consensus for future runs, was opposed, because trial evaluation should be handled by BAG. That's not "every technical detail", that's a major aspect of this idea which would be evaluated by an RfC instead of BAG alone (of course, one could have an RfC at BAG, but that's not really usual). It's the opposition to eve ntaspects like this which gave the impression of an overly protective attitude from (some members of) BAG. Of course, this was a reaction to an overly broad or problematic RfC close, but one doesn't correct an error by posting counter-errors. Discussion above clarified that this wasn't intended, and that everyone agrees that the community can place additional rules, restrictions, controls, on any bot operation or operator; but making this clear was important. Fram (talk) 08:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
These things were never in contention to begin with. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Ignore "I propose" The actual close seems fine. Rough consensus for allowing a trial and no consensus on the various restrictions seems a clear and defensible close. The warning that quite a few contributors have important concerns also seems fair to add to the close as it should guide the trial. The proposal can just be ignored for trial purposes as it is clear that it is personal opinion and not a reading of consensus. I persaonally have no issue with closers adding advice for a future RFC, but if one is not oppened and closed with consensus then all it is is a failed proposal.AlmostFrancis (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
    The problem with that approach is on SM's talk page, he wrote: I definitely do not think the community decided to have CBD but leave it to the BAG to decide the technical details. In the circumstances you should probably decide what's technically feasible and then set up a second RFC with each option listed for community approval or rejection. (emphasis in original) and I do not think that at that discussion, the community approved the use of cosmetic bots and delegated the hows and whys to the BAG, and I will not re-close the discussion to say that. Would you like me to begin an RfC close review on the AN? It seems to me that the closer's interpretation of their own close requires a second RFC. It would be weird to interpret a closer's close to mean, more or less, the opposite of what the closer says it means. Levivich harass/hound 16:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
    Sorry I don't think I was clear as I dropped a word, "guide the trial" should have been "guide the trial RFC". When I said ignore the the closers proposal I didn't mean there didn't need to be some proposal passed to run the trial. The restrictions will need consensus before the trial is run so a second RFC should be necessary. I just don't see any reason to follow the closers proposal or believe it should have the strength of consensus behind it. I don't want to bag on the RFC originator, since I think just getting consensus for having a cosmetic bot day is a pretty good win, but to change a long time consensus against these bot edits I think you need a tigher proposal.AlmostFrancis (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, AlmostFrancis is exactly right. My close does separate the community consensus from my personal suggestions, and those suggestions are absolutely up for discussion and amendment. What I've declined to do is self-overturn to "consensus for a trial limited only by the BAG approval process"; and after this discussion I still won't do that. The objections were too numerous, and in some cases (such as the concern about watchlist flooding concealing BLP violations which was expressed by people who had actually experienced it), too weighty, for me to find a simple "Yes, let the BAG handle it" consensus. I tried to put myself in the place of the oppose voter and think of the restrictions that would allay the concerns they expressed. So yes, all the business after "I propose" is up for discussion on my talk page or elsewhere, but if you want me to remove it entirely, then I won't do that without a formal overturn on this page. Because it's not what the community decided.—S Marshall T/C 00:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
    • "Let the BAG handle it" is policy, and there is no consensus in that RFC to overturn that policy. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Intractable problem still unaddressed and unabated; administrator action deficient[edit]

This lengthy rant does not establish the need for admin intervention instead of content dispute resolution (WP:DR). If there is evidence of actual edit-warring, use WP:ANEW. GPinkerton seems to have problems of their own, which are discussed at WP:ANI#Proposal to take action against User:GPinkerton. Sandstein 21:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I believe a very serious case of WP:CRUSH, WP:SEALION, and WP:TENDENTIOUS is afoot, and has been in progress for some time concerning Syrian Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). It has been claimed that the bad temper of the content dispute has made it impossible to determine that this is happening. I do not agree that this is the case. Briefly, the issue concerns a propaganda line, dreamt up in the 1960s by the national socialist Ba'ath Party rulers of the Second Syrian Republic, which stated that the Kurdish-majority and oil-rich provinces in the extreme north were not historically Kurdish and that the Kurdish inhabitants were without exception illegal immigrants from Turkish Kurdistan. Though many were refugees or their descendants from the wars of the end of the Ottoman Empire, the Arab nationalist Ba'athists decided to ignore longstanding Kurdish settlement in Syria and what is now al-Hasakah Governorate, which were Kurdish majority at the beginning of the French Mandate of Syria and Lebanon. This unequivocal fact is stated numerous times by all reliable sources.

Furthermore, it is directly reported by unimpeachable sources that this xenophobic and racist propaganda was purpose-built and deployed specifically for the purpose of the Ba'athist ethnic cleansing campaign in Syrian Kurdistan known as the Arab Belt. This too is well-evidenced by top-tier academic sources. However, a significant coterie of editors, whose members have been previously heavily active in Syrian civil war articles and repeatedly blocked for ethno-nationalistic edit warring in middle east topics generally, has emerged on the talk page of that article who repeat this nonsense as fact and are tenaciously distorting primary sources to (not-really-)agree with this nationalist claim. Evidence for all of this is abundant, yet no serious action has been taken, and the problem remains unacknowledged and unmitigated. The narrative continues to be presented as fact using wilfully misinterpreted primary sources and argumentum ex silentio in secondary sources while ignoring or dismissing as kurdish pov every and all reliable source. This has now been going on for many weeks and urgent action is desperately needed, just as it was when this issue first came to ANI more a month ago! So far little more than washing of hands and complaints about incivility have ensued; it is obvious actual steps need to be taken in a clear direction: away from the nationalist POV-pushing, which needs to be put permanently to an end. GPinkerton (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Irrefutable evidence the narrative pushed on the talk page, of Kurds as foreigners in Syrian territory, is nothing but Arab Nationalist racism
  • Historically they have been concentrated in three discontiguous places in northern Syria, namely,
    i) The northeastern corner of Syria, … is to the west of Mosul. … This area has been Kurdish majority since official records began in the last century. The encompassing Syrian governorate is called al-Hasaka (formerly Jazira) … Kurdish and Christian coexistence has generally been long-standing here.
    ii) The Kobanê (Ain al-Arab to Arabs) district is in the northeast of the Aleppo governorate, in northcentral Syria …
    iii) The most northerly and western part of Syria, a mountainous outcrop of the Anatolian plateau, the Efrîn (Afrīn in Arabic) district, … Ethnographically the Kurds here are indistinguishable from the Kurds of Turkey and unquestionably in their homeland. …O'Leary, Brendan (January 2018). "The Kurds, the Four Wolves, and the Great Powers – Review: The Kurds of Syria by Harriet Allsopp. London: Tauris, 2015. The Kurds of Iraq: Nationalism and Identity in Iraqi Kurdistan by Mahir A. Aziz. (2nd ed.) London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. Out of Nowhere: The Kurds of Syria in Peace and War by Michael M. Gunter. London: Hurst, 2014. The Kurds: A Modern History by Michael M. Gunter. Princeton, NJ: Wiener, 2016. Alien Rule by Michael Hechter. Cambridge University Press, 2013. Political Violence and Kurds in Turkey by Mehmet Orhan. London: Routledge, 2015. Kurds and the State in Iran: The Making of Kurdish Identity by Abbas Vali. London: Tauris, 2014". The Journal of Politics. 80 (1): 353–366. doi:10.1086/695343. ISSN 0022-3816.


  • Under the French mandate after World War I, Syria became an important center for Kurdish political and cultural activism until its independence in 1946. In addition to the Kurds in major urban centers and Kurdish enclaves in northern Syria, Kurdish refugees also arrived from Turkey. A Kurdish nationalist organization, Khoybun, operated in Syria and Lebanon and spearheaded the Ararat Re-bellion (1928-31) against Turkey. Exiled Kurdish nationalists from Turkey played a major role in Syria and Lebanon. The Jaladet, Sureya and Kamuran brothers from the princely Bedirkhan family, for example, led a Kurdish cultural movement. The end of the French mandate and the eventual rise of the Baath regime in Syria created a serious backlash for the Kurds. Gunter indicates that the Baath regime came to view Kurds as a foreign threat to the Arab nation, and it repressed them after the early 1960s. Kurds in Syria, as a result, came to be less known in the West, as compared to their compatriots in Iraq, Turkey and Iran. Some Kurds were stripped of their citizenship in 1962 on the grounds that they supposedly all came from Turkey. Moreover, the state tried to Arabize the Kurdish territories in northern Syria. Gunter adds that the fractured Kurdish political-party system is another reason for the invisibility of the Syrian Kurds until the early 2000s.
    Akturk, Ahmet Serdar (assistant professor of history, Georgia Southern University) (2016). "Review: The Kurds: A Modern History, by Michael M. Gunter. Markus Wiener Publishers, 2015. 256 pages. $26.95, paperback". Middle East Policy. 23 (3): 152–156. doi:10.1111/mepo.12225. ISSN 1475-4967.

  • Comment - The heading to this section is "Intractable problem still unaddressed". I see two problems that may be intractable. The first is the thread at WP:ANI that has been open against the OP of this thread since 21 November. The second is that this thread is a rant by User:GPinkerton that appears to be syntactically valid with no semantic content. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
    Robert McClenon, all of this is related to the same issue, which is the Syrian Kurdistan page, which like the place itself is a warzone that erupted about a decade ago. GPinkerton (talk) 04:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
(non-admin closure) Take a hint. --JBL (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Sandstein: the "problems of their own" you refer to is only one of multiple ANI threads this issue has spawned and is an attack thread of all the editors who are causing the problem on Syrian Kurdistan; the problems referred to in this request are detailed extensively in all the ANI reports I have raised on this issue; still, no action has been taken. And now you are closing this with no action ... What more evidence is required to prove a breach of policy requiring action? GPinkerton (talk) 21:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Some diffs pointing out specific problematic behavior would be helpful, for a start. From a quick glance at the talk page I largely see reasonable discussion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should have taken a hint, now [21] indeffed by Guerillero. --JBL (talk) 17:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Besides Syrian Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Arab Belt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), there may be large numbers of article where this POV push is going on, in Syrian Civil War- and Kurdistan-related issues, including over place names in disputed territories in Syria and other parts of the Middle East (Golan Heights, Jerusalem, etc. See contributions and block logs of involved users, including on Wikimedia Commons). See more discussions and diffs at:

I hope this is enough for someone to take this entrenched problem seriously. I can produce incontrovertible evidence that all of these claims these editors have been arguing are false, and I believe I have done so in the section above; further details are available on request. This thread should not be closed until this is properly examined. GPinkerton (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Sandstein, JayBeeEll, Power~enwiki does this "specific problematic behavior" sufficiently "establish the need for admin intervention" or is it really "largely ... reasonable discussion"? I really think closing this is premature. GPinkerton (talk) 15:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Mass rollback of over-categorization[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. has over the last few days engaged in a good-faith but misconceived categorization spree of South African taxa. These edits fall into two categories:

  • Adding redundant lower-level categories (example) - e.g., adding "Fauna of South Africa" and "Endemic fauna of South Africa" to an article that already is in "Endemic butterflies of South Africa"
  • The above plus wrong categories (example) - e.g., adding "Endemic fauna of South Africa" to taxa that are not endemic to the country

All their contributions from November 27 onwards are of this type. There may be the odd valid instance among them, but they appear to be widely scattered, and I suggest it is not worth anyone's time to dig through 500 edits to find those. Could an admin please perform a mass rollback here? (I do have rollback rights but hardly ever use them - to my understanding I could not carry out a mass rollback in any case) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Without commenting on the IP in question, there is no special "mass rollback" ability exclusively available to admins. Since you already have rollback, you can accomplish this yourself with something like User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js -FASTILY 22:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Ah, I was not aware of that. Thank you, I shall check that out. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
All right, I went and rolled back these edits, and left them some explanation. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Canadian open proxies[edit]

I'm reporting a pair of open proxies from Canada:

A few months ago they were used by a block evading vandal to create a series of new usernames, for example "YapYapChubbyDoggy", who's just created a new username, Møstbarr; I hope that the information I've provided was useful. --Vigneslouis (talk) 07:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Requesting RfC be re-opened[edit]

An RfC recently asked how to summarize a section at People's Mujahedin of Iran. Stefka Bulgaria (SB) and I (VR) offered competing versions. @Chetsford: closed as consensus for SB's version, but graciously encouraged me to seek review here; I'm asking the RfC be re-opened.

  • The RfC was closed Nov 29‎. Yet there was active discussion on November 27-28 on whether the proposals violated WP:DUE([26][27]) or MOS:WEASEL ([28]). But wikipedia has no WP:DEADLINE.
  • Secondly, the SB proposal mass removes longstanding content. Major divergences from the status quo require a strong consensus (as pointed out by El_C). Although the RfC was closed as "seven editors support the summary proposal while three are opposed", I count 10 supports for SB and 7 for VR. The closer felt the opposition to SB's version was ambiguous; I disagree and have provided the exact comments (see below "Vote counts"). Given this, the policy considerations below and closer finding both sides' arguments "equally compelling", the result leans to "no consensus". Re-opening the RfC might change that. Also, there is recent indication that RfCs on that page are voted on without being read, so result should be based on policy not votes.
  • Lastly, there were serious policy issues with SB proposal that no one responded to. This version's weasel wording ("various sources...while other sources...") implies a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Academic sources overwhelming say that MEK is a cult (list of sources provided here and here). Even SB acknowledged that no source actually dismisses the cult claims. Yet SB's version balances the opinion of peer-reviewed books and journal articles against those in newspaper op-eds. The argument that high-quality RS can't be counterbalanced with low quality ones was made repeatedly ([29][30]) but never got a response.
    • It was pointed out (but never responded to) that SB's version inaccurately implies that MEK barring children from a military camp was the only or main reason for the cult designation, but the sources instead give different, multiple reasons for the cult designation. This is worded as a strawman and misrepresents what one of the sources SB cited says (see below "What the BBC source says").
    • By contrast, most objections against VR proposal aren't policy-based. This policy-based objection was promptly corrected ([31][32]). I repeatedly asked for clarification of objections ([33][34]) but no one responded except Bahar1397 (and our discussion was cutoff by the closure).
Vote counts

Stefka Bulgaria's proposal was supported by MA Javadi, Idealigic, Adoring nanny, Nika2020, Bahar1397, Alex-h, Ypatch, Barca and HistoryofIran (only said "Yes per Stefka.")

Vice regent's proposal was supported by Mhhossein, Pahlevun, Sa.vakilian, Ali Ahwazi, Jushyosaha604 and Ameen Akbar. The closer felt opposition to SB's proposal was ambiguous, but I disagree and providing the statements below.

  • Mhhossein said "No, for multiple reasons..."
  • Ali Ahwazi said "No... The proposed text doesn't represent the reliable-sources based on WP:DUE."
  • Pahlevun said "...I strongly reject the proposal on the grounds that it contradicts with WP:RS"
  • @Jushyosaha604:, said " The OP who started the RFC removed too much information" (only pinging because the closer felt their position was ambiguous)
  • Sa.vakilian said "No...this RFC is not acceptable per DUE"
  • Vice regent, said "Stefka's proposed version gives WP:FALSEBALANCE to both views".
What the BBC source says

SB's version says The MEK has barred children in Camp Ashraf in an attempt to have its members devote themselves to their cause of resistance against the Iranian regime, a rule that has given the MEK reputation of being "cultish". This wording makes it seem that children are simply barred from MEK headquarters, a strawman argument, even though one of the sources cited makes it clear that this is decades' long child displacement. It says,

Not only was the MEK heavily armed and designated as terrorist by the US government, it also had some very striking internal social policies. For example, it required its members in Iraq to divorce. Why? Because love was distracting them from their struggle against the mullahs in Iran. And the trouble is that people love their children too. So the MEK leadership asked its members to send their children away to foster families in Europe. Europe would be safer, the group explained. Some parents have not seen their children for 20 years and more. And just to add to the mix, former members consistently describe participating in regular public confessions of their sexual fantasies. You might think that would set alarm bells ringing - and for some US officers it did. One colonel I spoke to, who had daily contact with the MEK leadership for six months in 2004, said that the organisation was a cult, and that some of the members who wanted to get out had to run away.

The source also mentions that "no children rule" as being only one of many reasons (mandatory divorce, members not allowed to leave) for MEK's cultishness.

VR talk 15:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

The RfC was opened on 2 October 2020, and there had been absence of new participation towards the time Chetsford closed it. As Chetsford explained to VR, the RfC process "is a finite discursive arena designed to achieve a specific purpose and not an infinite chat room for open-ended dialog." Also involved editor Mhhossein requested for the RfC to be closed by an experienced admin, and that's what happened here. After the close, VR was advised to continue discussion on either the article Talk page or personal Talk pages, but both Mhhossein and VR have a tendency to instead complain each time a RfC in this article doesn't close in their favor, making it exhausting for everyone involved. The RfC was opened for two months, and was closed by an experienced admin who gave a thorough and policy-based rational for their close. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • That RFC ran for way too long. VR constantly commented on votes that didn't support his proposal, so when he says "there was active discussion", that's basically him disagreeing with opposite votes. Secondly, the consensus was not to mass remove longstanding content, but to condense a lot of POV. Chestford's vote count was accurate and his closing remarks carefully followed guidelines. Stefka's proposal was more neutral, that's why it won consensus. Lastly, there weren't any "serious policy issues with Stefka's proposal that no one responded to." VR and Mhhossein have been arguing WP:FALSEBALANCE to keep in the article multiple quotes repeating "Democratic Iranian opposition political party = cult" while Mhhossein is removing multiple sources about a misinformation campaign that the Iran’s theocratic regim is running to characterize this political party a cult. Alex-h (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Clearly the correct close.—S Marshall T/C 00:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

User Koavf block review[edit]

A few days ago Koavf was blocked indefinitely for edit warring by Joe Roe. His immediate appeal was declined, and followed by a discussion on his talk page which did not reach a consensus to unblock, nor about exactly what should be done.

Koavf's block log currently records 27 blocks (not counting entries for changing block duration), 21 of which are for edit warring. These blocks consistently span 15 years of Koavf's wiki-career: they're not in groups of isolated incidents, they are a pattern of habitual, persistent, intractible problems. They have been subject to admin-imposed, community, and Arbcom restrictions to try to curb their edit warring behaviour throughout this time, yet here we are again. Koavf is also one of our most active and prolific editors, second in all-time edit count (not sure if the list includes bots). One might say that an editor with more than two million edits is bound to run into trouble from time to time, but one might just as reasonably say that such an editor ought to know to avoid behaviour that has repeatedly led to blocking. Responding to this latest block, Koavf was quick to point out that any revert restriction previously imposed on them was eventually lifted on appeal, but the block log does not back this up: they were handed an Arbcom 1RR restriction several years ago as an unblock condition, and were blocked for violating it six times before it expired.

Just to be clear, I'm not agitating for Koavf to be banned or to stay blocked indefinitely, nor is this a third-party appeal. It's just that we've tried numerous different ways of sanctioning and restricting this behaviour, and I'm not the first admin to say I really don't know what else we can do. We can't just keep having this exact discussion every few months - it's not fair to the community, nor to the many less experienced editors who have been much more seriously sanctioned long before getting to a double-digit block count for the same behaviour.

So what's the way forward? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Is there something that can be added to a user's .css file that would hide the "undo" button? Levivich harass/hound 17:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
In diffs, that would be .mw-diff-undo { display: none; }. --Izno (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Throw in .tw-revert too. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it would work - there are manual ways of undoing (i.e. going to the previous version, and simply copying & pasting). GiantSnowman 17:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I think the point was that it gives one pause. Like, I dunno, when you know you shouldn't be using Wikipedia at work so you add it to your /etc/hosts to block access. You could get around your own self-imposed block with another 15 seconds of time, but in the process you're reminded why you added the block in the first place, and hopefully the better half of the brain takes over and resists the devil's temptations. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Exactly. I'm loathe to be an armchair psychiatrist, but it looks to me very clearly to be an impulse control problem. It's so easy to read something, get mad/excited/otherwise emotional about it, and click that undo button (with or without snappy edit summary). It's cathartic, too. We've all been there... some of us have better self control than others. A manual revert takes a lot more time/effort; it slows an editor down. By the time they get to the edit summary, they're not feeling so snappy anymore.
If we were physically in the same office, I'd get up, bring Justin a cup of coffee, physically rip the undo button off of his keyboard, pat him on the back, and go back to work.
I think Justin is a fine editor who just can't have that button because he can't stop pushing it. So I'd support an indefinite sitewide 1RR restriction, a sitewide 0RR restriction, or a technically-enforced 0RR restriction (if possible, add code to Justin's common.css that literally removes the undo button from everywhere), any one of which I think is a better step to try in lieu of a siteban/indef. Levivich harass/hound 18:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Honestly, unrelated to this discussion, if the ability to revert/undo/rollback could go back to being a userright that admins could revoke, or a function that could be part-blocked, that would solve a lot of repeat problems. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
@ProcrastinatingReader: .tw-revert for some reason isn't working for me. But .mw-diff-undo, .mw-history-undo, .tw-revert { display: none;} added to common.css removes undo from diffs and page histories (except the twinkle part that's not working). Levivich harass/hound 21:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Hm. It's apparently #tw-revert (id not class), but it also seems like this only applies on the most recent revision (ie the ones you can rollback). If you view a diff that isn't the most recent (so that it only shows "restore this revision" rather than the rollback options) the ID is like tw-revert-to-992356724. So, all in all, something like .mw-diff-undo, .mw-history-undo, #tw-revert, [id^="tw-revert-to-"] { display: none; } will do the trick? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Just want to add here that, technical aspects aside, this is a really poor solution, similar to treating someone like a toddler — "If you can't play nice with your bulldozer I'll have to take it away." If we're seriously at that point where folks think an editor needs this sort of thing to be productive, then that editor is not productive, and should've been blocked ages ago. ~ Amory (utc) 00:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Speaking as someone who has had no or almost no personal interaction with Koavf aside from their occasional appearance at AN/ANI: leave them blocked. If they were not the second (or so) most prolific editor on this website, the past two years of their block log would have gotten them indeffed a LONG time ago. Their response to the block on the talk page suggests to me that they don't think the normal rules on edit-warring apply to them since they keep talking about "specific community sanctions" while ignoring the existence of our edit-warring and 3RR policies. We have consistently reinforced that behavior by unblocking them early - all of the sitewide blocks in the past two years have unblocked early with "time served," "user agrees to stop edit-warring," "user commits to using dispute resolution" - clearly that isn't working out. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Agree with GN. Being prolific is no excuse for behaviour like that, and any other editor with a block log like that would have been indeffed long ago. GiantSnowman 17:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
No user, no matter who it is, be it Jimbo, Koavf, myself, etc. is bigger than the project. The rules for behavior here are the same whether you have 2 edits, or 2 million. That block log, if it was for a user with less edits, would warrant an indef. I agree. Leave them be. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
So if the community is going to be assuming this block, I think it's important that is made clear rather than just "leave him blocked" so that it's clear to him about what his avenue for unblock is. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately he seems to be a classic case of an editor who simply doesn't think the rules apply to them. He full well knows the rules about edit warring but cannot stop himself. I've also seen him cause problems on at least two occasions this year by implementing rash changes to high use templates/infoboxes without trialling them in the sandbox – in one case he was reverted but simply reinstated the same change a few hours later. It would be incredibly annoying for editors who stick to the rules to see a prolific offender be allowed back again. I would suggest that he be told he can appeal some time down the line (perhaps a year) and then can only be brought back with a 0RR restriction. Number 57 19:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • As the blocking admin, I don't have much of substance to add to my initial block rationale. I haven't interacted much with koavf, apart from blocking him for edit warring last year, and again now under very similar circumstances. In both cases the conduct struck me as really over-the-top battleground behaviour and surprising coming from such an experienced editor. Last time I offered him a quick path to an unblock if he agreed to stop, which he did, and even though this time the problem was exactly the same (refusing to take contested blank-and-redirects to AfD/a talk page and edit warring instead), that was my first instinct again. After reading what Ivanvector and others have said, I'm not so sure. In koavf's defence, many of the things mentioned above happened years ago and he had a clean block log between 2010 and 2019. But we have been here before, several times. He hasn't stuck to previous, informal unblock conditions, and in the recent talk page conversation he's given the impression that only formal sanctions and other bright-line "rules" (e.g. WP:3RR vs. WP:EW) matter. So I worry that any anything we come up with here will be gamed and reinforce the idea that he can get away with ignoring conduct policies as long as he says the right things afterwards. Personally, I think we have better things to do than micromanage that kind of behaviour. But I'll leave it for others with perhaps more patience to decide. – Joe (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @Ivanvector: I might be missing something, but did Koavf request this be brought here for discussion? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
    He did not. He appealed the block on his talk page, which was declined by 331dot, and following that Joe Roe suggested that an unblock should be with some kind of condition, and also quite pointedly if I may say so that a user of Koavf's experience ought to know better by now. Barkeep49 suggested terms for a conditional unblock if Koavf could answer some questions about the edit warring policy, which I suggested was a bad idea given the number of times Koavf has previously been given conditions and/or conditional unblocks which were proven ineffective. 331dot's decline was somewhat procedural I think, but I'm under the impression that Koavf did not satisfy Barkeep49's questions. That was on Wednesday. Barkeep49 pinged me today to ask if I was going to do anything because it's not fair to Koavf to just leave him hanging, and while I agree I also have no idea what's next. Hence this discussion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
    To add, based on the feedback Joe and Ivan offered there was a sense that it might be appropriate for the community to weigh in, as some other sanction might be appropriate at this point. Given those comments I paused my discussion with him pending any sort of decision the community would make. Like you I am concerned about the possibility of a community block without a person having appealed but since there was some thinking that a community sanction, including possibly site ban, would be appropriate I did encourage Ivan to come here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
    It just feels like something wrong is happening in spite of no one person doing anything wrong. I'm not saying Ivanvector did anything wrong by bringing it here (particularly the part where he makes clear he isn't trying to get them banned), I can't articulate exactly how this is demonstrably unfair, but it just feels really unfair. An editor is unilateral blocked by an admin (which I have no issue with individually), it's brought to ANI by a third party for review without the request of the blocked editor (but with the best of intentions by the third party), the community discusses it and looks like it might decide not to unblock right now (which is not necessarily the wrong decision if it had been brought here by the blocked editor), and yet it somehow morphs into a community ban, where from now on, the editor has to appeal to the community. I kind of understand how these things happen, but it seems like it's been happening more frequently lately, and it keeps blowing up in the face of the blocked editor, who hasn't actually requested community review. I mean, I guess I understand in theory that if at any time a consensus exists that an editor should stay blocked, there should be a new consensus before an unblock. But in practice it seems unfair in a way I apparently can't describe well. Maybe if AN/ANI were fit for purpose I'd be less concerned... --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I think an unblock with 0RR (with the proposed CSS hack so Koavf doesn't forget) would be more beneficial for the project as a whole. We should only block users who are considered a net negative. We all have flaws. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
To clarify: I mean 0RR using undo/rollback (so no undo/rollback/Twinkle rollback and the CSS hack to ensure Koavf can't accidentally forget) and 1RR by manually editing a page or loading an older revision and publishing that. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • There is no need for action, because the user is already indefinitely blocked, and should remain so: given their block log, it is clear that their conduct is extremely unlikely to improve. Sandstein 20:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support unblock with an indefinite WP: 0RR restriction. This can be appealed to a WP: 1RR after 6 months, six months after that the 1RR should be resumed. Any breaches of this should result with a resume of this indef, however, if an admin is leniant, it should be no less then 3 months. If they refuse to agree, I oppose any unblock within the next period of a year. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
@HurricaneTracker495: Koavf has already said on their talk page If that's [x] days off, then a 1/0RR for [y] time, then I appreciate the opportunity.Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I want to make sure he is ok with my specific condition. Because it involves times of appeal and when he can appeal. For example if he gets unblocked 00:00 UTC tomorrow, then it's not until 00:00 June 5 when he can appeal his 0RR, and if that passes at 00:00 June 7, it's not until 00:00 December 7(2021) when he can appeal his 1RR. In addition, his rollback should be revoked as part of an unblock condition, as should his pending changes reviewer. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
@El C: what do you say? --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Since you pose the question to me specifically, HurricaneTracker495, I also echo your recommendation for a mandatory 0RR of an indefinite duration as a sort of last chance saloon. Mostly, because I'm a pragmatist when it comes to such a prodigious contributor. But, in the interest of transparency, it is probably worthwhile to note that my experience with Justin is coloured by him generally being a nice person whom I always liked (before, during, and after my succession of blocks this summer). Justin has been unfailingly respectful and polite, even when the heat was on and he was frustrated — these are attributes which are greatly to his credit. That said, let's put the cards on the table. During this summer, Justin broke 3RR (on an article talk page of all places), so I partially blocked him from that talk page for one week. Then a few weeks later, he violated 3RR again, so this time, I sitewide blocked him for a week — was unblocked early by Ivanvector after a few days (it should be noted that Ivanvector convinced me to waive my objections to an early unblock). Then, about a month later, he broke 3RR yet again, so I sitewide blocked him for one month this time — but again, was unblocked early, this time by Newyorkbrad after about a week. This time, I did not waive my objections to an early unblock, a stance for which I came under heavy criticism, where many argued that this one-month block was too harsh. This was an argument which I felt (and still do) was bewildering, because it stood in stark contrast to the maxim of enforcement escalation for bright-line rule recidivism. Still, even at that point I was not advocating for an indefinite block. And I continue to oppose one now. If Justin needs an indefinite 0RR restriction to retain editorial standing, I just don't see what harm there in trying that out. True, several participants above note that Wikipedia is not therapy, and they are not wrong. That is fair enough. But if we do potentially have at our disposal a magic pill in the form of an indefinite 0RR restriction, I do think we should give it a shot. Losing Justin would be a sad day for the project and would be sad for me, personally. Let's not let that happen for naught. If, as ProcrastinatingReader notes directly below, this proves untenable, then it does. But at least we can take comfort in knowing that we really did all we could. As for how that is to come about (and how long Justin should remain blocked for beforehand), I'm happy to go with the flow as far as those details go. El_C 22:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Ah, on closer read, I misunderstood ProcrastinatingReader's point below — namely, that simpler restrictions are smarter restrictions. They are right, of course. El_C 22:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't think a simple 0RR, everywhere, is untenable (that I think is a good idea), but I think the strange proposed mixtures of 0RR for using the undo button, 1RR for manual reverts, expiring 00:00 UTC in 6 months, then converting into 1RR immediately which expires in another 6 months, plus all the stuff here, is all too much. I can't even wrap my head around it; unintentional violations and confusion will likely happen. I also don't think this is about unblockables as much as it is about considering whether a Koavf that doesn't edit war is a better outcome (for the content on this encyclopaedia) than no Koavf. I think, probably, yes. Luckily for Koavf they only have one issue, and this seems to be a recurrence/flareup rather than a persistent 15-year pattern (clean block log for 9 years prior to mid 2019). Besides, and I'm not saying that this conduct isn't problematic, but edit-warring over Special:Diff/991881812 is a drop in the bucket compared to the disruption caused by persistent POV pushers, persistent low-level incivility and general toxicity-inducing logorrhoea, elsewhere on AN/ANI right now, and it doesn't get any sanctions. Koavf could edit war once a month and he'd still be less disruptive. So yes, perhaps something needs to be done here, but for a generally productive editor with some impulsivity with the undo button I think we can do better than an indef. Not necessarily for the sake of that editor, but for the sake of the project; Koavf does not appear like a net negative to me. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Koavf is definitely a valuable editor, and I see where your statements are coming from. Maybe, based on the doubling technique, we reduce the block to 2 months, and then put him on a WP: 1RR restriction after. And then, instead of one revert every 24 hours, it's one revert every 2 weeks(which, if anyone cares, is 336 hours). --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Wayyyyy too complicated above if going this route imo - complicated restrictions do not work. No need for these strict timezone stuffs, or conditions if Y then Z, or 0RR if X but 1RR if Y. Simpler restrictions are smarter restrictions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • What am I missing? Five blocks in 2020 for edit warring. 27 blocks in total. And, people are !voting for them to be unblock after only a few days which a restriction they can appeal in six months? We should preserve a copy of this discussion for reference at WP:UNBLOCKABLES. Mkdw talk 21:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Support unblock with 1RR/0RR. Kovaf's contributions are long-term and evidently a net positive, but edit warring is always unacceptable and measures should be taken to prevent this from happening again, including an appropriate common.css. 🎄🎄 Ed talk! 🎄🎄 21:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep block until Koavf submits an unblock request that includes a solution that satisfies the community. It's his problem to solve, not everyone else's. Schazjmd (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm with General Notability. Leave them blocked for at least 6 months. At that time they can appeal and the question of restrictions can be revived. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Good block and leave it be unless or until he makes an unblock request since I really want to get away from things that look like third party appeals. I like the idea of mandating css that removes the undo button--it's quite clever--but this is exactly why third party appeals are a bad idea. It's simply not fair to Justin that--without his consent--we're now discussing new sanctions that probably wouldn't have happened if he were allowed to follow the standard offer like everyone else. Unless this is explicitly a CBAN discussion, I feel uncomfortable with this closing as anything other than good block/bad block. Wug·a·po·des 22:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
    This does not seem like a traditional third party appeal. The editor submitted an unblock request regarding which admins could not come to an agreement. Per the Wikipedia:Blocking policy: If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard is recommended. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
    I recognize it's not a "traditional" third party appeal, that's why I said "things that look like third party appeals". We don't allow such appeals anyway so it's not like there's a "tradition" to conform to in the first place. Secondly, the quoted part of BLOCKPOL doesn't apply. The blocking admin is available and the only unblock request was reviewed and denied. The disagreement on the talk page is about conditions of an unblock which requires Justin's consent and any given admin's, not a consensus of admins. The applicable section is WP:CONDUNBLOCK If the blocked user does not reach an agreement on proposed unblock conditions with an administrator, the blocked user may post another block appeal (emphasis added) and Justin has not posted another unblock appeal. We benefit no one by continually weakening our prohibition on third party appeals. Unless or until Justin specifically asks for community review of the block, I think having unstructured discussions about a user with no clear goal is a bad idea. Not only is it a bad idea, it continues a bad precedent of circumventing our usual unblock mechanisms for people we like. Justin has been blocked over 20 times for things like this and I'm opposed to anything that even smells like special treatment at this point. We have a process for this, and it does not include holding a moot court at AN. (edit conflict) Wug·a·po·des 22:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
    No, and I said in the opening statement that it's not meant to be a third-party appeal. I also oppose third-party appeals, but in this case Koavf did appeal himself, on his talk page. Four admins couldn't come to an agreement on that. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
    Not meant, but it has the same effect as one. Yes, he appealed himself, but it was subsequently denied. In doing so, were our procedures not followed (making this an WP:ADMINACCT issue)? If not, why are we second guessing a valid admin action? If we're not second guessing 331dot's denial, then this is a new appeal, and it should be Koavf who initiates it when and where he is ready. He hasn't done that yet so what are we doing here? Imposing sanctions that he may not want based on a discussion he didn't ask for? I think that's fundamentally unfair. We as a community should not be issuing conditional unblocks sua sponte. I'm not saying this to fault you--I totally understand your thinking--but this is like the third instance of "I wanted to unblock but the most recent request was denied and no new request has been made" I've seen here in as many months. We're coming off the rails and this is an example of how these well meaning requests can wind up imposing harsher sanctions than would have happened if we all left well enough alone. This is as clear a case of WP:UNBLOCKABLE as I've seen and we really need to reflect on whether this is taking us in the direction we want to go. The whole thing just feels off to me, and I'd prefer we use our regular processes. If admins can't come to a consensus on an unblock, then no unblock. If the editor wants to appeal that, they can ask their next request be copied to AN. But unless an admin is copying an unblock request or asking that their own controversial block be reviewed, I don't think we should be discussing unblocks at AN. Wug·a·po·des 23:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Support unblock with 1RR/0RR - manage the edit warring. --evrik (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
@Evrik: what are your thoughts on revoking this users PCR (or, more importantly), rollback? --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
The loss of privileges may have to be the penalty paid. --evrik (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Standard offer If we are going to treat repeat offenders the same, regardless of their contributions, then the obvious response to me is to offer them the standard offer. I value his contributions, but I fear if we, two days after they've been blocked, unblock with a 1RR or 0RR condition, we have to have a plan on what to do when THAT requirement is violated. After all of these promises, I don't think anyone can pretend that giving a restriction will be automatically adhered to. Or, we have to say, 1RR/0RR as a final chance and then an indefinite block, no more chances. But personally, I think a six month period before the next unblock request might get across the seriousness that the community feels about this repeated misconduct. Plus, it's what we recommend to just about every indefinitely blocked editor unless they are a vandal or sockpuppeteer. Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
    @Liz: WP: SO explicity says The six-month threshold can be adjustable under special circumstances. If an editor shows an unusually good insight into the circumstances that led to the block, and sets out a credible proposal for how they will deal with those issues in future, then a return might be considered sooner. On the other hand, if the indefinitely blocked/banned user continues to be especially disruptive, or has engaged in particularly serious misconduct, then some administrators may become unwilling to consider a return for a much longer time or, quite possibly, ever.. SO is not 6 months, and depending on what happens... --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Seriously? A block can be any length of time. But the standard Standard Offer is 6 months. I never said that a Standard Offer is only 6 months. If can be 3 months, it can be 12 months. But the standard is 6 months. What a pointless disagreement. Liz Read! Talk! 00:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Ah, yes, the standard standard offer, we should really standardize the standard offer one of these days... GeneralNotability (talk) 01:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Stay blocked AT LEAST through the new year. At least! Seriously, this many blocks? 95% of other editors would have been indeffed without a second thought after HALF that number. Revoke their advanced privileges, and then make them come up with restrictions they can follow that will resolve this, with the understanding that the alternative is indefinite block and they can prove they have reformed on another Wikipedia site. The WP:UNBLOCKABLE mention above is way accurate. Gentle forms of persuasion haven't worked. The 2x4 upside the head hasn't worked. Bigger hammers are needed. Ravensfire (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
    @Ravensfire: What advanced permissions? I was only thinking PCR and rollback. They could possibly use there other ones wisely, such as template editor, NPR, autopatrolled and others. It seems silly to revoke rights not relevant to a 0RR/1RR restriction. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
    HurricaneTracker495, PCR and Rollback at a minimum. It's a bit of a trust thing at this point. For most editors, they'd be looking at WP:SO as the only option and probably would have anything else revoked. Koavf IS a huge exception to the "most" editors just because of the sheer net positive they bring, but part of the "bigger hammer" may be to pull everything, to underline that there is an issue with their general behavior. Ravensfire (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
    @Ravensfire: I strongly disagree. I present you two users-Miraclepine and Neveselbert. Miraclepine was indef blocked for CIR reasons and retained autopatrolled, and Neveselbert was blocked for sockpuppetry(unblocked after 7 months)and retained template editor. It even says, In general, rights of editors blocked indefinitely should be left as is. Rights specifically related to the reason for blocking may be removed at the discretion of the blocking or unblocking administrators.[16] This also applies to the user rights of site banned editors.[17]. In this case, rollback(and PCR)had directly to do with the block. (Now some users do lose there rights like Doc9871 or INeverCry). --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 23:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
    HurricaneTracker495, Fair enough! Ravensfire (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Stay blocked I know if it had been me on the other end of 27 different blocks, the community (or certain members of it who like to "implement process") would demand my indefinite absence. I see no reason why Koavf should be treated any differently, they may have millions of edits but hey, all good things come to an end, and this is it. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Convert to community site ban. The only way back here I can see is through the standard offer (that is, 6-12 months) with an appeal to AN demonstrating understanding and a commitment to change. At that stage the only option I would consider is 0RR in 24 hours combined with a consensus required provision, that is they cannot revert in the first 24 hours then need consensus for any edits of their's which are reverted. This would need to be in place (that is, no appeals allowed) for at least 12 months probably more like 24 months. While escalating blocks would be the norm, given the significant history here and that it is a very last chance, any breaches need to be met with long blocks (e.g. a 6 month block then back to an indef community ban). Any blocks should only be appealed to AN as the current block, any restrictions applied and any will be community bans. Pending changes reviewer and rollback should also be revoked with a request for them back not permitted while the these restrictions are in place and required to AN. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 23:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
    @Callanecc: In that case, we need to decide a WP: SO length. 6 months? 1 year? 3 months? --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) HurricaneTracker495 I'd have no issue with 6 months per WP:SO but Koavf has the option to wait longer which I think would be wise as it's more likely to be accepted. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 23:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
    HurricaneTracker495, we don't determine the "standard offer" time at time of block/ban. SO is written out, but it's also not set in stone - an administrator may be willing to unblock a little earlier than 6 months, but there also is no requirement that an administrator unblock after those 6 months. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Are you serious? WP:SO is already written out. No one needs to clarify it. Praxidicae (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
@Praxidicae: Yes, but there is some argument between six and 12 months. How about this-9 month SO, should one be warranted. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
The standard offer is 6 months. It's up to Koavf if he wants to wait longer. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 01:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I to a degree can sympathise with Justin as I've tripped on EW a few times even this year so can understand it's something to easily trip up on .... however unlike myself they've been repeatedly blocked for edit warring since 2006!,
Anyway I agree with those above - Being prolific doesn't grant you a right to edit war. I also don't agree with them having stuff added to their CSS page - You either discuss things the moment you're reverted or you move on elsewhere. I would support unblocking after 6 months with the restriction of 0RR which to me seems fair and reasonable. –Davey2010Talk 23:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I support Callanecc's proposal. In no other situation have we proposed custom css hacks to help a tenured editor abide by basic policy - one that is meant to prevent disruption, which they've repeated 4 times this year and with an endless block log. This is ridiculous and needs to stop. Praxidicae (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Stay blocked The amount of edit warring from such an experienced editor is ridiculous. He should appeal in 6 months like anyone else would have to after that number of blocks. P-K3 (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I basically oppose everything here. I oppose an unblock, I oppose a "conditional unblock" with a CSS-enforced no-revert, I oppose changing the block to a community ban, I oppose that we're having this unnecessary discussion at all. Koavf's block history suggests they can improve, but that's not going to happen with an immediate unblock. If Koavf wants to appeal in 2-3 months, we can consider it then. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
    @Power~enwiki: Read WP: CBAN. If this is declined, he IS banned. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Full ban (which is incidentally what their indef block will be converted to according to WP:CBAN unless this discussion results in an unblock). Koavf knows what they do is wrong. They do it anyway, full in the knowledge they will get away with it. Unblocking with a restriction that they have outright declared will be lifted eventually anyway is not going to make them change their behaviour. It never has before. Arguing they should be unblocked at this point not only enables their bad behaviour towards others, it is a direct endorsement and encouragement that they should continue. Its explicitly saying to everyone who isnt Koavf "You arnt worth as much as this person". Ban them and put an end to it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Good block. Having reviewed this its clear that they haven't learned. We can't keep on giving them n-th chances, so as a final chance I would want to leave Koavf blocked indef with an option of the standard offer (therefore under WP:CBAN be banned indef, so standard offer appeals would need to go to the community if I understand this correctly). If they want to take the standard offer, then yes they can in 6 months time, but otherwise leave them banned. Furthermore, I would also want to see as part of the standard offer Callanecc's 0RR restriction be as part of the unblock. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 01:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Good block - I'm not sure what the point of this thread is, Ivan's OP essentially doesn't say anything other than that it was an obvious justified block and that he's not proposing an unblock, so obviously the way forward is for Koavf to follow the normal unblocking process and try to negotiate an acceptable conditional unblock, and if he's unwilling to do that then the Standard Offer is the next thing on the table for him, and given the context six months time off is not particularly harsh anyways. I think Ivan is a brilliant administrator but this just seems like unnecessary drama. ~Swarm~ {sting} 01:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  • 21 edit warring blocks already? I'm going to agree with Dreamy Jazz, above. The WP:Standard offer is the only thing that should be on the table. If this user needs to impose some discipline on themselves, the .css code is there for the taking, but it's meaningless imposed by the community. They need to actually want to stop their disruptive pattern, and if they need to remove the Undo button, then they need to choose to do that. VanIsaacWScont 01:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)